So I am back from a concert featuring two dynamic, extraordinary, energetic sopranos.
Oh, and they were also 70 year old fat women.
Just wanted to say that.
10.03.2003
10.02.2003
movie review: lost in translation
On to happier subjects. And yes, I know more people urged the novel subject, but I didn't want to do it while the trolls are still bothering us. But, yes, I am considering NaNo, although I have deep concerns about my ability to write fiction. But I do want to talk it out a bit, and I'll get to that eventually.
So, I went to see Lost in Traslation over the weekend. I actually really liked Sofia Copella's first film, The Virgin Suicides. I really liked the subtle and sure way she tells the story. Most directors, even good ones, feel the need to be horribly blunt in their films. Basically, they've been taught to assume their audience is painfully stupid. Which sucks for those of us who managed to get past 1st grade. The worst of them are just completely insecure in their ability to tell a story that they keep pausing to reiterate points that probably could have been left unsaid to begin with. They don't feel like anything can be left for question. Sofia is clearly well versed in the genre of film and has a lot of courage and conviction to tell her stories in such a subtle and often unstated manner. I don't know if some people are annoyed with some of the quiet, often silent, scenes in her movie, but I loved it. It created a really beautiful atmosphere that allowed the characters to become very real. I loved that not every scene was a slave to plot. I loved that the "plot" itself was prefectly clear. Even when it was doing things that could be cliche, it didn't conclude the way it might seem. The cliches became deconstructed. The movie was both slow and frenetic, creating a real sense of the spark between the two lead characters but having patience to show their affection and frame it with the swiftness with which they take to each other. They let the relationship not fall into any preassumed concepts, while touching on them all. Its not quite a friendship, not quite a love affair, not quite a father/daughter thing. It does all this without falling into any of the traps of those concepts, while still getting to explore elements of them. It shouldn't have worked. I mean, as a rule I'm very disinterested with these older man, VERY younger woman deals, but this just worked for me.
I was quite impressed with Scarlet Johansson playing Charlotte. I liked her in The Man Who Wasn't There but this film obviously gives her more to work with. She's got a very natural charm and she plays off other actors so well. Really looking forward to seeing a lot more from her, especially since she's really young.
In the supporting cast, Giovanni Ribisi does a really good job playing Charlotte's husband. He really found the right balance, matching Bill Murray's unseen wife in being unsympathetic and sympathetic at the same time. You understand the lead character's disenchantment without hating their respective spouses, which I thought was a very daring but effective choice. It made me respect the story a lot more to not just demonize the spouses. You've also got Anna Faris playing a thinly valied send-up of Cameron Diaz. Her ditzy and oblivious actress was very well done. She wasn't just a dumb blonde. I mean, she was dumb and a blonde, but it wasn't a one-note thing. At her best, she was harmlessly oblivious. At her worst, moronically self-important. It was a nice little dynamic, but I was puzzled a bit that her movie star had no significant interaction with Bill Murray's movie star.
Ah, Bill Murray. Great work. Perfect balance between comic and staight-man. Murray is really an underrated straight-man, and it really shines here. He doesn't do that fuction as a befuddled type of straight man who just sets up the joke. Rather, he acts as a kind of eye of the hurricane, remaining calm while a lot of absurd stuff goes on around him. But, not as if he was overwhelmed by it all, but rather confident and bemused. He also flashes his comic skills at a number of points. He's got a great dead-pan delivery that really sells the character rather than concentrating on the joke to the expense of his portrayal. He manages this all with ease. He also shows a lot of sincerity and depth in his interaction with Charlotte. Murray is also a very underrated actor, and I hope he gets a richly deserved Oscar nod with this role. He was robbed for Rushmore, which probably was a better chance since it was a supporting role, but I do think his performance is better here and I hope he can power out some notice.
I really strongly recommend this film. The visuals are wonderful and the story is refreshingly intelligent and quietly told. I really enjoyed it and am looking forward to Sofia Coppela establishing herself as one of the great American writer/directors. It does seem funny, though, that she may well be the talented one in her family.
