not close enough

so alito's in. no suprise there, but it doesn't really make it any better either.the vote was generally along party lines — 58 voted to confirm him, namely republicans (what is wrong with you dakotans?), while 42 democrats and one republican voted not (i knew i loved rhode island for a reason).

there's not too much to say on this. i could bash bush's choice but i've already done it; would probably just sound tired by now.

what i would like to point out is that today's vote sent a justice with the second highest number of votes against him in the entire history of the united states supreme court. that's right, a justice was placed on the court with more senators having opposed his confirmation only ONE time before alito.

patrick leahy, the democrat from vermont said the following, which i think hits at the crux of the problem:

"the president continues to choose confrontation over consensus, and to be a divider rather than the 'uniter' that he promised americans he would be. rather than send us a nominee for all americans, the president chose a divisive nominee who raises grave concerns about whether he would be a check on presidential power."

jess sessions, on the other hand, who is a republican from alabama commented that:

"it has been most distressing to me to have this nominee, the epitome of a restrained and principled, highly respected judge, be portrayed as some sort of extremist. it is above my comprehension, frankly."

above his comprehension, or just out of the realm of his chosen perspective? if someone truly cannot see why someone else could doubt the "restrained" and non-extremist nature of samuel alito, then we are clearly dealing with complete ignorance, complete apathy with an agenda, or worse still, both.

let's play the "did he really say that?" game.

— "i am particularly proud of my contribution in recent cases in which the government has argued in the supreme court that ... the constitution does not protect a right to an abortion."

yep, in his 1985 application to become deputy assistant attorney general in the reagan administration, commenting on roe

— "we certainly did not want to encourage irrational discrimination, but we had to interpret the law as it stands ... and it does not regulate what a private employer can do if he has a fear of a contagious disease."

indeed he did, in a department of justice opinion he helped write while serving as deputy assistant attorney general during the reagan administration, declaring that employers could legally fire people infected with aids because of a "fear of contagion, whether reasonable or not."

— "what can be made of this opportunity to advance the goals of bringing about the eventual overruling of roe v. wade and, in the meantime, of mitigating its effects?"

uh huh, in a 1985 memo to the solicitor general proposing that the reagan administration argue in favor of restrictions in abortion cases as a way to convince the court that roe is untenable.


and that's a sample. a sample from a man already sworn in as a supreme court justice — the life-long position of supreme court justice; a man put there by george w bush.

ted kennedy from massachusetts:

"we want our country to be safe and we expect our president to do all he can to protect us. but we want the white house to obey the law. we want a court that will blow the whistle when the president is out of bounds."

with the president shifting the court more and more into the president's court, if you will, i think it unlikely we will be seeing too much whistle-blowing.

ralph neas, president of people for the american way, commented on the close vote, implying that it was important that there was at least so much open opposition to such a nominee. he did acknowledge that it wasn't enough, that "moral victories are not sufficient."

well, it's always nice to look at the positives. i guess i just fail to see any victory at all today.

"behold, the bush burned with fire..." — that bible thing

as is so often the case these days, after reading an article on george bush et al, i just end up wishing i hadn't. it seems never to be a good idea anymore. but the fact is, i did read this one; it seemed short and painless enough to get some basic information on thursday's news conference at the white house. the associated press put together a little rundown of some of the topics bush went over. and because it's friday and i am of particularly good humor, i figure this is as at least good for a few laugh-cause-it's-more-fun-than-crying sort of laughs.

on domestic spying, bush "...expressed reluctance to change the law to give him explicit authority to eavesdrop on conversations between people in the united states and people overseas with suspected terrorist ties. 'my concern has always been that, in an attempt to try to pass a law on something that's already legal, we'll show the enemy what we're doing,'" he said.

[oh yes, because that would be troubling. and that fearsome non-descript enemy; fear him/her/it/them/that, fear him/her/it/them/that!]

on torture, he "...said he hasn't seen a report human rights watch put out last week alleging that his administration has a deliberate strategy of abusing terror suspects during interrogations. but he said any allegation that the united states tortures people is wrong."

