DWI-B

In California, a blood-alcohol level of 0.08, if found to be in the blood of an individual pulled over on a California road, is sufficient for that person to be arrested for suspicion of "driving while under the influence" of alcohol. Several nights ago, Mel Gibson, while driving through Malibu in a shiny Lexus, was pulled over by the police, who determined (eventually; Mr. Gibson put up quite a struggle; see the report at tmz.com) that he had a blood-alcohol limit of .12.

TMZ reports as follows:

"four pages of the original report prepared by the arresting officer in the case, L.A. County Sheriff's Deputy James Mee (contain interesting revelations). According to the report, Gibson became agitated after he was stopped on Pacific Coast Highway and told he was to be detained for drunk driving Friday morning in Malibu. The actor began swearing uncontrollably. Gibson repeatedly said, "My life is f****d." Law enforcement sources say the deputy, worried that Gibson might become violent, told the actor that he was supposed to cuff him but would not, as long as Gibson cooperated. As the two stood next to the hood of the patrol car, the deputy asked Gibson to get inside. Deputy Mee then walked over to the passenger door and opened it. The report says Gibson then said, "I'm not going to get in your car," and bolted to his car. The deputy quickly subdued Gibson, cuffed him and put him inside the patrol car.

TMZ has learned that Deputy Mee audiotaped the entire exchange between himself and Gibson, from the time of the traffic stop to the time Gibson was put in the patrol car, and that the tape fully corroborates the written report.

Once inside the car, a source directly connected with the case says Gibson began banging himself against the seat. The report says Gibson told the deputy, "You mother f****r. I'm going to f*** you." The report also says "Gibson almost continually [sic] threatened me saying he 'owns Malibu' (umm, what actor who has been arrested there HASN'T said that?) and will spend all of his money to 'get even' with me."

The report says Gibson then launched into a barrage of anti-Semitic statements: "F*****g Jews... The Jews are responsible for all the wars in the world." (Memo to Mel: which ones: World War I? World War II? Korean War? Vietnam? War of the Roses? Civil War? Revolutionary War? French and Indian War? Franco-Prussian? Sino-Russian? Spanish-American? Mexican-American? War of 1812? Apparently, all of those, plus the ones where "the Jews" were ATTACKED (War of 1973, War of Independence, Persian Gulf War), or about to be (Six Day War). Yes, those crazy Jews with all of their power. So much power that they prevented Mr. Gibson from making over one billion dollars from "The Passion of the Christ" worldwide.) Gibson then asked the deputy, "Are you a Jew?" (The deputy was clearly not, but hey, the tirade had to have SOME relevance to the reality of Mel's situation, right?).

The deputy became alarmed as Gibson's tirade escalated, and called ahead for a sergeant to meet them when they arrived at the station. When they arrived, a sergeant began videotaping Gibson, who noticed the camera and then said, "What the f*** do you think you're doing?"

A law enforcement source says Gibson then noticed another female sergeant and yelled, "What do you think you're looking at, sugar tits?" (Note: Mel's misogynism was nicely captured by this event too. If only he was the policeman hurling the obscenities, he would have hit the Phyllis Schlafly trifecta).

We're told Gibson took two blood alcohol tests, which were videotaped, and continued saying how "f****d" he was and how he was going to "f***" Deputy Mee (obviously, a Jewish name).

Gibson was put in a cell with handcuffs on. He said he needed to urinate, and after a few minutes tried manipulating his hands to unzip his pants (what is it with these so-called devout Catholic men exposing their cocks in the presence of other males?) Sources say Deputy Mee thought Gibson was going to urinate on the floor of the booking cell and asked someone to take Gibson to the bathroom.

After leaving the bathroom, Gibson then demanded to make a phone call. He was taken to a pay phone and, when he didn't get a dial tone, we're told Gibson threw the receiver against the phone (perhaps he thought that he needed a Russell-Crowe-like flourish to add that certain what the French call "I don't know what" to his performance".

Deputy Mee then warned Gibson that if he damaged the phone he could be charged with felony vandalism. We're told Gibson was then asked, and refused, to sign the necessary paperwork and was thrown in a detox cell.

Deputy Mee then wrote an eight-page report detailing Gibson's rampage and comments. Sources say the sergeant on duty felt it was too "inflammatory." (How? To whom?) A lieutenant and captain then got involved and calls were made to Sheriff's headquarters. Sources say Mee was told Gibson's comments would incite a lot of "Jewish hatred," (against Jews, or by Jews?) that the situation in Israel was "way too inflammatory." (what on Earth does the situation in Israel have to do with whether a police report should be doctored? Will Israel strike or not strike a Lebanese target because of what Mel Gibson said? Will Hezbollah stop terrorizing people because of what he did or didn't say?)

It was mentioned several times that Gibson, who wrote, directed, and produced 2004's "The Passion of the Christ," had incited "anti-Jewish sentiment" and "For a drunk driving arrest, is this really worth all that?" (To the police, "Is it really worth all that" meant "Is it really worth including the details of this incitement in the report," not "is it really worth Macho Mel the Mess hurling the epithets over something as trivial as a drunk driving arrest. Nothing like having your priorities straight.)

We're told Deputy Mee was then ordered to write another report, leaving out the incendiary comments and conduct. Sources say Deputy Mee was told the sanitized report would eventually end up in the media and that he could write a supplemental report that contained the redacted information -- a report that would be locked in the watch commander's safe.

Initially, a Sheriff's official told TMZ the arrest occurred "without incident." On Friday night, Sheriff's spokesman Steve Whitmore told TMZ: "The L.A. County Sheriff's Department investigation into the arrest of Mr. Gibson on suspicion of driving under the influence will be complete and will contain every factual piece of evidence. Nothing will be sanitized. There was absolutely no favoritism shown to this suspect or any other. When this file is presented to the Los Angeles County District Attorney, it will contain everything. Nothing will be left out."

On Saturday, Gibson released the following statement:
"After drinking alcohol on Thursday night, I did a number of things that were very wrong and for which I am ashamed. I drove a car when I should not have, and was stopped by the LA County Sheriffs. The arresting officer was just doing his job and I feel fortunate that I was apprehended before I caused injury to any other person. I acted like a person completely out of control when I was arrested, and said things that I do not believe to be true and which are despicable. I am deeply ashamed of everything I said. Also, I take this opportunity to apologize to the deputies involved for my belligerent behavior. They have always been there for me in my community and indeed probably saved me from myself. I disgraced myself and my family with my behavior and for that I am truly sorry. I have battled with the disease of alcoholism for all of my adult life and profoundly regret my horrific relapse. I apologize for any behavior unbecoming of me in my inebriated state and have already taken necessary steps to ensure my return to health."
*********************************************************************************
OK, so Mel the biggie made the statements, and the police sanitized the report. No surprise there. Perhaps it is surprising that someone like Mel would call alcoholism a "disease." Walking macho gonads who drive while intoxicated with bigotry (DWI-B), except when they get caught for the intoxication part, are too "manly" to admit that alcoholism is a disease. So Mel really isn't the thumping lunk of gonatitude he claims he is after all.

The more important question, of course, is whether he really "meant" the anti-Semitic comments. A reader on andrewsullivan.com states, in response to the question, "How drunk was Mel?"

"I just thought I would also observe that according to the Fox New story in your link:
"A breath test indicated Gibson's blood-alcohol level was 0.12 percent. The legal limit in California is 0.08 percent.0.12 is certainly over the line for impaired driving skills, but it is not so very high that Mel would be 'speaking in tongues,' with no connection between his statements and his own internal thought process. At that level of intoxication he simply would be a little freer of social inhibitions, and I suspect that his statements would reliably reflect his thought processes, perhaps even especially so. The only thing with which I disagree with you is that his career will be over. One highly publicized week in a rehab clinic, a Larry King interview, and he’ll be back, bigger than before, with his Christianist fans more in love with their hero than ever. There really is no such thing as bad publicity in the 21st Century."

Now sing along:

"What the world needs now... Is hate, sweet hate...
It's the only thing... That there's just... too little of..."

CRUELLAPOLOGY

Howard Dean, speaking at a fundraiser in West Palm Beach on Wednesday on behalf of Bill Nelson, Democratis Senator from Florida (who faces an, um, er, challenge from Representative Katherine Harris), said the following:

"Thank God for Bill Nelson, because we'd have another crook in the United States Senate if it weren't for him. He is going to beat the pants off Katherine Harris," Dean said during his 20-minute address. "She doesn't understand that it's…improper to be chairman of a campaign and count the votes at the same time. This is not Russia and she is not Stalin."

Ms. Harris was said to be "outraged" by this statements and has demanded an apology from Dr. Dean, for his having compared her to Stalin.

Two words to the Representative who has publicly announced that she is spending the entire sum of the monetary (not property, of course) inheritance her father left to her ($10 million): dream on (ditto with respect to defeating Mr. Nelson).

Mr. Dean has a colorful history of making impromptu, sometimes offensive remarks. I do not care for some of these remarks, nor do I care for some of the more weirdly shaped edges of his jagged abrasiveness. But make no mistake: for a politician (with all that word implies), he has a tendency to speak his mind. This, among other reasons, explains why he will never return to elected office.

May I ask what was so offensive about his remarks?

Josef Stalin, as Mr. Dean probably knew when he made the "offensive" comment, and as Ms. Harris probably did not, famously said, "The people who cast the votes control nothing. The people who count the votes control everything." He, of course, knew this from firsthand experience, having ensured he remained in power by, among other things, ensuring that votes were counted by Stalin loyalists.

Ms. Harris, as of November 7, 2000, was the Chairwoman of the Florida Bush-Cheney campaign, to which she had contributed considerable sums of money that year. Her (appointive - she was appointed by Florida governor Jeb Bush) office did not come with many powers, but one of the office's responsibilities was presiding over Florida elections, and ensuring compliance with Florida election law. I cannot think of another state where the Secretary of State's office does NOT have this power.

However, in many states, the Secretary of State is forbidden from serving, as Harris did, as a member of a party's campaign in a year when an election featuring that party is held. The states that have this rule have fashioned it so as to to neutralize obvious conflicts of interest. Lo and behold, in these states, Secretaries of State are still elected and appointed, and no court has held that any such individual's First Amendment right of association has been infringed on account of such a rule.