So, I went to see Lost in Traslation over the weekend. I actually really liked Sofia Copella's first film, The Virgin Suicides. I really liked the subtle and sure way she tells the story. Most directors, even good ones, feel the need to be horribly blunt in their films. Basically, they've been taught to assume their audience is painfully stupid. Which sucks for those of us who managed to get past 1st grade. The worst of them are just completely insecure in their ability to tell a story that they keep pausing to reiterate points that probably could have been left unsaid to begin with. They don't feel like anything can be left for question. Sofia is clearly well versed in the genre of film and has a lot of courage and conviction to tell her stories in such a subtle and often unstated manner. I don't know if some people are annoyed with some of the quiet, often silent, scenes in her movie, but I loved it. It created a really beautiful atmosphere that allowed the characters to become very real. I loved that not every scene was a slave to plot. I loved that the "plot" itself was prefectly clear. Even when it was doing things that could be cliche, it didn't conclude the way it might seem. The cliches became deconstructed. The movie was both slow and frenetic, creating a real sense of the spark between the two lead characters but having patience to show their affection and frame it with the swiftness with which they take to each other. They let the relationship not fall into any preassumed concepts, while touching on them all. Its not quite a friendship, not quite a love affair, not quite a father/daughter thing. It does all this without falling into any of the traps of those concepts, while still getting to explore elements of them. It shouldn't have worked. I mean, as a rule I'm very disinterested with these older man, VERY younger woman deals, but this just worked for me.
I was quite impressed with Scarlet Johansson playing Charlotte. I liked her in The Man Who Wasn't There but this film obviously gives her more to work with. She's got a very natural charm and she plays off other actors so well. Really looking forward to seeing a lot more from her, especially since she's really young.
In the supporting cast, Giovanni Ribisi does a really good job playing Charlotte's husband. He really found the right balance, matching Bill Murray's unseen wife in being unsympathetic and sympathetic at the same time. You understand the lead character's disenchantment without hating their respective spouses, which I thought was a very daring but effective choice. It made me respect the story a lot more to not just demonize the spouses. You've also got Anna Faris playing a thinly valied send-up of Cameron Diaz. Her ditzy and oblivious actress was very well done. She wasn't just a dumb blonde. I mean, she was dumb and a blonde, but it wasn't a one-note thing. At her best, she was harmlessly oblivious. At her worst, moronically self-important. It was a nice little dynamic, but I was puzzled a bit that her movie star had no significant interaction with Bill Murray's movie star.
Ah, Bill Murray. Great work. Perfect balance between comic and staight-man. Murray is really an underrated straight-man, and it really shines here. He doesn't do that fuction as a befuddled type of straight man who just sets up the joke. Rather, he acts as a kind of eye of the hurricane, remaining calm while a lot of absurd stuff goes on around him. But, not as if he was overwhelmed by it all, but rather confident and bemused. He also flashes his comic skills at a number of points. He's got a great dead-pan delivery that really sells the character rather than concentrating on the joke to the expense of his portrayal. He manages this all with ease. He also shows a lot of sincerity and depth in his interaction with Charlotte. Murray is also a very underrated actor, and I hope he gets a richly deserved Oscar nod with this role. He was robbed for Rushmore, which probably was a better chance since it was a supporting role, but I do think his performance is better here and I hope he can power out some notice.
I really strongly recommend this film. The visuals are wonderful and the story is refreshingly intelligent and quietly told. I really enjoyed it and am looking forward to Sofia Coppela establishing herself as one of the great American writer/directors. It does seem funny, though, that she may well be the talented one in her family.
10.01.2003
9.29.2003
buddy, can you spare $20?
Read this in the New York Times this morning. (its from Sunday's paper) The US Government is pulling out all the stops to promote the forthcoming redesign for the $20 bill. Instead of the usual PSA's, they hired William Morris and having a full-on marketing and public relations plan, including product placement.
Product placement? For money?
I want to make fun of it, but its actually not a bad idea. Just funny to contemplate officials from the Treasury in pitch meetings with show-biz producers and writers trying to snag a guest spot for the $20 on an upcoming Law & Order. Still, this is the way to build awareness and get a lot more exposure for their money. The government usually does things the old way, so it is kinda refreshing to see the real beauracratic element of the Federal Govenment really thinking outside the cliched box for once.
Its also revealing to learn that when you see Letterman crack jokes about the $20, its not just irreverant humor. Its the product of a meeting the Government had with the show's writers. They wanted the new $20 to be made fun of, and pushed for it. Makes me wonder about some other odd topics that find their way into Late Night monologues. At least I can rest assured that The Daily Show wll do a hilarious bit on it. And that's apparently just what the Bureau of Engraving and Printing wants.
And if it gets me blathering on about it in my blog, all the better.