[no, i have not read her new novel. but i can tell you with absolute certainty that it's terrible.]

on katrina, bush commented that "...he does not want his aides to testify before congress about the government's response to the storm, including michael brown, former director of the federal emergency management agency.

'if people give me advice and they're forced to disclose that advice, it means the next time an issue comes up, i might not be able to get unvarnished advice from my advisers,' bush said. he said the white house has its own investigation to determine what went wrong."

[one more time: "if people give me advice and they're forced to disclose that advice, it means the next time an issue comes up, i might not be able to get unvarnished advice from my advisers.]

on the issue of north korea, he further urged a "...return to nuclear disarmament talks but said he wouldn't end sanctions against the country to gain that return.

the united states has imposed the sanctions because it says the north korean government is involved in counterfeiting u.s. currency and other illegal activities. north korea has demanded that the united states lift the sanctions before north korea agrees to participate in the six-nation negotiations aimed at dismantling its nuclear programs.

'there is no compromise when it comes to, you know, "hey, come back to the table so you can counterfeit our money, just, you know, counterfeit 20s and not 100s or whatever it is,"' bush said. 'i mean, no. we are going to uphold the law and protect the currency of the american people."

[can we all meet back at the table in five after we determine exactly what is keeping us from it?]

and on ambramoff, he "...said although his photograph has been taken with abramoff, he does not know him and has never had a discussion with him.

'having my picture taken with someone doesn't mean that i'm a friend with him or know him very well,' bush said. 'I have also had pictures with thousands and thousands of people. i mean ... it's part of the job of the president to shake hands with people and smile.'

[and you do it so well. will you be a friend with me?]

jackson: i was just so over that pajama phase...

as if we don't have enough fun stuff to, well, make fun of, it seems that michael jackson was spied at a bahrain mall this week clad in — wait for it — that's right, the traditional dress of women in the gulf: the full black robe known as an abaya, gloves, and a veil hiding his face. he was with three children, who appeared to be his own, though one can hardly tell as they, too, had faces concealed by scarves.

apparently jackson is in the process of negotiating a job with a company there that plans to set up theme parks and such in the middle east. hmmm.

and another fun tidbit for you; according to the sydney morning herald, this is not the first time jackson has made news in the middle east. last november, he "...stirred controversy in the united arab emirates by entering the ladies room in a shopping mall. his publicist said jackson ... did not understand the arabic sign on the door and left the bathroom when he realized his mistake. but local newspapers reported that the performer was applying makeup in the woman's toilets in a dubai mall. jackson's host, mohammed bin sulayem, dismissed the story as rumor."

what's that old saying? "with friends like that who needs enemies?"

well, with "news" like this, who needs entertainment?

shredded aortas. oops, i meant oats.

i am disturbed.

i am usually anti-disclaimer. but i realize that what i'm about to point out hits at a pretty controversial issue. i also realize that i'm probably not entirely correct (and i hope you appreciate that one because you're not likely to hear it too often). but it's a tough one; and i, as aforementioned, am disturbed by it.

i speak of the new anti-smoking campaign television ads recently launched by new york state. i only get a few channels, but i've seen them on all of them (granted there are only 4). anyway, as far as i can tell there are two new commercials — and i fully acknowledge i may be also be logistically inaccurate about things here because of my very limited access to television. so feel free to correct me if you know otherwise. but what i've seen are two commercials, both of them beginning by someone lighting then taking a drag of a cigarette. they both follow the smoke down an inside view of what i presume is the smoker's esophagus. now this isn't exactly pretty, per se, but there's nothing offensive about it. what comes next, though, i do find a bit troubling.

commercial a, at this point, cuts to an operating table on top of which sits a human brain. there is a surgeon standing behind said table. the surgeon then proceeds to partially dissect the brain with some sort of surgical tool, and the viewer is spared no grisly detail. the brain is grey and pallid and blobby as i guess brains on operating tables being dissected usually are and the surgeon goes right at it, slicing it down the middle and exposing some of its inside. i find i've usually looked away by the time the brain starts to trickle, ooze, drip blood from its little brainy, veiny, gelatinous cavities.