Florida (and, of course, its electoral protege, Ohio) do not have such a rule. Thus, the campaign chair, of say, the Republican presidential ticket in year X can, if that person is Secretary of State, preside over a recount of votes if the vote count with respect to the Presidential election in that year X is disputed.(note to all of those people who think Florida election law, even without the benefit of the Florida Supreme Court's gloss thereupon, is a mess: you're right!) Ms. Harris gleefully, as we all know, presided over the recount of the 2000 Presidential Election in her role as Secretary of State, after she was asked to recuse herself on multiple occassions. Apparently, no one in Florida has brought a test case challenging the law (actually lack of law) allowing for a campaign chair to be the vote counter; such a test, if brought, would fail, because a court would probably hold that the would-be plaintiff would have to show actual harm occurred as a result of the duality. Bush v. Gore (a case where several members themselves, of course, had a conflict) implicitly held none did. The people of Florida could demand that a law banning this duality could be passed; this effort would fail as long as the legislature and executive remain in Republican hands. Pity.

So, what about the "Stalin" part of the quote upset her Highness? Ms. Harris determined whether recounts could go ahead, in which counties they could go ahead, and under what conditions they could go ahead, without having to explain herself to anyone. She was given virtually absolute discretion to make these determinations, which effectively served to add or subtract votes from Bush or Gore's column - thus, she in effect counted the votes. She who decides what votes count counts the votes.

Perhaps she was offended by being compared to Stalin generally. After all, Ms. Harris is a conservative (supposedly, even though she embraced Bush v. Gore). Conservatives get very angry when they are compared to Stalin. (Look up the phrases "John Podhoretz" and "Stalin"). If so, that is a product of her own knee-jerk desire to label, not of Mr. Dean's rudeness. Ms. Harris typically, and pathetically, laebeled Mr. Nelson a "liberal" during the campaign (seriously, if she were any more fresh, you'd have to slap her!). People who slap people with labels get quite huffy when they themselves believe they are being labeled. In this case, however, Mr. Dean didn't exactly label her - he explained why he invoked the Stalin reference, and she failed to explain why the reference was not appropriate. Indeed, she has never explained why recusal was not appropriate. Of course, this isn't necessarily her burden - but the more we hear about how corrupt, despicable and tyrannical this woman is, at least we can understand why she never COULD offer the explanation. Small solace, perhaps, as we find out more and more that the "Path to Florida" (literally and figurately speaking; a great Vanity Fair article by that name - chosen to denote how Bush was selected president - was published last year describing Ms. Harris' zealous efforts to ensure Mr. Bush would not be denied the Presidency) will result in a dead-end for Ms. Harris' career and, God willing, a deadly U-Turn in Republicans' political fortunes was paved with mad intentions.

DEAF 'N FISHIN'

So today, Lance Bass, (former?) member of the boy band 'N Sync, announced that he is gay. According to the article I read that reported this story, the revelation hardly came as a shock, because, appparently, Bass had been seen in public with the same man for several months, holding hands with him, and so on.

I suppose different people concluded that Bass was gay (before the story was "officially" broken) for different reasons. Remember "All Good Things," when Picard created an anomaly in space that actually grew bigger in size as time went backwards?

The way things work today, the more "cool" or "in the know" (i.e. full of shit) you are, the earlier you know someone is "gay." While person X may only reveal that fact, if he reveals it at all, at point Z in time, the cool ones cause your gayness (or talk about it) to actually grow bigger in size (certainly in novelty until others may get bored of hearing about it and then move on to creating another backwards-in-time gay anomaly) as time grows backwards.

Here's how it works:

Person X, year 2000: "Person A is gay." Person X then lets all of his friends know of this "fact."
Year 2001: Word gets out to person A, through inadvertent slip of tongue (so to speak) that he is "gay." "Gee, man, I didn't know you majored in chocolatelingus!" "I won't tell anyone!" (Mind you, person A may or may not be gay, in ACTUAL reality, not in the reality we live in. There is a difference between the two).
Year 2002: Person A is officially outed, publicly (say, on a message board, or on a blog).
Year 2003: Person A either comes out (if he is gay), having been permanently scarred by what the definers said about him (whatever criteria they used to come to the conclusion he is gay probably are not in any way the real indicia of why he was gay), or is forced, having been permanently scarred by what the definers said about him, to deny that he is gay. Of course, if you deny you're gay, you're gay.

What even some of the "cool" ones are now doing in a futile attempt to innoculate themselves against charges of being gay is downright absurd. It is not enough to strut around with gonads clucking and with a "I have a load in my pants and lead weights in my arms" gait. Not anymore. Now, at social functions, if you are not already "with" someone (which means you're gay, and which means what I'm about to describe is a futile gesture anyway, but people still do it), you must practically spend your ENTIRE time stalking every single female at that function - even, and especially, then ones who have made clear, for hours upon end, that they are with another guy and that they want to have absolutely nothing to do with you. Why is this? Have things gotten so bad that the mere act of a guy talking to another guy at a social event is an indicum of gayness? When did guys start thinking this? When did girls start thinking this? When will people realize that they've created a situation that lends itself, as does money, good looks, and intelligence, to the following saying: "You can never be too not-gay?"

I have no doubt that as the powers-that-be (or at least some of them) find it increasingly burdensome to "act" as "non-gay" as possible, some will accuse others of acting "too" non-gay (You act so non-gay that you really ARE gay. You're obviously trying too hard). Of course, the powers that be will arbitrarily select whom this reverse non-definition of gay applies to.

Professor Dumbledore once said, "Our lives are defined not by our abilities, but by the choices we make."
I used to not believe that - I used to believe that neither choice nor ability defined our lives - I used to believe that luck, mostly, did.
Now, I almost see Dumbledore's point - or, rather, I understand his point if his words are to be taken literally. If a group of people collectively acts crazily, pettily and hatefully, that group will be ultimately remembered not for whatever abilities it possessed (it squandered them anyway), but for the crazinesss, pettiness and hatefulness. Who will remember it that way? Dumbledore didn't say - and the rememberer may be generations away from being born - but someone will remember.

I know, I know. That sounds so..... gay.

HOLY JOE

I am exasperated by no high-profile Democratic politician more than I am by Joe Lieberman.

Before anyone deigns to slug a politician as "liberal" or "conservative," the slinger might actually want to familiarize himself with the politician's voting records and interest group's ratings. I have located a website that has Senator Lieberman's voting records:

and interest group ratings:

http://www.vote-smart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=S0141103

http://www.vote-smart.org/issue_rating_category.php?can_id=S0141103

A very crude summary of these pages:

2005 According to the National Journal - Composite Liberal Score's calculations, in 2005, Senator Lieberman voted more liberal on economic, defense and foreign policy issues than 66 percent of the Senators.
2005 According to the National Journal - Liberal on Social Policy's calculations, in 2005, Senator Lieberman voted more liberal on social policy issues than 65 percent of the Senators.
2005 According to the National Journal - Composite Conservative Score's calculations, in 2005, Senator Lieberman voted more conservative on economic, defense and foreign policy issues than 34 percent of the Senators.
2005 According to the National Journal - Liberal on Foreign Policy's calculations, in 2005, Senator Lieberman voted more liberal on foreign policy issues than 54 percent of the Senators.
2005 According to the National Journal - Conservative on Economic Policy calculations, in 2005 Senator Lieberman voted more conservative on economic policy issues than 25 percent of Senators.
2005 According to the National Journal - Conservative on Foreign Policy's calculations, in 2005, Senator Lieberman voted more conservative on foreign policy issues than 45 percent of the Senators.
2005 According to the National Journal - Liberal on Economic Policy's calculations, in 2005, Senator Lieberman voted more liberal on economic policy issues than 74 percent of the Senators.
2005 According to the National Journal - Conservative on Social Policy's calculations, in 2005, Senator Lieberman voted more conservative on social policy issues than 29 percent of the Senators.


What does this show? That overall, Lieberman is left of center (a moderate-to-conservative Democrat), and that on foreign policy issues, he is more conservative than pretty much anyone in his party (to paraphrase Spock in Star Trek II, "that would explain a great many things.")

Lieberman is up for re-election this November (in 2000, he wisely decided to run for re-election for the Senate at the same time he ran for Vice-President), and is facing a fierce primary challenge from Ned Lamont. Lamont's campaign strategy has been a simple, effective one: he has chosen to play up Lieberman's support of the Iraq war, his feeling up (and being felt up) by President Bush, and anything else that might suggest in voters' minds the notion that Lieberman and Bush are birds of a feather. Lamont has, in short, decided to run against George Bush, and, in a span of several months, the little-known Lamont has, in some polls, recently taken the lead against the junior senator (with 18 years of service) from Connecticut.

Of course, Lieberman resents being compared with Bush (if only Lieberman made it his business to avoid any more photo-ops with the man!), and has implored Lamont to run against Lieberman and his record, not against George Bush. Such a plea comes from a candidate who smells trouble in the air; indeed, Lieberman has already announced that if he loses the primary, he will run for the Senate as an "Independent Democrat," whatever that means. Whether he could defeat the Republican candidate, whomever that will be, if he runs on this ticket, is not clear; the contest could shape up like the 1912 Taft-Roosevelt-Wilson election, with Lieberman as Roosevelt and the Republican as Wilson.

So, what does one make of that voting record, by the way? Well, Lieberman has taken some stances on certain issues - stances that I do not feel comfortable with. He seems to support school vouchers for the sake of supporting them, and would support the current regime's censorship of "violence" in video games and television. While his motives for these positions may be genuine (even if the genuineness stems from his privileged social class and moral aloofness), I don't believe Lieberman is solicitous enough of the First Amendment. Or of the Second, for that matter. I think he is also subtly (and sometimes none-too) patronizing of women, in terms of what he believes about their abilities, and what their rights should be. I cannot quite articulate why I feel this way; reading between the lines sometimes make you see (or makes you think you see) things that cannot come into the light of description. As far as Lieberman's status as an Orthodox Jew, and his frequent usage of the word "God" during the 2000 campaign season, Americans supposedly like religious candidates who give the impression of taking their religion sincerely and seriously. Lieberman comes off many times as pious (if not religiously pious per se), but I do not believe that he invokes God flippantly, for effect, to polarize, or to, as Sandra Day O'Connor said, disfavor certain members of the political community, as George Bush does, and as George HW Bush and Ronald Raygun did.