Above product placement has not been paid for. hehe
Product placement? For money?
I want to make fun of it, but its actually not a bad idea. Just funny to contemplate officials from the Treasury in pitch meetings with show-biz producers and writers trying to snag a guest spot for the $20 on an upcoming Law & Order. Still, this is the way to build awareness and get a lot more exposure for their money. The government usually does things the old way, so it is kinda refreshing to see the real beauracratic element of the Federal Govenment really thinking outside the cliched box for once.
Its also revealing to learn that when you see Letterman crack jokes about the $20, its not just irreverant humor. Its the product of a meeting the Government had with the show's writers. They wanted the new $20 to be made fun of, and pushed for it. Makes me wonder about some other odd topics that find their way into Late Night monologues. At least I can rest assured that The Daily Show wll do a hilarious bit on it. And that's apparently just what the Bureau of Engraving and Printing wants.
And if it gets me blathering on about it in my blog, all the better.
Above product placement has not been paid for. hehe
9.26.2003
doesn't anyone promote tv shows anymore?
In spite of being well aware of the premieres of every god-awful sitcom on the fall line-up, I seem to have managed to be completely unaware of the impending season premiere of the one show I bother to watch, Friends. Yeah, its a bit of a guilty pleasure, but the show has its merits. And its the final season, too! Man, how'd I miss it? I'm very disappointed in NBC.
Eager to avoid such a similiar fate with the other couple of shows I watch regularly anymore (and I actually like TV) I paid a visit to the beloved TWop and the less well known TeeVee. I swear, TeeVee has got some of the funniest television writing I've ever had the pleasure to read, and I highly recommend reading their archives. Today, they mock Boston Public's effort at a "ripped from the headlines" story that actually dates back 12 years by suggesting next week, they will cover the Rubix Cube. hehe. Also, in their annual effort to put odds on what horrid show will be the first to get canceled, they come up with some predictably funny stuff. Seems this year features a proliferation of CSI rip-off's. On the NBC series, Las Vagas, they suggest that it's pitch would have been "Its CSI: Miami, only in Las Vegas!" Man, that had me laughing. I know its bad form to just repeat jokes, but seriously, give TeeVee a try. They've got great instincts for television and are damn funny.
Eager to avoid such a similiar fate with the other couple of shows I watch regularly anymore (and I actually like TV) I paid a visit to the beloved TWop and the less well known TeeVee. I swear, TeeVee has got some of the funniest television writing I've ever had the pleasure to read, and I highly recommend reading their archives. Today, they mock Boston Public's effort at a "ripped from the headlines" story that actually dates back 12 years by suggesting next week, they will cover the Rubix Cube. hehe. Also, in their annual effort to put odds on what horrid show will be the first to get canceled, they come up with some predictably funny stuff. Seems this year features a proliferation of CSI rip-off's. On the NBC series, Las Vagas, they suggest that it's pitch would have been "Its CSI: Miami, only in Las Vegas!" Man, that had me laughing. I know its bad form to just repeat jokes, but seriously, give TeeVee a try. They've got great instincts for television and are damn funny.
9.23.2003
my weekend
Just in case anyone was curious, the above is what I spent my weekend doing. (images now deleted)
Okay, not doing as in performing, but I helped it happen so I think I'm owed some credit. hehe. It got international attention, which is obviously very cool, and I really enjoyed the production. But, I'm not going to babble on about it. Just wanted to mention it.
And yes, the women were flying. I might repost the images once the troll influx ends.
Okay, not doing as in performing, but I helped it happen so I think I'm owed some credit. hehe. It got international attention, which is obviously very cool, and I really enjoyed the production. But, I'm not going to babble on about it. Just wanted to mention it.
And yes, the women were flying. I might repost the images once the troll influx ends.
9.22.2003
the democratic ten
Keeping the serious political tone of my last post, I've been wanting to write my impressions of the field for the Democratic Nomination in 2004. I'll go over each of the nominees in ascending order of how seriously I, personally, am taking their candidacy. This won't be a very in-depth study. For that, I highly recommend Slate's Ballot Box feature. Just my own feelings here.