[shudder]

commercial b takes another part of the body; this time we get a close up of what we are told is the aorta of a 32-year old smoker. this in itself is pretty unpleasant looking: a sort of nude color, sphincter-like looking thing that definitely appears as if it could have used a little wipe-down for its tv appearance. i mean i know there are lots of fluids and gooey things and what not in there, but man. anyway, i get the point: you damage your aorta if you smoke and that's bad and now i see what my sad aorta looks like and that i shouldn't damage it anymore. now this is a good point, but the aorta is pretty foul-looking. and really find it intolerable when hands appear from behind the aorta and begin to squeeze it from the top down like an nearly exhausted tube of toothpaste for the purpose of demonstrating precisely how much actual build-up smokers add to their unfortunate aortas with each cigarette. the substance that is henceforth expelled from the diseased aorta looks something like chunky and hardened mayonnaise. the hand continues to squeeze and more of this revolting, pus-like matter squirts/oozes out.

and let me tell you, i'll take a bleeding brain anytime after that one.

now i'm not trying to be disgusting for the sake of being funny or even just to be disgusting, for that matter. and i don't believe i'm being obnoxiously squeamish; in fact i really don't think i'm an overly squeamish person at all (hello, planned parenthood?). however, when i'm sitting on my bed, as i was this morning around 9am, enjoying a nice bowl of shredded oats and milk while i try to catch some weather from al roker, i really feel conflicted as to whether or not i should be forced to watch someone gut an aorta. or, for that matter, if a six year-old girl sitting and fiddling with her barbie dreamhouse on her living room floor while a babysitter checks to see who's on oprah should be subjected to a gooey, blood-sweating brain. you know, i'm just not sure.

and i know there is an argument to be made about my use of the word "forced," here. it is true, nobody is holding a gun to my head demanding that i watch television. but couldn't the same debate surround some other government mandates regarding what can and cannot be aired on television or the radio?

in response to a not-so-slight conflict over bono saying the word "fucking" during last year's golden globe awards (NOT, of course, in the sexual sense but in the adjectival sense), federal communications commission chairman michael powell wrote:

'i find the use of the "f-word" on programming accessible to children reprehensible.'

and i'm not taking an official position on this (like my opinion could ever be official), but there seems to me to exist a certain disparity here.

[for your reference, the fcc has declined to return our phone calls pertaining to this matter.]

on a personal note, i smoke cigarettes — maybe a little more frequently than infrequently. in spite of that i am not biased; i am all for anti-smoking campaigns. and i think anyone who says otherwise is being ignorant. who is actually against discouraging people from picking up a dangerous habit? and you really can't be against something that gives the public straightforward information. people should be educated; they need to be able to make informed choices. if i suddenly declared that people should not have access to the information they need to make knowledgeable decisions then i would be a giant hypocrite. GIANT. informed decisions. information. truth. good stuff. but back to the matter at hand, i do perhaps think that this campaign is taking the whole graphic-image-use-to-make-a-point a little far.

what on earth is the matter with something old-school like this?


cigarettes, skull and crossbones, you know: death.....
what's wrong with that? it gets the point across and doesn't make me dry heave. word.

"arriving again and again without noticing"

i remember all the different kinds of years.
angry, or brokenhearted, or afraid.
i remember feeling like that
walking up the mountain along the dirt path
to my broken house on the island.
and long years of waiting in massachusetts.
the winter walking and hot summer walking,
i finally fell in love with all of it:
dirt, night, rock, and far views.
it's strange now that my heart is as full
now as my desire was then.