The fact that a ticket whose Vice-Presidential candidate was Jewish received more votes than a Waspier than a hornet's nest ticket did in 2000 - and the fact that the former ticket in fact won the decisive state - is a sign of tremendous progress in the nation. In 2004, Lieberman ran for President and got clobbered in the primaries. Some say this was because he is simply not very animated; his wit is too dry, his manner too inaccessible. Some (including me) say while this is true, to a degree, he will, in a nutshell, never be President for the simple reason that he is Jewish, and the 2004 primary results were a reflection of the supposedly tolerant Democratic party's intolerant attitude towards Jewish candidates (although Republicans, of course, still are more intolerant on this score; indeed, no non-male WASP has EVER been on a Republican presidential ticket).

So what do I think of Lieberman? He's one of those people upon which I can't render an easy verdict. I have grave misgivings about his position on Iraq - not so much because of what that position is (pro-war), but because he seems to merely function as a cheerleader - telling us to support the President and to resist the call to armlessness of the opposition - without offering any thoughts, constructive criticisms, compliments, whatever, on this conflict. He has staked out a rather safe position. Perhaps this is intentional: should he articulate his pro-war stance in greater detail, one side or the other will hate him more, and right now, he is in the unique, and uniquely bad position, of being unable to afford to be perceived as too far to the left (why vote for him when Lamont is already perceived as the real deal on that score) or as too far to the right (in which case he has the TR problem).

I agree with his position on most social and ecomonic issues generally, but what concerns me most about him is his utter silence in the face of George Bush's constitutional power grab. To me, a truly principled war supporter would not be afraid to, while supporting Bush to the extent that he is "conducting that war," speak out against how he has used that war to skid-mark the Constitution (note that taking these stances does not necessarily make one truly principled; these stances are necessary, but not sufficient; I am not sure if there is such a thing as a "truly principled" war supporter, or if there is such a thing as a "truly principled" opponent, because the war is more of a Roscharch test than any war before it). Does this silence (a silence that stands out within the party) reflect just silence, or is Lieberman really trying to buddy up with the Grand Dumb-Ba? And if he is, why? Why would he want to do this with someone whom he ran against six years ago? What's in it for Lieberman? Bush won't be President for much longer, and Lieberman must know he can never get the job himself.

The screechers on the left have a name for Lieberman that is self-explanatory: "Holy Joe"

Perhaps they, instead of cheaply ridiculing him, and Rethugs, instead of supporting him simply because of that ridicule, should ask, "Holy Joe, Holy Joe. What gives?"

WELL, THERE IT SITS!

In one of the best episodes of Star Trek: The Next Geenration, the android Data is visited by a Starfleet "android" specialist, who proposes that Data be shut down (through a simple on/off switch located near the back of his neck), so that Data can be studied and future copies of him made. Data is sui generis; he (and his twin, Lore) are the only androids known to exist. Their creator even programmed them with routines sub-rotines, and an emotion chip, no less, so that the androids could study, experience, mimic, and one day, maybe, FEEL human emotions.

A trial is held in this episode, "The Measure of a Man," to determine whether Data is a machine (and thus mere property subject to being shut down and copied), or whether he meets - in even the sligtest degree - the definition of life," such that he can properly object to the specialist's procedure.

The trial climaxes with a discourse on the very nature of life itself. What, Picard, in Data's defense does it mean to be alive? He and the specialist, Cmdr. Maddox, find common ground, seizing upon the word "sentience." To be alive is to be sentient. Maddox, in turn, states that sentience involves three components: Intelligence, self-awareness, and consciousness.

Someoe who is "self-aware," according to Maddox, is "conscious of his existence and actions... aware of himself and his own ego" Picard then asks Data why he is in the courtroom proceeding at which these pints are argued. Data: "To determine my status: an I a person or property." "And if you are adjudged to be property?" Picard asks. "I will be shut down and will have no rights at all." Picard then looks at Maddox. "Well, seems reasonably self-aware to me."

Intelligence, Maddox says, is"the ability to learn and understand and to cope with new situations." "Like this hearing [to determine whether Data is a person or property]?" asks Picard, thereby answering in the affirmative the question of whether Data is intelligent.

Picard then slams Maddox: "I see he's met two of your criteria for sentience. What if he meets the third? What if he has a conscience, to even the slightest degree?"

Picard the turns to the judge: "If he meets this third criterion, what is he then? I don't know, do you? (to Riker) Do you? (to judge) Do you? (to Maddox) Well that's the question you have to answer. Your honor, the courtroom is a crucible. In it we burn away irrelevancies until we are left with a pure product, the truth. For all time. Now sooner or later, this man, or others like him will succeed in replicating Commander Data. And the decision you reach here today will determine how we will regard this creation of our genius. It will reveal the kind of a people we are, what he is destined to be. It will reach far beyond this courtroom and this one android. It could significantly redefine the boundaries of personal liberty and freedom, expanding them for some, savagely curtailing them for others. Are you prepared to condemn him and all who come after him to servitude and slavery? Your honor, Star fleet was founded to seek out new life. Well THERE IT SITS! Waiting."

The judge then takes a recess. She notes that the question of whether Data is man or machine, and of whether he has a conscience, simply is not, on some fundamental level, suspectible of a legal determination. "This question is beter left to the domain of saints and philosophers," she says. "But, I have to nonetheless make a ruling, to speak to the future. And it occurs to me that we've all been dancing around the real question here. Does Data have a soul? I don't know. I don't know that I have one. But it the ruling of this court that Data should have the opportunity to explire the answer to this question for himself. I therefore rule that Data is not the property of Starfleet and that he has the right to chose whether to be disassembled." Data then promptly informs Maddox of his refusal to submit to the procedure.

Strange, how in one, 45-minute television episode, the debate over "What is life" had more substance, passion, give-and take, and yes, life, then the entire debate in the U.S. Congress about the stem-cell research bill that President Bush shamefully vetoed. Andrew Sullivan describes the veto as political courage (how does he know that the veto signifies that, as opposed to say, pandering? This President has never cared about popular opinion, regardless of whether he should have). I think the veto signifies a complete failure on Bush's part to immerse himself in the crucible. A more thoughtful President would have asked himself questions such as "Is a blastocyte conscious? Intelligent? Self-aware?" Had that President forced himself to ask those questions, he might have been forced to face some difficult truths - truths that may not - probably are not - truths when a fetus of a certain age is concerned. Instead, Bush took the easy way out, using the battery of false logic. "We were all embryos once." (Yes, non-discarded ones that were not designated for no other purpose than destruction that conseratives couldn't care less about saving." "The children standing before me today as I sign this bill are not spare parts." (No, they're props). Was anyone proposing to kill a spare part, or something from which a spare part actually was to be harvested? Are scientists really creating embryos solely for the purpose of stem-cell harvesting? No, and no. Even if one agrees with an ultimate decision that Bush reaches, the rationale he employs to reah it is so disingenuous, so shoddy, and so untethered to reality that he all but defies you to take a stance opposite to his. If he truly believes a blastocyte is human life, let's hear why - without the ad hominem attacks the false choice logic, the misstatements of fact, the facts that are relevant but not necessarily true, and the facts that are true but not necessarily relevant. That Bush can only defend his decisions by putting on a sideshow naturally leads one to believe that he treats the decision-making process not as a crucible in which impuruties are burned until the truth as reached - but to believe that he treats it as the grand finale of a circus act.

All of us - unborn and born - deserve better.





http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/5478602

THE MEEK THEY HAD A WORD FOR THAT

Well, someone finally did it. Defined the phrase "Swift-Boat" in a dictionary (that is, if one considers wikipedia a dictionary. I do).

According to wikipedia, a "Swift-Boat" attack is:

"an ad hominem attack against a public figure, coordinated by an independent or pseudo-independent group, usually resulting in a benefit to an established political force. Specifically, this form of attack is controversial, easily repeatable, and difficult to verify or disprove because it is generally based on personal feelings or recollections."

Notice several key words:

1)ad hominem
2) difficulty to verify or disprove
3) generally based on personal feelings or recollections

In short, and at best, one cannot effectively respond to these attacks using the attackers' rules of engagement (even in politics, some battles are well-joined in this fashion. Not this one).

An ad hominem attack is an attack that calls into question the alleged failings of an adversary rather than on the merits of the case. What is especially pernicious about today's Republicans is that 1) they do not even try to present a "case" from which merits can be discussed (and from which they can try to change the topic by resort to the ad hominem; just think for a moment - what was the larger "case" the Republicans were debating that overlayed the Swift Boat attacks? That Kerry was not fit to be Commander in Chief? Did they really present a cogent argument on this point? No, they grunted and hissed sporadically that he could not be Commander and Chief - indeed, the "case" itself was an ad hominem attack, of which the Swift Boating was an ad hominem within an ad hominem). 2) The alleged "failings" of the adversay that drive the ad hominem attacks are created out of whole cloth. Prior successsful ad hominem attacks at least pointed to a fact that was alleged to be a "failing" (i.e. Dukakis would not sign a bill forcing students to recite the Pledge). Now, the very premise of the ad hominem attack - its raison d'etre - is manufactured. The Swift Boaters are infatuated by the logic of "how does one disprove a negative?" Indeed, they DARE their opponents to prove any falsehood they sling to be incorrect.

The Swift-Boat attack, as noted above, is difficult to verify or disprove. Ever see the movie "Rashomon?" This 1951 Akira Kurosawa classic tells the story of the rape and murder of a Japanese woman from four different points of view. Each person - whom the story implies is a suspect (although the movie is not a police procedural; it simply recounts the tale of each person) has a different version of how the death occurred. Kurosawa, once he came up with the idea for the story, gave a copy of the screenplay to two trusted associates. Both read the script and were utterly befuddled. They approached him and said, "Sir, you have written this story of a gruesome murder, and have told of how the murder occurs from four different points of view, but there is no resolution to the story. We do not know who committed it! Who would want to see such a story? We do not get it." Kurosawa took the associates aside and explained what he was getting at: how the concepts of memory, of ego, of motivation, of passion, and of manipulation, can sometimes make the "objective truth" impossible to ascertain. THAT, he said, was the point of the story. The unsatisfactory ending WAS the point of the story because human beings' petty limitations create such unsatisfactoriness. "I am doing nothing more, and nothing less, than dramatizing this truth," Kurosawa said. One assistant "got it," the other didn't.