The Hopeless
BOB GRAHAM: Who? I mean, I follow politics and even I don't have much of a clue about this guy. I mean, I know his credentials, I just don't know what he stands for. Doesn't seem to be much to run on, though. I have heard that he really led the way on these photo-op friendly day-job campaign trips. You know, where a politician does the job of an ordinary person and gets his picture taken and all that. Governor Mitt Romney in Massachusetts did that and ran an ad which foolishly touted this as a reason to vote for him. Of course, Massachusetts did. Ugh. But, while it usually just a craven photo-op, Graham apparently had done something with it and really means for them to be educational experiences for him. So kudos for that, Bob Graham, whoever you are.
CAROL MOSELEY-BRAUN: Yeah, I think we all know she doesn't have a chance. She did well in the Senate, but not really all that well. Her partisan style seems more suited for the House than the Senate, and especially not the White House. Still, she does raise the question of who the highest elected black female Republican is.
DICK GEPHADRT: Has anyone bothered to tell him that he's not going to win? I always find it so sad when people like Gephart seem so convinced that he has a shot. Yeah, I know, he's leading in some "polls", but it doesn't take a Political Science major to see through this. He's too much a politician and too obviously ambitious. I know Labor loves him, but they don't love him enough to push him to the nomination.
DENNIS KUCINICH: In a proper year, I should have said Kucinich first, but alas he's got even more blinded aspirants behind him. In fairness, I don't think Kucinich thinks he has a chance, so that makes his campaign a bit easier to take than the preceding three hopeless candidates. Yeah, I know I'm a progressive so I should like him, but I just don't. He's uninspiring. I'd love to see a passionate and articulate promoter of the liberal cause run for the nomination. But Kucinich REALLY isn't it. His progressive credentials are very debatable, too. I'd really recommend checking out Slate's Flip/Flop feature on Kucinich, but I'm sure there are even better sites out there. But, he's just here for awareness, so I'll allow it. But he doesn't have my vote.
The Hopeful
JOE LIEBERMAN: My former Senator and the former vice-presidential nominee. I was okay with Joe as veep, but much less so in the big chair. Gore's undercredited liberal roots softened Lieberman's conservative leanings, but I don't trust Joe on his own. Still, he's got tons of recognition as a former VP candidate and that makes him a serious contender. I'd be shocked if he wins, though.
AL SHARPTON: I'm as surprised as I'm putting Sharpton so high, too, but he deserves it. He's probably the most committed progressive voice in the campaign, though Kucinich usually gets that nod. He's also done a lot to remedy his past mistakes and it talking like a politician in the good ways. He's definitely not out to hang the Democrats out to dry. He's here to raise awareness of issues, and I think he's going to do a good job of that, and hopefully shore up support for the party among Sharpton's faithful. He's no Jesse Jackson, but he's also no longer the on-time Al Sharpton.
JOHN EDWARDS: Clinton II. Honestly, its like Clinton all over again, except more-so. He's more attractive, and even better fundraiser (I could be wrong about that, but what the heck), and seemingly more liberal. I'm kinda stunned that he hasn't stepped out as one of the front-runners. He talks a very good game, has shown great personality in his appearances on The Daily Show with Jon Stewart, and a genuine working-class background and the wherewithall to campaign to working class people. He does seem to be confidant, so I'm going to allow the he may know more than I. I think he's banking on a big win in the early South Carolina primary. I hope he's right, because there is a good chance the party will lose the Senate seat he's already given up. I still don't get that. No matter what the polls say, I do think Edwards will be just a breath away from the front-runners come primary season.
The Hope
HOWARD DEAN: Dean is actually part of the downfall in my friendship with the ex-roommate I discussed a couple days back. We were casually discussing politics and I mentioned that I thought if Dean could find an issue, he could really be a credible candidate. At the time, he was beyond a long-shot. Just one of those home-field guys who foolishly thinks that they can parlay a regional advantage in an early primary into a real campaign. Of course, it never happens like that, and Dean seems to understand that. But, back then, he just looked like he was wasting his time. My roommate was aggressively dismissive of the notion and when I challenged her reasoning (that the nation hates Vermont because of Jim Jeffords) she responded by shutting down the conversation and insulting me. ANYWAY, Dean hasn't campaigned like a regional, and found his issue. I figured it was going to be health-care reform, but it turned out to be the war. He's got some appealing points, but ultimately it all falls flat. I like the idea of a Howard Dean candidacy, but I'm concerned his support is largely knee-jerk from anti-war folks and lacks real depth.