— linda gregg

ode to the u of s of a

this isn't funny at all. it's a sad day and i hope people know it. but i'm feeling exhausted and unable to throw facts and quotes and statistics at you electronically (i'm sure you're way bummed about that, too); i'm feeling unable to comment on what i think this means, and what could happen — nothing short of the unthinkable.
so what better to do when you're feeling down about something than to make jokes about it, right?

so i have written a poem
it is my ode to my country on this 24th day of january, two thousand and six...
(and i realize it may seem like i'm jumping the gun, but honestly, i think not.)


dear america how grand are you
how red, how white, and — yes — how blue
and fair, and right, and staunch, and true
america, i'm in awe of you.

and on this sweet eve of this sweet day,
i'd like to take the time to say,
how blessed i feel that god has given
me this holy place to live in

and as if my joy were not complete
just when i thought i'd had you beat
america, you tricky thing,
you just get even MORE right-wing!

i could hardly even trust my ears,
i swear, was almost moved to tears.
for where else on this sprawling globe
would sam alito don a robe?

i henceforth call for jubiliation!
following this comfirmation
just what we need, and that's a promise,
how could we not want more like thomas?

i am just so overcome with glee
that we can rethink that issue "privacy."
i'll tell you i was always skeptical
the right to choose? just unacceptable.

i must also say that i was so moved
by how open and honest our nominee proved.
he answered all without evasion
and looked so suave for the occasion

his lovely wife there by his side
and when he was pressed, oh how she cried!
what a show of regal carriage
what a compliment to marriage.

no lies, no tricks, no strategy
just a man you might bring tea.
indeed, he treads the noble steps of bush,
i want to grab that little tush!

i am so lucky to have found
a country that's so safe, so sound
in which i KNOW i'm not alone
since you're probably tapped into my phone.

till death do us part. oh yeah, or body fluids.

as if we don't have enough toys these days, apparently david vitalli, a private investigator in new york specializing in cases of infidelity is marketing "...a home testing kit to check partners' clothes and belongings for bodily fluids" online.

that's right, folks. for a mere eighty bucks, you can order your very own dna kit designed for use in catching that lousy, cheating spouse of yours in the act. or perhaps more accurately, after the act.

included in your kit is an ultraviolet light, two vials of testing liquid and some collection papers. one kit allows the user five separate tests. according to the man himself, the tests "...will let you know if it's bodily fluid from a man, a woman, or both mixed together. if they're mixed together and it wasn't from you," he spells out, "you know there's a problem."

[and if you're gay? well, moving on.]

so while i suppose this will be considered progress on some level and for some people (and i decline to state what level and which people), users should be forewarned that their home science project is not going to get them anywhere on the legal front:

"for it to be admissible, it's got to be a court-approved laboratory and you have to show a chain of evidence, like in a criminal case," said one divorce lawyer on dna evidence in divorce cases.

i would imagine that despite this, there could be some fairly interesting court cases on the horizon after a "positive id" of a cheater via use of this kit. some people are pretty relentless. and pretty loaded. with lawyers who are also relentless. and also loaded. and then there's the private investigator factor to take care of the "chain of evidence" part [or is there a do-it-yourself kit for that, too? i must have missed it on amazon; there's probably a "better together" deal by now...]

i could pontificate on almost anything. i could pontificate on this one a lot. but i think sometimes you have to let things speak for themselves. you know, minimalism is more powerful, all that...

i will, however, say that my favorite part of the united press international article i read on the issue was its last line, which read:

"...couples counselors point out that if someone is contemplating using such a test, the relationship already may be doomed."


you think?

don't vote for me

john dos passos, a lesser-known but not of lesser quality expatriate writer, became disillusioned after seeing what transpired in the spanish civil war. in one of his unfortunately glossed-over works, U.S.A., he wrote the following:

"america our nation has been beaten by strangers who have turned our language inside out who have taken the clean words our fathers spoke and made them slimy and foul

their hired men sit on the judge's bench they sit back with their feet on the tables under the dome of the State House they are ignorant of our beliefs they have the dollars the guns the armed forces the power plants
they have built the electric chair and hired the executioner to throw the switch

all right we are two nations."

well gee. it's no exagerration to say that those words could well have been strung together yesterday by someone fuming over alito or over the valerie plame scandal or over intelligent design being taught in public school (although we must tip hats to the judge in dover) or what have you.

there are lots of things that could be extracted from the above passage and applied -- detail for detail -- to the present time, and while that's lots of fun to do and makes one feel really insightful and tricky, there'’s something else that lies within these words that i think is the real crux of the matter, and the thing perhaps most crucial for those of us living today to consider.