Whether Karl Rove ever watched this movie, I do not know, but he might as well have, because he has taken its Cliffs Notes version and adapted it for his own purposes: the Cliffs notes version says: the objective truth is often impossible to obtain. Rove's gloss thereon: since this is true, fabricate a series of events in conformity with this principle. People won't then think you're lying; they'll just think that the fabricators are acting out - dramatizing (and how!) the "truth" adverted to above. Of course, what makes Rove's gloss especially foul is that the motives of the attackers are cloaked in a swath of pseudo-righteousness. The four storytellers in Rashomon, whatever they wanted each other and us to believe, necessarily were stripped of this swath because they were murder suspects. They were the ones on the defensive. A succesful Swift-Boat attack, Rashomon-style, requires that the motives of the attackers be superficially above the fray. After all, why would someone go to such lengths to attack, say John Kerry, at great risk to that someone's own personal career, UNLESS that person were proceeding out of a noble motive? (Republican answer: unless that person is named Anita Hill and John Kery is Clarence Thomas, the answer is "no reason.") Therefore, to attack the attacker requires us to, at least temporarily, ignore the "substance" of his message and examine his potential motivations. The media, however, refuses to do this. It will only report an "illicit" motivation AFTER that motivation has been brought to its attention. It takes more effort for a person - or the public - to NOT swallow something miraculously coming out of stage left in the final act than it does to swallow an incredibly well-timed, Hail-Mary coincidence. Why? Because of religion, in part - specifically, how it has lobotomized people into believing coincidences, fairy tales, contrivances, and implausibilities. Repeat after me: "Let's make a deal: If you don't pray in my school, I won't think in your church."

Finally, the Swift Boat attack, as noted above, is based on personal feelings or recollections. Even where the attacker makes his own personal feelings or recollections plain, people will STILL refuse to evaluate the attacker's comments critically. Why? Does the phrase "Republican noise machine" ring a bell? I remember Sean Insanity, on Faux News, singing the Swift Boaters' praises, saying "Why are you guys (the li-bruls) trying to shut them up?" (There's a funny one - the idea of a non-conservative on network news cutting off someone's mic). I then remember him saying - and here is the noise machine at work - "200 Swifties said this, and Kerry said this. Who would you believe?" Well, that must settle it. The more noise one side makes, the more "right" that one side is, period. Creationists make much more noise about the ""correctness" of creation science than evolutionists do about the strength of science; therefore, evolution is ipso facto a flawed hypothesis, is how this argument goes. Right? 80% of Fox News viewers believe Saddam Hussein attacked us on Sept.11th, and since these small-balled, wife-beating, three-toothed, fat-gutted, redneck, local yokel bumpkin bubba schlubba hateriots whine and squeak louder than people who know that "fact" is false, they're right, right? Right-wing commentators harness (the same) hateful comment after comment in an effort to show that these comments, which represent mere (ill-founded) opinion, are "fact." Only someone who is attracted to loud noises falls for this kind of crap. But then again, many people are attracted to loud noises. Fox News is the highest-rated cable news network, by far, and not coincidentally, people who watched it are more factually misinformed about the Iraq war, September 11th, and the "war on terror" than people who get their news from ANY other source.

So, how do we fight the Swift Boaters? With common sense, logic, reasoning and earplugs. The war on thinking is leaving the first three in short supply, but I don't think Republicans have cornered the earplug market. Yet.

NIGHT OY VEY, YOU'RE NOT THE ONE

Night Shyamalan's "Lady in the Water" opens on Friday.

I'm delighted that the reviews are uniformly horrible. This man is a strutting egotist whose mouth is infinitely deeper and wider than his talent.

Rex Reed offered the most scathing summation of the Night phenomenon in the New York Observer:


"As vacation time nears, it is safe to say that no matter how rotten things get on the big screen during the rest of the summer, the worst of it is over. Hollywood cannot pollute the ozone with anything more idiotic, contrived, amateurish or sub-mental than Lady in the Water. This piece of pretentious, paralyzing twaddle is the latest in a series of head-scratchers by the incompetent, self-delusional M. Night Shyamalan. He’s the writer, producer and director, and terrible at all three, but if that isn’t bad enough, this time he has even gone one further and cast himself in one of the roles. I am here to tell you he is about as camera-ready as the corpse that Tommy Lee Jones dragged across the cactus in Three Burials of Melquiades Estrada. In a war of wits, brains, imagination and talent, Mr. Shyamalan would be defenseless."

"Lady in the Water is described by Mr. Shyamalan as a “bedtime story” he told to his kids. Do not even think of repeating it to yours unless you plan to turn them into runaways, orphans or worse."

"A whole book has just been published about Mr. Shyamalan’s reckless budget, myopic vision and refusal to throw in the towel, after at least six Walt Disney executives flew to Philadelphia to meet with him before admitting they didn’t understand the script. Only the accountants will ever know if they were prophets or fools, but in my opinion, when Disney turns you down on the basis of incoherence, you know it’s time for a reality check."

As as Night keeps making films to satisfy himself, rather than to entertain an audience (he seems to be combining the languid pace of Kubrick's dialogue with the thematic self-importance of Oliver Stone with the flat-footed storytelling of a John Landis; what a great combination), he will no longer be able to boast, as he did in 2005, that "every" summer movie that "is a hit this summer" "was once offered to me."

LEX LUTHOR, A MUSLIM?

No, I do not ask this question, in half-seriousness, because Superman's arch-nemesis, in his present incarnation, is played by world-class nutcase and raging egomaniac Kevin Spacey, in the (very) disappointingly underwhelming "Superman Returns." (You know a movie is in trouble when two dead people - Christopher Reeve and Marlon Brando - receive more applause during the reel of the film than does any scene in the film, and when John Williams' rousing theme - played AS JOHN WILLIAMS' THEME over the opening credits - is the highlight of the film).

I ask because of Luthor's diabolical scheme in this particular film to take over the world. What's the scheme this time, Lex? To rip out Superman's sphincter? To blow up the New York Times Building (oh, wait - that's Lex Coultor)? To suck the collective intelligence out of all of America, a la Jim Carrey in Batman Forever? (Good luck there. Try filling up a canister! And this is from the blue states!)

No, Lex' scheme involves...... real estate (how apropos!) Luthor, having located Superman's Fortress of Solitude in the most frozen reaches of Earth, has stolen a series of crystals from the forrtress. (He also has managed to pilfer a puny piece of kryptonite from the Metropolis Museum of Natural Historry). He discovers that the crystals, when launched as projectiles into the ocean.... have miraculous terraforming properties. The launch of one such crystal can create an entire mass of land off the coast of North America. Luthor deploys the crystal and this land mass is formed. (The movie is mum about how exactly the formation does not run afoul of the Second Law of Thermodynamics). Of course, as Luthor notes, as the land mass expands - as he projects it will - on to the North American continent, eventually, the North American continent will be submerged underwater (since, as he notes, two masses cannot occupy the same space at the same time. The guy quotes Prometheus early on in the movie; forget aobut him; he needs to brush up on his Archimedes).

In due course, the land mass is created, and North America begins to drown. Luthor begins to crow about how having formed the land mass will make him the richest man in the world (never mind that when billions of people die because of your accident, it might not mean very much to have that designation), because the North American survivors and the rest of the planet's population will just be "dying" to live on his new continent, he says.

So what will this new world look like ten years hence? When it is formed, it is such a vast, empty wasteland that Marshall McLuhan would blanch at the sight of it. (Think of a pre-construction condo for which no one has signed up). But surely, Luthor has plans to, over the next ten years, spruce the place up a bit, right? Wrong! In ten years, the place will look as disgusting and will be as inhospitable as it is now! In short, not even the "We Buy Ugly Houses" folks would snap up a house on this hulking heap of junk. Not that this matters to Luthor - for he has remembered Scarlett O'Hara's father's famous dictum from Gone With the Wind - "land is the only thing that matters. It's the only thing that lasts." (Of course, Mr. O'Hara lived on Tara, not Scara).

Luthor has Muslim-like properties, I think, because he thirsts to render land inhospitable, much as the Muslims who want to drive Israel into the sea want to render Israel inhospitable. I wonder which the Muslims want more - the death of all of the Jews in Israel as an end in and of itself, or that death as a mere means to another end: the complete flotsamization of the Middle East.

SIGN HERE

Conservative (but thinking) law professor Richard Epstein of the University of Chicago - a brilliant commentator in a wide variety of legal fields - argues against the enforcement, recognition - and very idea - of Presidential signing staements - for, among other reasons, the following:

"Signing statements, I fear, could be the opening wedge to a presidential posture that judicial decisions may limit the president's ability to use courts to enforce his policies, but cannot stop him from acting unilaterally. On this theory, the president could continue to order wiretaps and surveillance in opposition to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act after a court had determined that he has exceeded his powers--he just couldn't use the evidence acquired in court. Different branches of government have different views of the law, yet the executive marches on. A major check on executive power goes by the boards."

Astonishing. Bush's toadies on the Supreme Court have already told him that constitutional violations are still constitutional violations, but the fruits of these violations can now be used in court (see, e.g., Hudson v. Michigan, Patane v. United States, and various and sundry other cases wherein dead Chief Justice Rehnquist, O'Connor, FFF, TTT, SSSSS, Mugwump, or Robots ruled the exclusionary rule does not apply to a deliberate Fourth, Fifth or Sixth Amendment violation.

Now, the "thinkers" behind Presidential signing statement want it the other way around in some instances: they want to bully the courts into allowing them to violate the law, only to then declare that they will continue to violate it anyway, just so long as the evidence isn't presented in Court.

What won't King Shit do?

CALLING JOHN ZOGBY

Renowned pollster John Zogby recently weighed in on Israel's two-front defensive against Hamas and Hezbollah. Zogby is Arab-American, of course, which means he purports to condemn "terror" (and which means that his definition of that word is what it needs to be, as the occasion demands).

A Huffington Post reader responded to Zogby's latest post - about how "violence" must stop amongst the respective parties - as follows:

"With ALL due Respect, MR, Zogby.Israel is not drawing Iran and Syria into any conflict.

Iran has been saberrattling for months now. Hezbullah is ISLAMIC JIHAD directed out of Iran and Syria. It has overtaken an at least partially christian nation, Lebanon.

Hamas is an arm of the PA government. It claimed credit for the invasion of Israel, killing of two soldiers in sovereign Israel, and kidnapping a third soldier, calling the soldier a prisoner of war. (Can you imagine what Hamas would have done had Israel done this to IT?)

Hamas thus declared a war. This Hamas incursion was carefully timed and calibrated with a similar incursion of Hezbullah into Northern Israel, and again Hezbullah declared the abducted soldiers........PRISONERS OF WAR....thus declaring war.

