A small notice to those who post comments to my entries; I've had to turn on that device that makes you enter random letters to verify that you are a real person, and not a computer program like the ones that mercilessly post advertisements for travel agencies. Sorry for the minor hassle.
In other news, it looks like we may have a new political issue: toy gun-control. As if the rotten bastards of the old fashioned gun-control movement weren't enough to keep me up at night, now we can have a new wave of goofy liberals and grandmother conservatives to flaunt their disapproval of TOY firearms.
I once asked a Japanese guy what sort of restrictions they have on Airsoft guns in Japan, and he laughed as if I had asked the stupidest question he had ever heard, and said "Noooo, it's toy!" So if we're gonna start banning and/or strictly regulating offensive toys, whats next? Real guns, alcohol, tobacco, fatty foods, swear words, movies, books, sex, cigarette lighters? Oh, wait, I forgot, those are ALL regulated or banned in some form or another in various places throughout the nation.
God bless America and its ever-growing Big Brother.
Thursday, December 21, 2006
Sunday, December 17, 2006
133
Sorry about the lack of updates as of late. I'm writing this from my aunt's iMac in Memphis, TN, where I'm vacationing, a word I use as if I were surrounded by palm trees and bourbon.
I've been reading the short fiction of Zora Neale Hurston, who for my money was the best author I read at all this past semester. I had read her story Sweat in my Survey of American Literature course and was dazzled by her prose and understanding of the black community of the era. I'd assumed she was a communist like her contemporaries, but was STUNNED to find out that the woman was actually an archconservative/libertarian, and in her later years penned vehement anti-communist articles, something my textbook conveniently neglects to mention. I'd really recommend her work to anyone, and that was before I admired her politics (or at least aspects of them).
Film fans usually cite Goodfellas as Scorsese's greatest gangster film, but I've long believed that honor belongs to Casino, which I re-watched during the 690 mile drive (or listened to, as my dad actually held the player). It mimics Goodfellas in many ways, but involves players a million times as important; Henry Hill is a low-level thug and cocaine dealer, Ace Rothstein runs a casino for the Midwest mob bosses. Despite the great length, the pace moves like lightning, and the understated performance by Robert De Niro should be a mandatory lesson for acting students on how NOT to overact, while Joe Peschi mirrors the viciousness of a real gangster in a way that may be the most brutal on screen (the head-in-a-vise-sequence is priceless). But don't mistake my promotion of Casino as a belittling of Goodfellas in any way, as both are masterpieces, and would fit well at home on any respectable top 100 list (or even top 10 for that matter).
So here is a question that is very slowly burning at the bottom of my brain stem, waiting for the proper time to dominate my (and everyone else's) mind; Hilary or Obama? or Edwards? or Richardson? or Kerry? or Kucinich (if he ever won, I'm buying a ticket to Argentina and starting anew)? or Gore? Hilary has been called a lock for years by the dickhead pundits, but I'm not so sure anymore. Out of that list above, I'm not enthusiastic. I'm an admitted loather of both Obama and all things Clinton. I think Richardson is okay but I doubt he has any real chance. Kerry already had his chance and blew it, I can't imagine him being a viable candidate again. Edwards, just maybe, if he can take time off of his busy schedule of suing doctors. Gore seems to have too eagerly embraced meltdown mode and ventured into Michael Moore territory, but who knows.
On the Republican side: I don't care. Really, what an uninteresting bunch. Romney? Blah. McCain? Wince. Giuliani? Good image, but too far left. Liberal Republicans don't carry much water with me, because in my experience, they are just Democrats who want to keep their money, which makes me wonder why they don't go just join the other party and work to change one of the most rotten things about it. At the risk of my own reputation amongst my six readers, I'll admit that I like Newt Gingrich, even as he is supposedly an asshole of Biblical proportions in real life. I've followed some of his talking points lately and like the sound of him, but I can't see him ever have a real shot of winning (possible Dean-esque campaign, where the same idiots that bring him up then abondon him at the last moment).
Writing from Memphis, that is all for now.
I've been reading the short fiction of Zora Neale Hurston, who for my money was the best author I read at all this past semester. I had read her story Sweat in my Survey of American Literature course and was dazzled by her prose and understanding of the black community of the era. I'd assumed she was a communist like her contemporaries, but was STUNNED to find out that the woman was actually an archconservative/libertarian, and in her later years penned vehement anti-communist articles, something my textbook conveniently neglects to mention. I'd really recommend her work to anyone, and that was before I admired her politics (or at least aspects of them).
Film fans usually cite Goodfellas as Scorsese's greatest gangster film, but I've long believed that honor belongs to Casino, which I re-watched during the 690 mile drive (or listened to, as my dad actually held the player). It mimics Goodfellas in many ways, but involves players a million times as important; Henry Hill is a low-level thug and cocaine dealer, Ace Rothstein runs a casino for the Midwest mob bosses. Despite the great length, the pace moves like lightning, and the understated performance by Robert De Niro should be a mandatory lesson for acting students on how NOT to overact, while Joe Peschi mirrors the viciousness of a real gangster in a way that may be the most brutal on screen (the head-in-a-vise-sequence is priceless). But don't mistake my promotion of Casino as a belittling of Goodfellas in any way, as both are masterpieces, and would fit well at home on any respectable top 100 list (or even top 10 for that matter).
So here is a question that is very slowly burning at the bottom of my brain stem, waiting for the proper time to dominate my (and everyone else's) mind; Hilary or Obama? or Edwards? or Richardson? or Kerry? or Kucinich (if he ever won, I'm buying a ticket to Argentina and starting anew)? or Gore? Hilary has been called a lock for years by the dickhead pundits, but I'm not so sure anymore. Out of that list above, I'm not enthusiastic. I'm an admitted loather of both Obama and all things Clinton. I think Richardson is okay but I doubt he has any real chance. Kerry already had his chance and blew it, I can't imagine him being a viable candidate again. Edwards, just maybe, if he can take time off of his busy schedule of suing doctors. Gore seems to have too eagerly embraced meltdown mode and ventured into Michael Moore territory, but who knows.
On the Republican side: I don't care. Really, what an uninteresting bunch. Romney? Blah. McCain? Wince. Giuliani? Good image, but too far left. Liberal Republicans don't carry much water with me, because in my experience, they are just Democrats who want to keep their money, which makes me wonder why they don't go just join the other party and work to change one of the most rotten things about it. At the risk of my own reputation amongst my six readers, I'll admit that I like Newt Gingrich, even as he is supposedly an asshole of Biblical proportions in real life. I've followed some of his talking points lately and like the sound of him, but I can't see him ever have a real shot of winning (possible Dean-esque campaign, where the same idiots that bring him up then abondon him at the last moment).
Writing from Memphis, that is all for now.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)