WESLEY CLARK: I've seen a lot of people say that Kerry has the most to fear from Clark, since he matches Kerry's military background and then trumps it with those four stars. I actually thin Dean is the big loser, and Dean knows it. Clark's real strength is giving the anti-war folks a better candidate to fall behind. There is a long tradition of pro-Peace generals running for office, and there is good logic behind it. After experiencing the horror of war, especially as a commander within the military system, you gain a profound appreciation for peace. Clark is a very attractive candidate because his take on foreign policy really resonates with a lot of Americans. His stance on domestic issues? Well, its considerably less developed, but he's got time. At first glance, he seems to be campaigning for the Vice Presidential slot on the ticket and is wisely letting himself get checked out by the press up-front since he's got so little political experience. He may be much more serious than that, though.
JOHN KERRY: Kerry would be the front-runner if it weren't for all the people assuming he'd be the front running and declaring him dead-on-arrival for not being so. With Clark and Dean now firmly entrenched in the front-runner role, Kerry might have the room to grow. He's got the goods policy wise. He's definitely a strong liberal. Yeah, I know, he gets slammed for having too many nuanced positions. Well, I like nuance and I'm not convinced that will be a problem with the voters. He's also got electability all over him. I know, my state's last nominee didn't go so well. But, I do recall a certain war hero/Senator holding his own back in 1960. Kerry's mix of dedication and passion could really play well. I know his passion hasn't yet come out, but it will. Just wait for the advertising to start up. Kerry can really build momentum at that stage. He's my early vote, but its still much too early to firmly decide.
The Hopeless
BOB GRAHAM: Who? I mean, I follow politics and even I don't have much of a clue about this guy. I mean, I know his credentials, I just don't know what he stands for. Doesn't seem to be much to run on, though. I have heard that he really led the way on these photo-op friendly day-job campaign trips. You know, where a politician does the job of an ordinary person and gets his picture taken and all that. Governor Mitt Romney in Massachusetts did that and ran an ad which foolishly touted this as a reason to vote for him. Of course, Massachusetts did. Ugh. But, while it usually just a craven photo-op, Graham apparently had done something with it and really means for them to be educational experiences for him. So kudos for that, Bob Graham, whoever you are.
CAROL MOSELEY-BRAUN: Yeah, I think we all know she doesn't have a chance. She did well in the Senate, but not really all that well. Her partisan style seems more suited for the House than the Senate, and especially not the White House. Still, she does raise the question of who the highest elected black female Republican is.
DICK GEPHADRT: Has anyone bothered to tell him that he's not going to win? I always find it so sad when people like Gephart seem so convinced that he has a shot. Yeah, I know, he's leading in some "polls", but it doesn't take a Political Science major to see through this. He's too much a politician and too obviously ambitious. I know Labor loves him, but they don't love him enough to push him to the nomination.
DENNIS KUCINICH: In a proper year, I should have said Kucinich first, but alas he's got even more blinded aspirants behind him. In fairness, I don't think Kucinich thinks he has a chance, so that makes his campaign a bit easier to take than the preceding three hopeless candidates. Yeah, I know I'm a progressive so I should like him, but I just don't. He's uninspiring. I'd love to see a passionate and articulate promoter of the liberal cause run for the nomination. But Kucinich REALLY isn't it. His progressive credentials are very debatable, too. I'd really recommend checking out Slate's Flip/Flop feature on Kucinich, but I'm sure there are even better sites out there. But, he's just here for awareness, so I'll allow it. But he doesn't have my vote.
The Hopeful
JOE LIEBERMAN: My former Senator and the former vice-presidential nominee. I was okay with Joe as veep, but much less so in the big chair. Gore's undercredited liberal roots softened Lieberman's conservative leanings, but I don't trust Joe on his own. Still, he's got tons of recognition as a former VP candidate and that makes him a serious contender. I'd be shocked if he wins, though.
AL SHARPTON: I'm as surprised as I'm putting Sharpton so high, too, but he deserves it. He's probably the most committed progressive voice in the campaign, though Kucinich usually gets that nod. He's also done a lot to remedy his past mistakes and it talking like a politician in the good ways. He's definitely not out to hang the Democrats out to dry. He's here to raise awareness of issues, and I think he's going to do a good job of that, and hopefully shore up support for the party among Sharpton's faithful. He's no Jesse Jackson, but he's also no longer the on-time Al Sharpton.