Today Hezbullah has declared AN OPEN WAR.........................Hezbullah, NOT Israel. Yes, it is time for the Middle East to change. *Palestine* lost the war long, long ago, and once again when ARAFAT, who was personally "Palestine" and because of that was entitled, in his own opinion, to billions donated for the poor people of *Palestine*, *Palestine* died. You can not have it both ways. Either Arafat was NOT Palestine and then Suha and the rest of that corrupt PA establishment should give the donated billions to the poor people of *Palestine*, OR he was, and then that case is dead and closed.

Under "occupation" the occupied can act in defiance, as we did in Europe during WWII, in the underground. Such actions were NOT executed by making excursions into Germany and murdering civilians there. No, we remained in our respective countries and directed operations at the soldier/occupier. What is done in the Middle East by Muslims, and done by Muslims all over the world is terrorism, it is the murder and maiming of innocent civilians, even their own fellow muslims. Who can justify that, or understand it? It is not a legitimate operation against an occupier.

Shiites just this week murdered innocent fellow Indians in ...Mumbai. Not one Israeli involved. Shiites were involved in a terrorist attack inside Jordan, a muslim country. Hezbullah is holding Lebanon, and its government, hostage and murdered some very beloved leaders there. Again, Hezbullah is financed and operated out of IRAN and Syria. But, you, Mr. Zogby, as an Arab, know that much better than I do. These persons would not continue to be a scourge on all the world if their leaders would reign them in. It is easy enough. They are docile, and follow orders (well, not sure about the docile part, but they've been so thoroughly brainwashed and have so deliberately walled themselves off from the rest of - now excuse me while I laugh out loud as I say "the rest of" - civilization - that this brainwashing can continue in perpetuity).

The Dutch government stepped down just recently, over a muslim issue; some advocated deportation, others were against it. The Dutch, and I am Dutch, have always embraced others, other religions, and we have always been an open country. That is for at least two reasons. We depend on trade. And we are curious and want to learn from others. The Dutch did not cary any guns, not even the police when I left there in the late sixties. A muslim, who did not agree with a ......movie.....did not register his complaint in an open debate...no, he MURDERED...in The Netherlands, a Dutch filmmaker. A MUSLIM murdered a very young man in Brussels, in his twenties, the father of a house full of children, a Rabbi, not in an open man to man fight, and for a reason, no sniping, with a gun, from behind, and for NO reason, not even money. The Rabbi had a good amount of money on him which was left untouched. NO REASON was given.

You KNOW, Mr. Zogby, what is going on. It is up to YOU, and your fellow ARABS and MUSLIMS to change the Middle East. It is NOT up to others. There is migration all over the world, Mr. Zogby, and that has been the case for decades. MUSLIMS and ARABS are all over the world. There is an interactive map on that on the CNN website. And they are hated all over the world, for a reason. Muslims are free to practice their religion all over the world, including Israel, and they are in the Knesset as well. (By contrast, to whom do Islamic states grant the right of freedom of religion? Or any of the rights that have generally been regarded as those attendant to the ushering out of the Dark Ages?) Muslims deny other religions that freedom. Just a week or so ago the Pope (the world's most visable face of bigotry, no less) has urgently requested reciprocity on that issue (imagine - the vicar of Christ legitimately pleads with another religion for that religion to become more tolerant!).

You, Mr. Zogby are in the U.S. You came from...where...Lebanon? (Yes, he did). Are there more Arabs and Muslims in the U.S. than in Lebanon? Yes. Is there an ongoing war on to drive you out? Is there in Europe? (Answer: no - people are too terrified to do so, and as bigoted as the west is, the West would rather get raped by Muslims for its relative tolerance than punish Muslims for their lack of same). Look at the extensive Muslim and Islamic and ARAB territory as compared to that tiny sliver of Israel.

Muslims are destructive, they murder, they destroy. They do have other choices. In Gaza, for example, they could have operated the greenhouses, which were profitable businesses, learned from it, and expanded those businesses. Instead they destroyed them. They had "other plans". We are seeing what these other plans are right before our eyes. Again, they had a choice and they could have asked the Israelis they made into refugees in their own country, and who had built these businesses, to help them out and teach them. We all have choices, Mr. Zogby, even the muslim. Islamic Jihad can be fought by murder and mayhem. It does NOT convert me. OR, it could choose another tack, one of helping and showing another face, BEING something else, creative and constructive. The choice, Mr. Zogby, lies on Muslim shoulders, fair and square. I declare all Muslims reponsible adults.There are other muslims, in fact most muslims, who have moved on. There are a few backwards groups who have to insist and force their ways on others, not only "infidels," but even their fellow muslims who belong to another group.

Even within that muslim definition it is allowed to murder your child, your parents, is it not? Or, am I misinformed? Give us some details. It is Muslim parents who outfit their children with explosive belts and send them to their deaths, is it not? It is Muslim parents who teach their children hatred, is it not? Apart from whom it is directed at, it is a destructive force that kills the soul, from within. Those children, no matter whose side you are on, are denied life, joy, a soul even. They are dead before they are even actually hurtled into their deaths (and then their deaths are celebrated among the faithful in one tongue, while "outrage" over those deaths is hissed over al-Jazeera in another tongue). .I am a mother and a grandmother. I see those beautiful children, and I can not fathom, for the life of me, how any parent could do this to another soul, let alone his own children. This can not be understood. Maybe by fellow Muslims, but by no one else. Iran, Mr. Zogby, has been posturing for position, making its declarations, about Israel, and its insistence on owning the nuclear bomb. The world - has nothing to do with Israel - will have nothing of it. Iran has a bloody nose, as does Syria. Those hotheads over there are trying to save face by distraction. No, maybe it is not time any longer, Mr. Zogby, for the U.S. to step in. But rather, maybe it is time for this worldwide scourge to be stopped, once and for all, sothat we may have peace and life on this earth, and not murder, death and war. Make this world a better place and...START WITH YOURSELF.
************************************************
Bill Bennett, fat degenerate and hypocritical moral scold, properly drew condemndation when he recently bleated, "Well, if you abort every black baby in America, your crime rate will go down." (Actually, the rate would go down if every white baby were aborted, as well).

Of course, I do not advocate the extermination of Muslims. But whites commit crimes, whereas non-Muslims have not been involved in hijacking of planes, "honor killings," stoning their wives, stoning homosexuals, flying planes into buildings, suicide-bombing practically ever country on the face of the planet, and so on. I know - someone's always "making" them do it. Then why don't they recognize, therefore, or believe, that that "someone" therefore implicitly believes these people deserve the consequences of their actions?

BAD DAY, II

Yes, I realize, poring over the lyrics of this song a little more carefully, that the song appears to be describing or referring to a relationship of some kind.. "You and I.." (You tell me "don't lie.")

So what? I can still make it my theme song of the moment. Making one part of oneself and another part of oneself the two components of the relationship results in the lyrics reading just fine.

Previous (and to-be-again) theme song: Peggy Lee's "Is That All There Is?"

BAD DAY

For me, discovering a trend or phenonmenon in popular culture within a year of its development is an achievment (to the extent such things can be considered achievments). I always like to myself, "You were not cool before it was not cool to be not cool!" I've always been behind the times, out of the times, and so on.

Of course, today, to be with it, you have to be up on the drivelish sludge that passes for what music Americans listen to. I'm not up on this. I couldn't be even if I wanted to be. How good a song is is determined, by today's standards, how cool the "artist" is - this standard is even more ridiculous than the standard people my age use for "evaluating" movies. How "cool" the artist is, in turn, has little or nothing (preferably nothing) to do with the artist's talent. Some days, the artist is cool because he molested a child. Some days he's not cool for the same reason. Some days he's cool because he shot someone; some days he's not cool because he shot someone who was another artist who was a child molester that was thus cool for that day. You see how it goes. Also, people get their songs from many more different sources than people get films from - they thus have less experiences to share them communally, and when friends hear them together for the first time, therefore, it's easier to criticize a song, out of fear of not looking cool, than it is to praise it. Blah.

There's a song that came out some time last year by some guy named Daniel Powter called "Bad Day." I'm sure everyone knows of this song already. After all, I'm only writing aout it now.... Mr. Powter is from the British Isles, but the song has become enormously popular in the U.S. In fact, as I just found out, it was played (I think) during the last season of American Idol each time a contestant was eliminated (yes, I don't watch American Idol, either. I'm hitting all the high notes tonight!)

I've been hearing this song on lite fm radio over the past few months (and I figured it was called "Bad Day," which turned out to be correct), and have gotten a copy of it. It's quite good. Here are the lyrics (they are enunciated so as to be heard, which gives the song an automatic non-F, and some of them actually construct cognizable sentences. The grade thus is at a D):

"Where is the moment when we need it the most
You kick up the leaves and the magic is lost
They tell me your blue sky's faded to grey
They tell me your passion's gone away
And I don't need no carrying on
You stand in the line just to hit a new low
You're faking a smile with the coffee to go
You tell me your life's been way off line
You're falling to pieces every time
And I don't need no carrying on

(refrain)
Cause you had a bad day
You're taking one down
You sing a sad song just to turn it around
You say you don't know
You tell me don't lie
You work at a smile and you go for a ride
You had a bad day
The camera don't lie
You're coming back down and you really don't mind
You had a bad day
You had a bad day

Well you need a blue sky holiday
The point is they laugh at what you say
And I don't need no carrying on

You had a bad day
You're taking one down
You sing a sad song just to turn it around
You say you don't know
You tell me don't lie
You work at a smile and you go for a ride
You had a bad day
The camera don't lie
You're coming back down and you really don't mind
You had a bad day
You had a bad day

Sometimes the system goes on the blink and the whole thing it turns out
Wrong
You might not make it back and you know that you could be well oh that
Strong
Well I'm not wrong
So where is the passion when you need it the most
Oh you and I
You kick up the leaves and the magic is lost

Cause you had a bad day
You're taking one down
You sing a sad song just to turn it around
You say you don't know
You tell me don't lie
You work at a smile and you go for a ride
You had a bad day
You see what you like
And how does it feel, one more time
You had a bad day
You had a bad day
You had a bad day."

Not terribly profound, doesn't make a whole lot of sense (don't know what, exactly? Don't lie about what? Who gets "turned around" by singing a bad song? Whatever happened to just fucking? What exactly is "taking one down?" What does "you're coming back down and you really don't mind" mean, in the context of the rest of the refrain? Who knows?

What the song seems to be conveying, though, is at least this much: people have bad days (more than once), from which they cannot automatically recover. The song's mere acknowledgment of this is refreshing, especially when one realizes that the lyrics are not necessarily being uttered by some pouty diva who wouldn't know what it meant to have a bad day if it crushed him in the rectum.