"all right we are two nations."

awhile back i sat in the balcony of the 92nd street y and listened to doris kearns goodwin speak. a heroine of mine since high school, she was talking about her new book, a biography of lincoln on which she'd worked for more than a decade. there have been about a million biographies written about abraham lincoln. yes, i believe the number is approximately a million. ms. goodwin in taking up lincoln, then, faced the substantial challenge of finding something new and worthy on which to write. lincoln'’s story on its own, been there done that. she needed something new and being the brilliant doris kearns goodwin as she is, she found it. her book is not just the story of lincoln himself, but the story of his politics and most notably the rather remarkable decision he made to stock his cabinet (as in people in governmental posts, not tomato soup in cupboard) with none other than his rivals for the presidential race he had just won. to clarify, lincoln's closest political advisors were essentially his political enemies. interesting concept, that. one could say he was just "keeping his enemies closer than his friends," as the old idiogram has it. but it was more than that. ms. goodwin also brought attention to the fact that lincoln often changed his mind. in doing so, he inevitably contradicted what he had said at a previous time. his answer to critics or challengers when he altered an opinion? "i am smarter today than i was yesterday."

so you can let that settle. but it got me to thinking. we all know the state of affairs over here in yon america basically bites the big one. we love to talk about how horrible things are and how much we hate so-and-so and how much so-and-so hates such-and-such and how wretched it is that our political world be wrought with corruption on scandal (we all of us -- conservative or liberal -- do the same thing; just plug in different names/events/specifics/etc.). "so isn't it an atrocity the delay is such a lying cheat?" asks liberal john doe. "uhh yeah, about as aotrocius as you and your baby-killing, morally reprehensible pals are," has conservative joe shmoe. and around and around and around we go. it would be a looong time before either side ran out of those, no?

so my point. or dos passos' point, rather: "all right we are two nations." [jaw clenched-ly attempting not to dwell on the preceeding parts of that comment that of course i just had to include -- i mean the possibilities there are endless; i get excited just thinking about what could be done with dos passos' punches in relation to those evil, evil people out there who have "...turned our language inside out who have taken the clean words our fathers spoke and made them SLIMY and FOUL" ... but ok. see if i get stuck in that i'm going to end up devalidating my own point, which is never desirable...]

so my point. or doris kearns goodwin's point, rather. lincoln succeeded as president because of what pretty much amoun tot counter-intuitive strategies; promoting political enemies, publicly acknowledging mistakes [ahem, w? oops. dammit, i'm trying].

and now my point (for real, this time): in considering the current state of affairs, these ideas blend together for me. there is a common thread. here we are divided; that is certainly an apt description. so why the division? because i think it goes beyond a normal potlitical sort of scope, right? there will always be two sides of the proverbial coin -- it's a physical inevitablililty, but what we are experiencing right now is a truly profound split. this goes beyond big government vs. small government, or pro-choice vs. pro-life, or tax cuts or capital punishment or any of it. the people on the political chessboard at present -- and of course i acknowledge this is a generalization -- are wholly disjoined.

"your ideas are wrong."
"your strategies are wrong."
"your beliefs are wrong"
"your lifestyle is wrong."
"your god is wrong."
"your lack of a god is wrong."

two nations.

many would argue that no president experienced this phenomenon more profoundly than abraham lincoln. and though it would take years and years -- many more than he would ever witness himself -- there is undoubtedly something to be said for lincoln's construction of the reconstruction. he was humble. he was open. he was forgiving. he built his cabinet from the very men comprising his opposition. he worked from the middle. from the median, so to speak. centrism.


i am a liberal. personlly, i'd love to see a flaming lefty in the white house pushing all the things in which i believe. it'd be very, very satisfying to finally be able to say, "take that. see, bush? we can play that game, too. look at the oval office, look at the house, look at the senate. TAKE THAT."