JOHN EDWARDS: Clinton II. Honestly, its like Clinton all over again, except more-so. He's more attractive, and even better fundraiser (I could be wrong about that, but what the heck), and seemingly more liberal. I'm kinda stunned that he hasn't stepped out as one of the front-runners. He talks a very good game, has shown great personality in his appearances on The Daily Show with Jon Stewart, and a genuine working-class background and the wherewithall to campaign to working class people. He does seem to be confidant, so I'm going to allow the he may know more than I. I think he's banking on a big win in the early South Carolina primary. I hope he's right, because there is a good chance the party will lose the Senate seat he's already given up. I still don't get that. No matter what the polls say, I do think Edwards will be just a breath away from the front-runners come primary season.
The Hope
HOWARD DEAN: Dean is actually part of the downfall in my friendship with the ex-roommate I discussed a couple days back. We were casually discussing politics and I mentioned that I thought if Dean could find an issue, he could really be a credible candidate. At the time, he was beyond a long-shot. Just one of those home-field guys who foolishly thinks that they can parlay a regional advantage in an early primary into a real campaign. Of course, it never happens like that, and Dean seems to understand that. But, back then, he just looked like he was wasting his time. My roommate was aggressively dismissive of the notion and when I challenged her reasoning (that the nation hates Vermont because of Jim Jeffords) she responded by shutting down the conversation and insulting me. ANYWAY, Dean hasn't campaigned like a regional, and found his issue. I figured it was going to be health-care reform, but it turned out to be the war. He's got some appealing points, but ultimately it all falls flat. I like the idea of a Howard Dean candidacy, but I'm concerned his support is largely knee-jerk from anti-war folks and lacks real depth.
WESLEY CLARK: I've seen a lot of people say that Kerry has the most to fear from Clark, since he matches Kerry's military background and then trumps it with those four stars. I actually thin Dean is the big loser, and Dean knows it. Clark's real strength is giving the anti-war folks a better candidate to fall behind. There is a long tradition of pro-Peace generals running for office, and there is good logic behind it. After experiencing the horror of war, especially as a commander within the military system, you gain a profound appreciation for peace. Clark is a very attractive candidate because his take on foreign policy really resonates with a lot of Americans. His stance on domestic issues? Well, its considerably less developed, but he's got time. At first glance, he seems to be campaigning for the Vice Presidential slot on the ticket and is wisely letting himself get checked out by the press up-front since he's got so little political experience. He may be much more serious than that, though.
JOHN KERRY: Kerry would be the front-runner if it weren't for all the people assuming he'd be the front running and declaring him dead-on-arrival for not being so. With Clark and Dean now firmly entrenched in the front-runner role, Kerry might have the room to grow. He's got the goods policy wise. He's definitely a strong liberal. Yeah, I know, he gets slammed for having too many nuanced positions. Well, I like nuance and I'm not convinced that will be a problem with the voters. He's also got electability all over him. I know, my state's last nominee didn't go so well. But, I do recall a certain war hero/Senator holding his own back in 1960. Kerry's mix of dedication and passion could really play well. I know his passion hasn't yet come out, but it will. Just wait for the advertising to start up. Kerry can really build momentum at that stage. He's my early vote, but its still much too early to firmly decide.
why i don't invest
Just a quickie, this morning. I noticed on Yahoo that US stocks are set to open lower because of the weak Dollar. This seemed funny to me because when the Bush administration engaged its "Screw the Dollar" policies which have undone all the efforts in the Clinton administration to build a strong Dollar, I kept reading how this was good for the economy. You see, a weak Dollar is good for exports, as we can make more back selling goods in countries whose currancy is strong in comparison to the Dollar. It also discourages tourism out of the US, but encourages tourism in. So, basically, the average American who wants to visit Paris is screwed (but, really, they're a traitor anyway for wanting to visit France) but the Frenchman who wants to, say, the monument to Marquis de Lafayette in Washington, D.C. is in luck. So, weak Dollar is good for the US economy!
So why is it dragging stocks down?
Well, as you might have already guessed, its not that simple. In addition to screwing over folks planning European honeymoons and border-jumping Canadians trying to get cheap booze and cigarettes, there is a downside for the US, too. For starters, the weak dollar is bad for the rest of the world. Remember that whole global economy thing? The stock market is so knee-jerk that anything which is bad for the rest of the world will be bad, here, too. Also, a little fact that seems to have slipped past the single-minded advisors in the White House is that most of our corporate borrowing comes from international investors. A weak dollar makes for a bad investment for them, which hurts the bond market.