Can a depressed person listen to this song to cheer up? Or to just remind himself that every day is a bad day? I don't know, but I suppose that listening to this song constitutes a more "socially acceptable" way of doing either than most other things (even though the song is officially "out" now, and now that I have mentioned it, "outed," as some might say).

Why am I really writing about this song, though? Surely, other songs exist, even ones I've heard of, that acknowledge life sucks. And since they're not cool (if for no other reason than I listen to them), what's so special (not cool, mind you - special) about this one?

It's very catchy. Bouncy. Peppy. It's the kind of song I can listen to with the radio blasting (which, for me, means on with the volume at about 5 on the Spinal Tap scale). Listening to the song - like listening to any great song - makes me feel just a little better, because the song was well-made.

Am I saying that by listening to "Bad Day," I am ensuring that I have less of a "Bad Day?" Well, I'll put it this way. I wish more people would keep constructing more theme songs for me. If more songs reflected what the world were really like, and what people really felt about each other, we'd have, among other things, lots of blank discs, lots of discs on permanent feedback, and lots of one-word refrains. But we'd also have some stuff worth listening to. And if that stuff were as catchy as "Bad Day" is, who knows? Maybe (in fact, probably), listening to music would become uncool. Thus, I could have my great songs without creating the proverbial vergence in the force, and all will be good with the universe. Well, not really. But the day the music became uncool would definitely would be a "Bad Day" - just not, for once, mine.

G-HATE

Earlier today, my mother was commenting to me about by fraternal twin brother, who is living in Israel (as of today, or so, he has lived there for about two years, and will live there for yet one more before returning to the U.S.; if nothing else, living in that land has given him the pleasure of finding another group of people to hate).

She said that my brother had not called her or my father in the past several days. This pronunciation worried me. After all, my parents are in Orlando ((recall "the nexus" from Star Trek Generations? My father, one woulld like to think, should recall the episode "Tapestry," except that perhaps he should realize that it is only when one cares to do right about oneself that getting stabbed in an artificial heart (placed in the body because the original heart was destroyed in a battle with a deadly foe where principle dictated fight) gives one a second chance at life. He has been given a second chance by being given a new kidney. Let us hope that now, not all he can do is "complain" and further rape. Please, for the love of God. Refraining from these two activities alone will be as close as he gets, insofar as attending to his health is concerned, to learning the lessons of this episode)), and my brother has dutifully called them every several days or so to see how my father is doing. I hope all of them are doing well, because once again, the nation of Israel, surrounded by protean vermin who would wreak its detruction for hate's sake, has forced that nation to prepare once again to prepare for battle and "await the dawn."

And what have the flotsammy twin parasites of Hamas and Hizbullah (the Farsi translation of which literally comes out to be "Hitler supporters in headscarves") done this time so as to capapult themselves upon their preferred and permanent perch of victimhood?

Hamas kidnapped two Israeli soldiers, and then Hizbullah crossed into Israeli terrirotry and seized several Israelis. The rationale, these democratically-elected groups say, was "retaliation" for the oppression of the Palestinians. Well, of course it was. I mean, I for one could barely contain my excitement when the two groups did NOT offer, as an explanation, the following old saw: "Israel deserves to be wiped off the map." (If that is true, then the kidnapping of a small group of soldiers is some pretty small chump change, isn't it?) (Also, please name me a group of "freedom figheters" that has EVER, in response to being occupied by a militarily superior power, demanded the COMPLETE DESTRUCTION of that power as a precondition to ceasing military hostilities against that power? Did Gandhi ever call for every Englishman to die as a condition England must recognize lest it face more passive resistance? Did the thirteen colonies demand the extirpation of the United Kingdom as a necessary prerequisite to achieving peace with Britain? No. Perchance why not? One cannot negotiate for peace with people whom one seeks the annihilation of, and of whose annihiliation one will have, in order to reach that "peace." Neville Chamberlain, after all, when he said, "peace in our times," made the comment while thousands of Britons and Germans were very much still alive. To demand the unconditional extermination of an entire civilization of a group of people as a precondition to peace is a logical fallacy, as there will be no one from that civilization with whom to negotate with once the extermination has been completed. In other words, people who claim peace can only be achieved through genocide aren't interested in peace. Israel, which has read "Genocidal Nonsense Spouted by Muslim Fanatics for Dummies" is aware of this, and, as a matter of logic - not cruelty or lack of compassion - has been forced to forego entertaining any option of considering peace, having recognized that to accept the terrorists' peace "feelers" peace conditions is to necessarily ensure that no Israeli will be alive to sit at the peace table. But I digress....)

To what latest act of oppression does Hamas refer? The fact that America has just sent millions of dollars worth of money and medical supplies to it, and has promised millions more, if Hamas simply recognizes that at least one of the millions of Jews in Israel has a right to exist? No - can't be. Terrorist groups - who oppress , by defiition, and spread terror, by definition - far beyond the intended targets - may have banal, crude and reductive methods and rhetoric, but the imagery they are able to conjure so as to express the extent of their victimhood has is ceaselessly imaginative. The Hamas terrorists, now having gained power in the Palestinian terrotories, first view this power grab itself as an act of oppression against itself. Strange, as most states or sovereigins who acquire power do so quite cheerfully. (After all, rarely today is the world leader who would actually declare, "Heavy is the heart that wears the crown.") Why? Because now THEY, they say, must be chiefly responsible for terrorizing the Israelis (as opposed to providing assistance to the states that formerly did so). I suppose that for Hamas, this is a tough burden. Governing through terrorizing - or terrorizing through governing - can't be easy, but as the Michael Douglas character said in "The American President," "democracy is advanced citizenship. You've gotta want it bad."

As Hamas came to this realization, it simultaneously came to the "realization" that while it was elected, in large part, due to its ability to provide "social services" for Palestinians as a TERRORIST group (well, when your competition is Yasser Arafat, your ability to do this constitutes winning by default, I guess), it cannot do so
as a SOVEREIGN GOVERNMENT whose officiall foreign policy is to seek the complete destruction of another nation. And when Hamas came to power, naturally, the first thing it did was declare, "We will wipe Israel into the map," or whatever. When it said this, of course, it KNEW what Israel and the U.S' reaction would be. And it knew that as a result of the reaction, it would be able to play the victim card. So, the reaction was made, the pity card played.

Yet, in the initial months after the card was played - from the bottom of the deck, no less - Hamas did not gain a particular advantage from having played it. Granted, most countries (like that great occupier France, and that poster boy for religious tolerance, Russia) were delighted that a power dedicated to the destruction of Israel was in power, but since so many of these countries, in recent years, have pledged funds to fighting religious intolernace, riots, and any initiatives American within their own border these past six years, Hamas did not receive the outpouring of financial support it expected to.

Nor did Hezbollah, fresh off its election victories in Lebanon, now extricated from Syria's influence (somewhat). Hizbullah played the same pity card Hamas did once elected - "wipe Israel into the sea, blah blah blah, those poor Palestinians we're even happier to see about dying than we are about Israelis so that we won't have to feed, clothe and bathe them - well, two of the three, anyway"), and found that having rolled this hard six (as Commander Adama of Battlestar Galactica - or BSG - likes to say - I have cited another science fiction source than Star Trek!!) resulted in the return of a pair of snake eyes.

So, what did both countries then do? Iran, their hatron saint, a country which even the garden varitey anti-Jewish U.N. Nations were starting to view askew (note: the U.N. is not anti-Semitic; it loves Muslims, only hates Jews), exhorted these countries, not so subtly, to play the victim card militarily. So, in true Pavlovian response, Hamas responded, foaming at the mouth first, seizing several Israeli soldiers, knowing full well what Israel's response would be. It then cried, "Poor us! Israel has used its huge army - which, by the way, is only huge because we have terrorized the shit out of this country - to tell us not to do this again. How awful that we will now, once again, gain the sympathy of the entire world, except of course, for that of the U.S., who is bogged down in Iraq, and since we want as many U.S. soldiers to die there anyway, our attacking Israel here will inflame Muslim sentiment even more - if that's possile - against Americans in Iraq - and these Americans will die. Our victimhood is great! It allows us to remain victims. Sure, our enemies may die, but they're not victims - they're only "victims" of us.

Hezbollah decided to follow suit once it saw world "outrage" against Israel had quickly developed as a result of the Hamas incident. Hezbollah then crossed the Southern Lebanon border into Israel, kidnapped three Israelis, and as a result, Israel retaliated, and then Hezbollah struck back, etc. The details and numers don't matter. No matter how many Lebanese, Hzibullaters or Israelis die, Israel will be deemed to have used "disproportiate force," simply because it is the bigger country. This phrase "disproportionate force," of course, cleary implies who instigated the violence - and to any sane person implies why - and how maliciously - it was instigated - but that is irrelevant. What is relevant is that these two terrorist groups have succeeded in getting want they want: insta victinhood (just add water and stir Palestinian crocodile tears), world "outrage," deflection of starved Palestians' attention away from how these groups treat them like shit, and deflection away from Iran and its constant diabolical mutterances of starting World War III.

Some flack from the Arab League - an institution dedicated solely to Arab nations' stranglehold over the oil market, to Arabs' hegemony over hate, and to, of course, the eradiction of Israel, wagged his finger, barkily proclaiming, "The Mideast peace process is dead," in response to the events in Lebanon of the last few days. Excuse me, Sir, but in your mind, when did that process START, and who initiated it? Who proposed all of the initiatives of peace? Who objected to every single one of them? If by your remark, "the process is dead," you mean that an offer giving the Palestinians everything they purport to want, only to have such offer refused so that the cry of victimhood can be left alive, you're probably right. But you already knew no such offer would be forthcoming since 2000 (when it was last made) already, didn't you? Why, then, these attacks? To scuttle a non-existent peace process you don't care about? No - because of pity, victimhood, and hate.

These people were so enraged that, in response to their demagoguery, terrorism, lies, and inransigence, land was given to them unilaterally, that such an act could not be met unpunished. It interrupted the particulars of timing of the play that constitutes their story of victimhood. So, they decided to chuck Sharon's rewrite to that script - the disengagement - by doing everything they could to make sure that further genuine peace overtures toward the Palestinians will not be likely for quite some time. Hey, victimhood doesn't create itself!