and while that's true, if history serves as any sort of lesson (and don't you just find that despite what you want to believe it always seems to do so?), can i honestly say i believe that to be the "right" course? would dean have unified this country anymore than bush has? i don't know the answer, but i think it's a worthy question.


so here we tread. for the time being, at least. stuck. maybe we should take a stab at getting stuck ala that old song that, as far as i can tell, no one actually knows who sings, just to see: you know, "stuck in the middle" for awhile.

untitled 2 addendum (eat it up, just eat it up, say i...)

i couldn't not call attention to this.

i mean, honestly. if they have a problem with drug use and homosexuality in movies and on television, this should be a nice addition to their list o' grievances...

(muahahahaha i am in love with this. i LOVE it)

this just in from reuters:

"billed as the world's first black jesus movie, 'son of man' portrays christ as a modern african revolutionary and aims to shatter the western image of a placid savior with fair hair and blue eyes.

the south african film, which premieres on Sunday at the sundance festival in utah, transports the life and death of christ from first century Palestine to a contemporary african state racked by war and poverty.

jesus is born in a shanty-town shed, a far cry from a manger in a bethlehem stable. his mother mary is a virgin, though feisty enough to argue with the angels. gun-wielding authorities fear his message of equality and he ends up hanging on a cross. ...

jesus begins his public ministry after an encounter with satan -- who appears cloaked in black leather -- during his traditional xhosa circumcision rite.

he gathers followers from the factions of armed rebels across the country and demands they lay down their guns and confront their corrupt rulers with a vision of non-violent protest and solidarity. ...

his resurrection is meant to signal hope for africa, the world's poorest continent which is sometimes dismissed by foreigners as a hopeless mess of conflict and corruption. ...

mary, played by the star of "u-carmen," pauline malefane, gets a beefed-up role as the inspiration for christ's politics and humanity, compared to her fairly brief biblical appearances.

and malefane ... makes a smooth transition from playing the seductive heroine carmen to the world's most famous virgin...:
'they are both women who are prepared to stand outside of society. they may be different sides of the coin but they are still the same coin -- but I'm not going to be very popular for saying that.'"

ok, so it is lots of fun -- too much fun -- to scoff at the crazy christians with something like this (i'm sure they'll just love the whole carmen/virgin mary comparison. satan in leather ain't too bad, either), but when's the last time you actually heard someone say something useful in the context? resurrection as a symbol of hope for a mostly destitute country... thank you. i mean, thank you. see now that makes sense to me. a hell of a lot more sense than using the bible to tell me that two people who are in love with each other and happen to be of the same sex shouldn't be allowed to enjoy the civil rights entailed with the institution of marriage. i'm not necessarily anti-religion. it does some great things for people; i'm not on a mission to undermine others' experiences. it seems to me from a historical perspective that christ did indeed live, and that he did wonderful things. i take no issue with that. so why not use a medium like this to universally acknowledge that and widen the scope in doing so?

things don't work one way for every person. they never have and they never, ever, EVER will. if we can accept that, embrace that then i believe we are moving in the right direction. christ has become a legend. he did live as a human, yes, for that there is evidence. but maybe one thing on which lots of us -- wherever we might be on the religious "kinsey scale" (oh i just couldn't resist), so to speak -- can agree is that he clearly no longer does. he has evolved into a symbol. so i'd love it if someone could explain to me why exactly a symbol should have to be saintly little caucasian man shroud in white. [and bear with me for a second while i'm terribly rhetorical, but i'm feeling the need to assert the definition of "symbol;" a symbol is "something that represents something else by association, resemblance, or convention, especially a material object used to represent something invisible." now personally, i get a little squeamish around jesus talk. but, if you someone wants to open my mind up and tell me that the proposed resurrection of this person represented in a film is meant to symbolize something like optimism for people who so gravely need something about which to be optimistic, then hey, bring him on.

bring that black jesus on.