Obviously, there are trade-offs in both directions, but the Bush defenders repeatedly talked about the weak Dollar as if it was magical. Kinda like the tax cuts.
I guess it still is the economy, stupid.
So why is it dragging stocks down?
Well, as you might have already guessed, its not that simple. In addition to screwing over folks planning European honeymoons and border-jumping Canadians trying to get cheap booze and cigarettes, there is a downside for the US, too. For starters, the weak dollar is bad for the rest of the world. Remember that whole global economy thing? The stock market is so knee-jerk that anything which is bad for the rest of the world will be bad, here, too. Also, a little fact that seems to have slipped past the single-minded advisors in the White House is that most of our corporate borrowing comes from international investors. A weak dollar makes for a bad investment for them, which hurts the bond market.
Obviously, there are trade-offs in both directions, but the Bush defenders repeatedly talked about the weak Dollar as if it was magical. Kinda like the tax cuts.
I guess it still is the economy, stupid.
9.20.2003
in memorium
Two people I wanted to mention. First, John Ritter. That makes me very angry. Its just so sad and frustrating. He's someone we should have gotten to enjoy for so much longer. He is just such a brilliant comedian. The best physical comedian since the silent film era. Hands down. And even when just playing small roles, he made you want to watch. He had such charm, such effortless grace and flair with comedy. Its not like he was in the best shows ever made, but he was just so damn good in them. To lose him so young feels like an awful shame. I wanted to see more of him. I wanted to keep laughing. It reminds me of how I felt when Jim Henson died. More than the kind of respect and admiration I feel when more elderly performers passed on, I felt angry. I felt upset. I wanted more. I couldn't just be glad for what we had. It bothered me that there wouldn't be more. Its not like either of them lived fast. It was just stuff that happened.
The other person I wanted to talk about is Cass Elliot. Specifically the magnificant A&E biography that debuted today. It is such an incredibly show. I love it. It has none of the usual sensationalism of her story. It treats her life and her work with respect. It didn't regard her death as the inevitability of her weight and it actually agressively responds to that stupid myth about her choking to death. Indeed, it also had the guts to deal with her chronic dieting not as a failure to achieve a goal. It pointed out that it destroyed her health, which has been quietly known for a long time, but always inconvenient for many.
It acknowledges her fame as unlikely, but not as if it was some bizarre thing. They respected the fans she had, rather than treat them like freaks. It allowed that she was a sex symbol, and though it didn't examine whether this was in part *because* she was fat, it certainly didn't bog itself down obsessing over it being "inspite of" her size. Also, I guess because of John Phillips death, they felt they could dispense with some of the myths of her inclusion with the Mama's and the Papa's. Her band-mates reversed the prior story that John didn't think her voice fit with the group, and bluntly said that they felt John didn't want her because she was fat and that two never liked each other.
It didn't romantize her. It was honest about her lonliness and her long habit of getting crushes on men who weren't interested. It also had Denny Doherty admitting (as he has in other documentaries on the band) that he completely regrets not returning her affections and that he felt he had it dead wrong. It did talk about her great popularity and her many close friendships. It also honestly treated her career to a proper perspective and context. I think I've seen all the specials on Cass and the band, and I never got the understanding of her life I did from this show. Even on basic stuff, like her post Mama's career. It was very informing.
And two final things it reminded me of. She has an incredible voice. Really amazing stuff in everything she did. I'm wishing we had a good file-sharing network so I could download all her stuff right now. (I know enough to know much of her output is likely unavailable on CD)
Also, she was really, really, really hot. Great to see a bit more of her than those awful dresses she wore for the Mama's and the Papa's TV appearances. She was an incredibly beautiful woman, and it does give me some hope that she was able to make it so big. I think American would really take to another Cass Elliot, if only Hollywood would give one a chance.
The other person I wanted to talk about is Cass Elliot. Specifically the magnificant A&E biography that debuted today. It is such an incredibly show. I love it. It has none of the usual sensationalism of her story. It treats her life and her work with respect. It didn't regard her death as the inevitability of her weight and it actually agressively responds to that stupid myth about her choking to death. Indeed, it also had the guts to deal with her chronic dieting not as a failure to achieve a goal. It pointed out that it destroyed her health, which has been quietly known for a long time, but always inconvenient for many.