What is most interesting about the current conflict in Lebanon - which I pray does not escalate (but if it does, the U.S. should stop talking and let Israel, in the words of, of all people, crazier-than-Ann-Coulter-right-wing basket case-Joseph Farah, "make hummus out of Hamas." Good god, if that happened, would the Palestinians be any more oppressed, by ayone, than they are now?), is the typical world reaction - especially, that of the other industrial superpowers.

America is undoubtedly only the most hypocritical nation on Earth, but that's only because we have a short learning curve. Italy, Britain, France, Germany, and Russia, in particular - all of whom, to some degree have condemned the Israeli counter-attacks in Lebanon - are once again displaying their shameful hypocrisy when it comes to the issue of how a sovereign nation out to defend itself against a terrorist disruptor, or as to how to act in military situations generally (and to think that out of these nations, Germany - of all of them - is taking the least hard line against Israel at least "officially" - the world really is coming to an end!) :

1. Germany: Of course, were I to see the advice of any one nation on the planet as to exercise "military restraint," as Germany now calls upon Israel to do, I would consult Germany. At a soccer match several years ago, Germany stunned Britain with a last-minute victory. One of the German players, gloatingly barked to one of the Brits, "we beat you at your favorite sport." "That's OK. After all, we beat you at yours. Twice." Germany, like many other European nations struggling to find its place, but apparently not struggling to retain its proud display of religious intolerance, has seen, in the last several years, the kind of religious and ethic strife that Paris recently witnessed in its nightly lootings and burnings of a few months ago. Hezbollah, whose name is derived from its fondness for Hitler, should at least be expressly denunciated by this country before it tells others that they don't, shall we say, need more liebensraum for real reasons.

2. Britain: Brtain would know all about colonization and occupation. After all, more countries around the world have incorporated the Union Jack into their flags than has any other symbol of one nation been incorporated to any other group of flags. The imperial attitudes of Britain help explain why Tony Blair so enthusiastically supported Bush's invasion of Iraq; after all, the sun many never set on the British Empire, but that statement only holds true as long as Britain can claim responsibility for importing its ideals of democracy - ideals which have included slavery, the ideas denounced by the thirteen colonies, Christianity which Britons do not practice - across the globe. Know why aboriginal children in Australia born of aboriginal women and white men were taken away from their mothers and forced into labor camps for the rest of their lives? Because whatever else Britain is capable or not capable of doing nowadays, it still is readily capable of making pronouncements about who must take up the White Man's Burden. Of course, since it created the Israel-Palestine mess, it feels obligated to tell Israel how to conduct its affairs now. Either that, or people or so sick of Tony Blair that unless he exercised Israeli restraint, he'd be booted out of office even before he got that rapidly appoaching opportunity to retire.

3: France: What can one say? This is the country from where the phrase "bete noir" (dark person hated by everyone - and the French weren't even referring to blacks, for whom they have harbored racial hatred for as many years as any nation on this planet) comes from. It is the country that is so militarily inpet (having never won a major conflict, on its own, in modern times, except against itself, and even then, it lost, if you know what I mean), that it cannot resist the urge to give marching orders to other nations. Especially to Israel, of course. The history of anti-Semitism (and anti-just about everything else) is well-documented in France, which makes it hard to believe that France actually intervened on Israel's behalf in the Suez Crisis in 1956. That incident, for the French, must have repesented a temporary lapse from whatever constitutes sanity over there - and since then, France has galmourized all "oppressed" people seeking to free themselves from the grip of occupation - except, that is, of course, the Algerians whom the French kept under brutal occupation for so long, and the Indochinese, whom the French, in typical fashion, spent ten years getting their asses kicked by, only to have to leave so that the U.S. could inherit the Vietnam quagmire. Naturally, France then insulted the U.S. for its participation in Vietnam. France's M.O. is simple: launch a "moral" attack against perceived "aggressors" and superpowers so that other countries can weaken them. After all, it's not like we can ever be a superpower again.

4. Russia, or "A porgrom a day makes the Jews flee away." This nation is still lamenting the loss of all of its former Republics, over whom it ruled with an iron fist, and can't imagine why these nations how want to ally with NATO instead of Putin's alternative vision, HATE-O. Russian diplomacy (contradictory as the term may sound) will be put to the test by the Lebanon conflict. After all, Russia wants to make sure that it can coddle North Korea and Iran's nuclear ambitions as much as possible, while reserving the right to speak out against "nuclear proliferation." It cannot, of course, coddle these states without denouncing Israel - so consistency's sake demands that it too, condemn Israel. That, and the fact that it lost all of those Jews who had to flee from it in terror in the '80's and '90's to literally escape certain death.

5. Italy: not much to say here. Italy will side with whomever it perceives as the winning team. After all, it went from Il Duce to Il Noose to Los Americanos in the span of several years, while being expected to be taken seriously at every turn. Now, it believes that the "winning" team is those countries telling Israel how it cannot defend itself; after all, strength in numbers is a valuable strength, as Italy found out in World War II.

Yes, the above summary was crude and not especially well-informed, but the thinking behind it was no more base than the thinking behind these anti-Jewish countries' decisions to condemn the possessor of a tiny piece of land trying to defend itself from enemies on all sides - a situation none of these powers have ever faced, as their godly Christianity and Kipling sense of superiority long let them conquer, rape, pillage, persecute, torture and colonize with impunity. Are these past facts irrelevant? I don't think so, but even if they were, these countries in particular have singularly gone out of their way to make it difficult to make people of different faiths and ehtnicities to live peacefully with each other. I wonder why that is? As Cole Porter once said, "The song may have ended, but the melody lingers on."

Indeed.

WIPE OFF THAT ANGEL FACE AND GO BACK TO HIGH SCHOOL

OK. I know what you're thinking. The title of this post. Me. Gay. Blah. Assuming someone is gay is the new beating someone to death because you assume he is. So five years ago. Today, a co-worker (male) told me that the anti-gay marriage amendment to the Georgia Constitution "affects a lot of people I (the co-worker) really care about." You know what that means about the co-worker, right? That he supports judicial activism? No. That he is a liberal? No. That he's GAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY! (Especially because he's married and has a child). Gay is as gay does. ____ is as ____ does is one of the best rejoinder lines ever invented, assuming it is used properly.

While I'm rattling off good lines, here's another one. It sounds like a quasi-faux-goopy-so-inspirational-I'd rather watch Dr. Swill-kind of line, but I like it, and somehow, even my mind, as polluted with cynicism (or as Woody Allen more properly calls it, "perception" - I hate describing myself with a word others use to describe themselves so as to make themselves look "cool" - "cynical" is a "cool" word, but "perceptive" is - well, according to people my age, gay), as it is, cannot penetrate it:

"It is better to light a single candle than to curse the darkness."

It's been ten years. Since what? Well, since my life changed forever. Thank god that I'm not trying to write a book with those three ululations as the opening lines. But seriously.... about ten years and a week ago, I graduated from high school, and was at about that time dropped on to a baggage carousel that I can only hope someone has momentarily (yes, ten years is hardly momentarily in the span of a human life, but the word sounds more optimistic than "temporarily") forgotten to shut off.

Somehow, I knew that summer was not going well even as I was entering its early phase. I thought that it would be in my best interest to take the summer off (i.e. not have a summer job) before going to college. What a dumb idea - and not just in hindsight. The paltry sum I could have earned would have allowed me to work that many less hours of work-study freshman year (well, the first half of it; I hated that work so much that I didn't do it the second half, and the second half, naturally, was the first time in my life when I began to experience a depression so acute that the depression disrupted and overwhelmed every aspect of my daily routine - sleeping, grooming, ability to think, cleaning, eating, and so on).

I remember at one point trying to remedy the mistake - by going to an interview with a temp agency a few weeks into the summer. My father, as I recall, had contacted this agency, and had told me (he never tells, even when he tells, he screams; "Tomorrow, you're going to a temp agency for an interview. Bring your resuME and some references." I said, "OK. Thanks for doing this. I merely said it would be nice if I had a job, and I really have no idea what a temp agency does or how it can or would help me, and I've never even had a real interview before, so this will be a complete waste of time for reasons that I probably won't figure out until well beyond I'm dead - well, at least that gives me an incentive to die - but thanks anyway."

So, I went. I had no idea how to dress for the interview, which my father said was informal. Not all temp agencies are created alike. All I had at the time were cheap suits that did not fit. I put on a pair of navy pants and a black T-shirt, not knowing any better. The amount of common sense I have now has increased measurably; it is almost at the point of being a whole number. So, when I was interviewed, I was asked what kind of position I was interested in. I don't remember what I said. I just remember feeling really overheated and embarrassed.

And then I remember my father, who visually inspected me (to make sure I combed my hair and so on; this is a man who bathes once a week) before we left the house, INTENTIONALLY screaming at me for not having worn a suit to the interview. That made me feel special.

The rest of the summer was a haze. I had no car. My mother, in those days, still had her outside job, and my father had only half-raped his body to death.

So, near the end of August, it came time to leave the comfort of my home (and I should note that despite everything I've said in this message, my parents are the greatest people in the world, and when they are gone, I can but pray that mentally, I will not be gone with them) for college. The last image I have of leaving home is of the movie "Sense and Sensibility" playing in the den. A few characters were entering a house. I then had to shut the remote off as my parents and I left the house, locked the door, and drove to Ithaca, NY to deposit me to my temporary (note the deliberate use of that word) 4-year home. By the way, that movie was a great movie, but I cannot bring myself to watch it any more. The song "As I Lay Me Down To Sleep" is a great song, but I cannot listen to it, because it was on the radio circa 1994 in the car my brother and I shared. This song happened to be on the day we drove to high school on a Saturday morning to take some kind of test. I cannot remember, after that date - after that song - when the next time we talked - just as people - since he gruntingly initiated a conversation with me six years later. Ever see the TV show "Cold Cases?" It's about a pair of detectives in Philadelphia who crack cases that have been unsolved for many years - some for generations. This show, "The Sopranos" notwithstanding, uses music more effectively than any show on TV. The opening scene of July 2nd's show (a rerun) had this song playing while an alcoholic mother (whose murder was finally solved at the end of the show) lost it in public, taking it out on her two children, circa 1994. The show makes me cry a lot. This scene was... I actually felt happy to have cried that much. It reminded me that I was alive.