untitled 2 (fuck)

after waking up hideously early this morning, i did a little webnews surfing before i got up. in my casual perusal of google news' top stories i came across something way more hideous than waking up for no reason before 6am...

an article in the times (uk, not ny) opens with the following sentence:

"christian groups led a furious campaign against hollywood yesterday, accusing the golden globe awards of promoting films with gay or 'leftist' themes to serve a political agenda."

ok, i'll bite. furious campaigns launched by christians can be pretty humorous these days. i mean, granted it's the kind of thing you can laugh at for a few minutes -- maybe more than a few minutes if they're particularly nutty -- and then when the reality sinks in it's not so funny. but still, they tend to interest me. this one's no exception to that; i have two reactions: part of me thinks we should be glad that things like this are being covered, that campaigns like this actually exist. i mean it's just THAT ridiculous, so ridiculous that it's like the right-wing christians really are just starting to make themselves look stupid. but the reality is -- and this is the frightening part (if not a bit obvious), especially as we face the pending confirmation of samuel alito to the supreme court -- they. are. dead. serious. this is their vocation, this is what they think about, and what makes them tick. they believe this; they do. all of it. and it's people like them who are funded our president's ticket, who will fund the next conservative nominee's ticket, who are presently in the control room at the white house. yes, becomes remarkably not funny remarkably quickly.

as to specifics, at the golden globe awards on monday "brokeback mountain" won four awards, including best dramatic picture. "capote" was also recognized (phillip seymour hoffman as the title role took the globe) and felicity huffman won for her portrayal of a transsexual in "transamerica." although i have yet to see the last of those films, in my own opinion both "brokeback" and "capote" were more than deserving of an award. but forget what i think, the fact is they won. and why? because they were great films with great performances? oh no, not so, say those furiously-campaigning christians (i don't know why i like that phrase so much).

so what's the real reason then? oh, it's simple.

according to stephen bennett of "straight talk radio" (go figure), and put oh-so-eloquently, at the 2006 globes, "hollywood exposed its own corrupt agenda. [it] is no doubt out on a mission to homosexualise america."

well i'm glad he cleared that one up. they're pretty tricky those hollywood people, eh? indeed, it would seem that the american film media is out to make us all gay -- AND twisted, apparently needed for emphasis, though i thought for these freaks they were mutually exclusive. propaganda, subliminal messages of perversion and corruption ("hey you, little girl, yes YOU, we see you... you don't want to play doctor with the boys anymore, male anatomy is repulsive, why not try fornication with your wee pig-tailed friend in the preschool bathroom?") are running rampant in our favorite entertainment source.

oh, and let us not leave out perhaps the more "heady" crazy-religious-right-wing-zealots' contribution; for they point out that "syriana" (for which george clooney picked up a best supporting actor award) depicts "ethical pitfalls" of the oil business in an overtly leftist light. and what's more, we seem also to be promoting illegal drug use, too! (i mean just for kick, right?) indeed, mary louise parker won for her portrayal of a marijuana dealer in the tv show "weeds." so have we covered it then? the call to american children bored on a friday night?: a little sodomy, a little post-coital bash session of the administration's oil policies with some fellow corrupt friends over some nice looooooong hits from the bong. eureka!

bennet also said, "when hollywood is pumping out anti-family movies with sexually explicit, twisted and perverse themes that glorify homosexuality, transsexuality and every other kind of sexual immorality -- then awarding itself for doing so -- middle america better take note."

well, middle america, here's your big chance. and hey, at least we can still watch fox news, right?

full

in my determination to rebirth this blog, i decided i had to say something. but of course as soon as i decided that i had nothing to say. then you're just screwed cause no matter what you do say it is automatically forced and not genuine. which totally sucks, because you often have real thoughts but then your nasty little conscience (might i add that a friend of mine recently informed me that his actually has a name, captain fuckbubbles) makes you doubt it, then it's negated, you're more distressed, and the cycle continues. so essentially your reality becomes "wow, i'm a flaming faaaaake." but anyway, in spite of all that fun and self-doubt, and since lately all i seem to be able to tihnk about is music and the amazing effects it can have on you if you let it, i decided to peruse some lyrics of the best band who ever played and happened upon the words to a tune i don't even know particularly well, but it's, well, right. right enough that i don't even have to question my motives. i probably will anyway, but it's cool.