It acknowledges her fame as unlikely, but not as if it was some bizarre thing. They respected the fans she had, rather than treat them like freaks. It allowed that she was a sex symbol, and though it didn't examine whether this was in part *because* she was fat, it certainly didn't bog itself down obsessing over it being "inspite of" her size. Also, I guess because of John Phillips death, they felt they could dispense with some of the myths of her inclusion with the Mama's and the Papa's. Her band-mates reversed the prior story that John didn't think her voice fit with the group, and bluntly said that they felt John didn't want her because she was fat and that two never liked each other.
It didn't romantize her. It was honest about her lonliness and her long habit of getting crushes on men who weren't interested. It also had Denny Doherty admitting (as he has in other documentaries on the band) that he completely regrets not returning her affections and that he felt he had it dead wrong. It did talk about her great popularity and her many close friendships. It also honestly treated her career to a proper perspective and context. I think I've seen all the specials on Cass and the band, and I never got the understanding of her life I did from this show. Even on basic stuff, like her post Mama's career. It was very informing.
And two final things it reminded me of. She has an incredible voice. Really amazing stuff in everything she did. I'm wishing we had a good file-sharing network so I could download all her stuff right now. (I know enough to know much of her output is likely unavailable on CD)
Also, she was really, really, really hot. Great to see a bit more of her than those awful dresses she wore for the Mama's and the Papa's TV appearances. She was an incredibly beautiful woman, and it does give me some hope that she was able to make it so big. I think American would really take to another Cass Elliot, if only Hollywood would give one a chance.
blast from my past
I guess its "blast from the past" week for me. Had two quick encounters to people who used to be a major part of my life, which was weird. Saw my former roommate on Wednesday. I was in a car with my girlfriend and she pointed out a woman crossing an intersection ahead and said she thought it was my former roommate. I looked and thought it didn't look quite right. But the time we started moving again, though, I realized it was her. I was very glad I was in the car.
My roommate was a really rotten person in a lot of ways. She was a pathological liar and used her lies to really exploit people's emotions. She was also wildly irresponsible. I'm not sure she ever paid a bill while I lived with her. She also treated me like dirt. It boiled over in a big fight that was clearly not going anywhere so I just walked away from it. Man, did that get her. She yelled at my closed door for 30 minutes. The flipside, though, is that I really needed her. We moved in after I broke up with my ex-girlfriend and I really needed her help and support. For that, I do appreciate her, but all the same, I'd rather not have to deal with her ever again. I'm not going to waste time and effort hating her. I just want her behind me.
Speaking of my ex-girlfriend, I just saw her for the first time in about a year and a half. Just an odd running into each other thing while neither of us had the time to talk. Its not that I hate her, but I'm still very angry. I loved her and I left our relationship feeling very betrayed, very hurt, and very changed. I was honest with her, and she took advantage of my honest in order to lie to me for two years about something very important to me. It made me feel so worthless, like a loser. I eventually got sick of feeling like that and I knew I had to get out. But, It has made me less trusting and less open and I hate that. I'm afraid now, and I hate it. But I don't hate her. You just have to let that go. I'm hurt, but its not worth it. I just want to get away from those feelings and get back to where I once belonged.
Oh, well.
My roommate was a really rotten person in a lot of ways. She was a pathological liar and used her lies to really exploit people's emotions. She was also wildly irresponsible. I'm not sure she ever paid a bill while I lived with her. She also treated me like dirt. It boiled over in a big fight that was clearly not going anywhere so I just walked away from it. Man, did that get her. She yelled at my closed door for 30 minutes. The flipside, though, is that I really needed her. We moved in after I broke up with my ex-girlfriend and I really needed her help and support. For that, I do appreciate her, but all the same, I'd rather not have to deal with her ever again. I'm not going to waste time and effort hating her. I just want her behind me.
Speaking of my ex-girlfriend, I just saw her for the first time in about a year and a half. Just an odd running into each other thing while neither of us had the time to talk. Its not that I hate her, but I'm still very angry. I loved her and I left our relationship feeling very betrayed, very hurt, and very changed. I was honest with her, and she took advantage of my honest in order to lie to me for two years about something very important to me. It made me feel so worthless, like a loser. I eventually got sick of feeling like that and I knew I had to get out. But, It has made me less trusting and less open and I hate that. I'm afraid now, and I hate it. But I don't hate her. You just have to let that go. I'm hurt, but its not worth it. I just want to get away from those feelings and get back to where I once belonged.
Oh, well.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)