So, off to Ithaca I was. Flash forward ten years later. I have such a foggy memory of what life was like when living at home every day was routinized and accepted. The fogginess is explained in part by the passage of a decade's worth of time. But more accounts for it. And what frustrates me so much is that I do not know what that more is. Sometimes, it's easy - painful but easy - to identify a loss in life. You lose a friend - the friend dies or stops talking to you, you know what you've lost. But over the course of ten years, I think it's fair to say that I've lost things I didn't even know I had. Perhaps the fact I can identify these now is merely a function of the maturity process - perhaps it's merely a reflection of the fact that for me, that process has been so unnatural and stunted. I don't know. But it is - for me, anyway - an odd phenomenon to want something - a restoration to the past - so badly - when I cannot even remember what I would be restoring myself to.

I know, I know. As my parents told me, and as I told myself, I had to learn to live away from home. Well, I physically did live away from home, and have done so for ten years. Whether I have learned to do so - whether I have INTEGRATED what it means to live away from home - and the implications thereof - into me - is another question. I am self-reliant but socially non-functional. Have I learned to live away from home? A recent study found that 1/4 Americans have NO friends at all, and NO ONE to whom they can confide an intimate personal matter. These people all "live at home." Are they all non-functional too? And, had I continued to stay at home, would I have become self reliant? Maybe. Socially functional? I don't know. I've been plopped into every social setting imaginable, and they all share one thing in common: they're all dead-ends. Can one be socially functional if that person is merely friends with one's parents? My old Scoutmaster, Syd Salinger, told our troops, "Your parents are your best friends." Everyone laughed when he said this; I believed it was the way things SHOULD be if your parents deserve that friendship, and if you deserve theirs. Roughly one third of Americans, this study tells us, have one or two relatives as their ONLY friends/close confidantes. Is one third of the entire American population socially nonfunctional? If so, the question of what that phrase means is seriously begged.

Ten years ago, I did not have to reflect upon any of this. Ten years ago, though, I did not have (well, I had not been diagnosed with) OCD/depression/ADHD. But who knows how much these problems were exacerbated by events of the last ten years?

I think, in the end analysis, that my mind wants to believe, regardless of what "the way things were" ten years ago or previously, that things were better then than they are now - not so that my mind can enable me to lament my current state, but so that it can feed me with thoughts of happiness of days past, dangling the prospect over my head that somehow, such days may still lie ahead.

My mind may, in other words, in its own way, be trying to light a candle.

There is a great short story by Willa Cather, the 20th-century American novelist, called "A Wagner (as in Richard) matinee." As I remember the story (I read it in, yes, high school - don't rely on my memory - read it! It's a great story!), an elderly lady who once taught music, but who has long since retired, leaving her musica skills - but not passions - to rust - is brought to the opera for a Wagner performance. She is brought by, I believe, a son, or grandson. This person is familiar with the woman's occupation, but does not - and cannot - understand the intensity of her love of music. He thinks he is being kind to her by bringing her to a venue that will remind her of her former occupation.

The opera commences. The performance is beautifully rendered. And just like that, it is over. The son/grandson then gestures to the woman, indicating that it is time to go. She does not get up. She is still sitting in her seat, entranced, as she was during the whole performance. Slowly, as he continues to tell her that it is time to leave, she gets up out of her seat, back into the banality of reality, and cries, "Please! I don't want to go! I don't want the show to stop! Don't make me leave! Please!! "

And with those words, the short story comes to a close. The past is not only prologue, it is what keeps us alive. This woman, who, the story seemed to imply, was living a dull and dreary existence once her teaching days was over, experienced a few hours of pure joy for one day. Yes, the joy culminated in tears of unbridled sadness - but through the sadness, the woman was reminded of what made life so great for her. As I said, "A Wagner Matinee" was a short story. I do not believe that Ms. Cather ever wrote about this woman other than in this short story, but I'd like to think, somehow, that if up above and beyond, Ms. Cather were to write a sequel, it would involve the woman again being taken to a matinee by the son or grandson, only this time, at the end of the performance, the woman would, while expressing a hint of sadness that it was time to go, applaud enthusiatically with the rest of the crowd.

In other words, I believe that she would rather light the single candle than curse the darkness - if for no other reason than that the match had something to ignite, just as my mind is trying to ensure that mine does.

WHAT'S IT ALL ABOUT, ALFRE?

By Roger Friedman, 7/11/06

So the fine actress Alfre Woodard has had the last laugh on “Desperate Housewives.” The show brought her on to establish an African-American family, then trashed the characters and turned them into violent racist stereotypes. Woodard got written off unceremoniously as her character packed her bags and moved away.
But it’s no defeat. Now Woodard is the only member of the regular cast to get an Emmy nomination for the mislabeled comedy series.

Pretty funny, huh?

Woodard’s departure says a lot about how “Desperate Housewives” tanked this season. Her character, Betty, had to leave; her story made no sense from the very start. Her character was never integrated into the show, and her storyline had nothing to do with anything else going on at Wisteria Lane.

This is what they did to the phenomenal actress who had won four Emmys, been nominated for an Oscar (for 1983's Cross-Creek), was known for series work in “St. Elsewhere” and film roles in “Passion Fish,” “Down in the Delta” and “Cross Creek.” They lured her in, then not only did they squander her, they tried to humiliate her.

What could be worse? Halfway through the season, one of the actors playing one of Woodard’s sons had to be dismissed for sexual harassment (maybe he was frustrated that his character was locked in the basement).
Woodard, friends confessed, was very unhappy by the time the cast showed up at the Golden Globe awards (in January of this year). By the end of the season, she must have been fuming.

In the final two-part episode, both of her sons beat a woman, one of them killing her. The other ran off with the underage white daughter of a neighbor and was subsequently shot dead.

So much for letting black people into Wisteria Lane. Next season’s big story has already been set up with the much the more “acceptable” Kyle MacLachlan. He will not be basement-bound, trust me.

But who’s laughing now? Woodard was the only series regular to get an Emmy nomination (the only other acting nomination went to Shirley Knight, who was a guest star in several episodes as Bree’s mother-in-law).

Granted, for a show billed as a comedy, her scenes were far from funny. But by the end of this season, "Desperate Housewives" was pretty deficient in the laugh department, considering the beatings, murder and a hit and run.

"Desperate Housewives" could be the one show that fell apart faster than “Twin Peaks,” and that’s saying something. (Note the actor mentioned above who provides the link to both shows. Why he should not be kept locked in the basement on ANY show - why he should BE on any show, in the basement or not - I do not know).

The big problem that the writers created for themselves was arguably at the end of the first season. They turned the show’s narrator, who had committed suicide and was thought to have been a victim, into a murderess and child snatcher (note: I don't know who this is, and blissfully don't care. I don't get the fuss over this show. It is nothing more than a high-gloss The Supernatural Stepford Wives). . After that, there was no place to go but down.

In the second season, the narrator remained — even though she was hardly sympathetic — and the show went in half a dozen different directions at once. It remains unclear whether or not it can be fixed, but I’m sure the ABC execs are breathing down creator Marc Cherry’s neck right now. No Emmy nods — including writing and directing — speaks volumes.

At least Woodard can feel like she finished a job well done. Now she can go back to movies with her head held high and, I guess, her wallet a little fatter. And Wisteria Lane can resume its tales as a haven for the soulless.

**********************************************************************************
I once asked someone who claimed to be a fan of this show two questions. Question #1: "What are the housewives so desperate about? I've watched the show, and they don't act desperate." The fan could not articulate a response. "I don't know. Nice title, though, don't you think?" Question #2: "What's so good about this show?" "I love it." "But why do you love it?" "Because it's a soap opera." (This was like playing twenty questions with a piece of bark." "Well, I've seen some of it, and it doesn't look any better than the daytime soaps. Is it?" "Yeah." "Why so?" "Well, the acting is better. And that Eva Mongolia - she is SO pretty."

OK. So maybe the acting is better. Not high praise, exactly, but at least that answer gave an inkling as to why at least this person liked the show. I've heard other reasons from "the company," i.e. the critics - the show mixes the mordant with the mudane cleverly; it is a clever satire; the plot twists lift the show beyond the realm of the generic, blah, blah, blah. I tried watching the show and it went through me like yogurt.

But that was before Alfre. I love Alfre Woodard. Gosh, what was the first thing I saw her in? 1992's Passion Fish, I think. She and Mary McDonnell (who, one would like to think, could only have guessed at what a great series Battlestar Galactica has turned out to be - not that the character written for her would linger in the memory at all were it not for her brittle talent) were terrific in that movie. I've never seen Ms. Woodard play a character to which she did not impute conviction, sincerity, and believability. And, of course, her star went supernova for me when she played Lily Sloane in 1996's Star Trek: First Contact. She and Patrick Stewart engaged in a fiery verbal confrontation near the end of the film that may very well be the best such confrontation in the 40-year history of Star Trek-a history that spans 715 episodes and 10 movies. Watching the two spar with each other was a literal joy.

And so, when I heard that Ms. Woodard was joining the cast of Desperate Housewives (to be playing a character named "Betty Applewhite," no less), I figured, "Well, at least the people who produce this show have some class, if nothing else. And I may even actually tune in to watch one day." That day never came. Not because of anything stated or suggested in Mr. Friedman's article; I simply never got around to it.

For the most part, I am glad. The series, from what I have seen of it and read about it, is beneath this great actress (who, by the way, is a better actress than Eva Longoria, Teri Hatcher and Marcia Cross - easily. She is probably even better than Shirley Knight and Felicity Huffman. Ms. Woodard is that rarest of acrresses today: the kind who can play any kind of role - even a "emoting" one - while managing not to draw attention to herself. Perhaps this is why she is so underappreciated).

While the series may be beneath her, somewhere, in the darkest, most obscured, tortured-into-cynicality, hopelessness, and despair-corners of our mind, we like to think that the cream can still rise to the top (shit, on the other hand, just floats). And somehow (not to imply that Emmy is an imprimatur of excellence or anything), to the extent that getting an Emmy nomination is AT ALL a legitimate recogintion of quality work (that's in the eye of the beholder, as is my statement that it's in the eye of the beholder, I suppose), the cream has risen.

Nonetheless, the way Ms. Woodard's character was depicted and dispatched disgusts me - given that the show is supposedly "forward-thinking." (It can be anything it wants, but what it cannot be is hypocritical).

I can almost picture it now - Marc Cherry coming to her, saying, "Sorry, we really made an effort to write a good character for you... We really tried saving that character..."

To which, if I were Ms. Woodard, I might be tempted to reply, "You didn't even try. Where was your evolved sensibility then?"*

*Need I say what movie this line comes from? Go rent it. Once you hear the line, you''ll see why I made this entry.