oh, and let me just say that i am
a) obsessed with the grateful dead -- like clinically
b) had no sleep last night -- none at all
c) spent the all night thing listening and dancing to music under the influence of multiple substances that might have me a wee bit loopy today
(point being this might be a little bright-eyed, hippie, the-whole-world-is-connected-and-we-are-one-esque. i'll try to keep it under control, but i have to admit i'm sort of still feeling like that.)


so enough of that; this is a bobby tune; i think recorded on blues for allah for the first time. but...

"there's mosquitoes on the river.
fish are rising up like birds.
it's been hot for seven weeks now,
too hot to even speak now.
did you hear what i just heard?

say, it might have been a fiddle,
or it could have been the wind.
but there seems to be a beat, now.
i can feel it in my feet, now.
listen, here it comes again! there's a band out on the highway.
they're high-steppin' into town.
they're a rainbow full of sound.
it's fireworks, calliopes and clowns --

everybody's dancing.
come on, children. come on, children,
come on clap your hands.

sun went down in honey.
moon came up in wine.
stars were spinnin' dizzy,
lord, the band kept us so busy
we forgot about the time.

they're a band beyond description
like jehovah's favorite choir.
people joinin' hand in hand
while the music plays the band.
lord, they're setting us on fire.

crazy rooster crowin' midnight.
balls of lightning roll along.
old men sing about their dreams.
women laugh and children scream,
and the band keeps playin' on.

keep on dancin' through to daylight.
greet the morning air with song.
no one's noticed, but the band's all packed and gone.
was it ever here at all?

but they keep on dancing.
c'mon, children. c'mon, children,
come on clap your hands.

well, the cool breeze came on tuesday,
and the corn's a bumper crop.
the fields are full of dancing,
full of singing and romancing,
'cause the music never stopped."

so, very literally, music and just letting it do with you what it will: that's pretty euphoric. and it's something i've really been tapping into lately. it's an amazing thing to just let go and allow what you're hearing to dictate how you're feeling and what you're physically doing with yourself, to sort of surrender that task for a time. i'm so grateful that i've discovered what music can really do; and the more i get tastes of that feeling, the more i'm determined to have more. the music certainly didn't stop tonight -- err, last night. whatever. days. running. together. but this song, the words, so simple. rudimentary. as to specifics, well i certainly don't frolic in the cornfields (oooh but that does sound oddly appealing) and i don't listen to fiddlin' too reguarly; it's not hot where i am right now. or at least i certainly didn't think so at 5 this morning when i was wandering around the entrance to the brooklyn bridge trying to manage the dual task of hailing a cab without getting run over by said cab. so yeah. but that's it, right? none of it seems to pertain to me at all. so isn't that just it? because i feel like it's got my name written all over it.

i guess the reason i feel so enthusiastic and connected to these words right now (in addition to those stated above) is the idea expressed in them that the music has always been there. it's never stopped. and what makes me ecstatic that i get to wake up tomorrow is the fact that, you know what? it's not going to stop. and it changes. always. maybe it's music for me, maybe it's not for you. maybe tomorrow it'll be something else for both of us. but it's always there, and it always was. even during the dark ages o' blythe, as i like to call them, it was there. maybe i couldn't find it, but that doesn't mean it wasn't there. [greet the morning air with song / no one's noticed, but the band's all packed and gone / was it ever here at all?]. it's that good. it's like happiness and satisfaction with anything. all of a sudden it just is and it always was and you know that now and your head is all twisted and you're all disoriented. and happy. and finding new versions of that same feeling -- that's almost as good: to know that you can chase that and, sometimes, you might actually catch it. and then it gets even better, because there will always be something to chase.

it doesn't stop; it didn't stop, and it won't. and all at once, i'm living it. somehow, i get to live it.

and TOTCHKA on that!