|
|
|
Saturday, October 25, 2003 |  |
|
And the third person is relevant, for reasons I'll get to in a minute.
I'm not sure this is an appropriate topic for a blog, but the whole purpose of this thing is to bare my soul and just express whatever it is about life that seems perplexing or illuminating. At least I thought it was--I seem to have drifted off into a lot of quickie stuff on more superficial topics. Oddly enough, the sex entry feels like the serious one.
Hmmmmm. Why should that be odd? We sure do have some fucked up notions about sex.
So this is your warning. This will get graphic, but only where necessary to describe what the hell I'm trying to say. Here, I'll keep it off the homepage, click below to read the rest of it:
moremoremore -- read the rest.
|
11:03:09 PM [Macro error: Can't evaluate the expression because the name "trackbackLink" hasn't been defined.]
|
|
|
And especially CT.
I know, he's not housebroken. He would eventually drive me crazy, living under the same roof with him. Mallory and Ace are much nicer people, just sweetness and light all the way from the skin to the core.
That's why CT gets to me. He has to work for his. He is such a sweet guy at heart, but he is such a mess. He doesn't know how to communicate. He blows up. He runs away. He gets drunk and acts like an ass and physically scares the shit out of people.
But he is trying. He is trying so incredibly hard.
Two steps forward, one step back, but I do believe he is advancing.
And that's what makes him so fascinating to watch.
Usually the problem children they cast on that show are just complete selfish assholes, with no redeeming qualities. This one is completely redeemable, and I picture him as a beautiful, wonderful adult one day.
If he gets the right help from the right people, like Ace and Mallory. And steers completely clear from witches from hell like Leah.
He's the most interesting character they have had in years. I sure hope he makes it.
|
10:21:31 PM [Macro error: Can't evaluate the expression because the name "trackbackLink" hasn't been defined.]
|
|
|
Interesting electoral map analysis here--interesting to a point, a very narrow point.
It's very useful to examine as a general lay of the lay for how Bush will start off against whatever Dem he faces.
But from there, it just makes me want to scream. It's clearly based on all the ridiculous old-school, shithead assumptions that the entire race comes down to natural constituencies in different states who will respond to candidates based on their stands on issues and/or degree of liberalness.
Good God! The Lieberman map shows him doing far better against Bush than Howard Dean. Any person making up a map like that has no clue about politics. Or just one clue, an incredibly narrow view of the process that misses the big picture entirely.
On the one hand, a whiny weanie despised by most Dems, and beloved by no one, versus an exciting firebrand setting millions of voters on fire who would march into hell after him. Dean may or may not shoot himself in the foot, but he has the potential to ignite the public and trounce Bush, Lieberman would have to re-enter the womb and be reborn as a completely different person to hope for that.
God, these pundits piss me off.
|
8:38:06 PM [Macro error: Can't evaluate the expression because the name "trackbackLink" hasn't been defined.]
|
|
|
So much pathetic political journalism out there, and then fresh out of the St. Louis Post Dispatch, comes a relentlessly insightful piece about the nature of the upcoming primary season today.
The highlight was a lengthy analysis of the impact of Wes Clark and Joe Lieberman pulling out of Iowa, and how much Iowa really matters. One fragment of that:
"Momentum is being redefined this year," said George Bruno, a former Democratic party chair in New Hampshire and a Clark supporter. "There will be no regrouping period and . . . each state will probably have to fall or stand on the groundwork laid (by the campaigns) long before Iowa or New Hampshire."
Despite the new dynamic, some think skipping Iowa will hurt Clark and Lieberman, who are already struggling to overcome weaknesses in their campaigns.
"If they go into January with no fire, they will flame out," said Donna Brazile, who was the campaign manager for Al Gore in the 2000 election. "That's a risky strategy." . . .
She and others also noted that Clark and Lieberman will likely face a news blackout in the crucial weeks leading up to the Iowa caucuses, as the political and media world turns its attention to that state's contest. And their absence in Iowa will set up big expectations for their showings in New Hampshire, where they will be competing for a third or fourth place finish.
It suggests the bigger impact may come to Howard Dean and pals in New Hampshire, which the other two will be flooding with twice the resources originally planned.
And I have been reading about the historical unimportance of Iowa (which became a force for the first time in 1976, for Jimmy Carter), but this fills in some of the blanks:
William Mayer, a political science professor at Northeastern University and an expert on the nominating process . . . pointed to a recent study he did on the impact of Iowa and New Hampshire, in which he concluded that Iowa has had little affect on a candidate's eventual prospects.
"Winning or coming in second in New Hampshire adds a great deal to your likely total vote in the primaries," he said. "By contrast, the results in Iowa have almost no long term affect on the race."
He examined primary contests dating back to 1980, the election after Jimmy Carter's Iowa victory put him and the Iowa caucus on the political map. Since then, Mayer said, only Gary Hart in 1984 has been able to translate an Iowa win into real political momentum.
|
8:17:00 PM [Macro error: Can't evaluate the expression because the name "trackbackLink" hasn't been defined.]
|
|
|
Heather Havrilesky is an amazing writer.
I had no interest whatsoever in her latest "I Like to Watch" column for Salon (on TV). But I read everything she writes because I'm never sorry I did.
This weekend's entry is wonderfully titled (she's responsible for everything but the title) Rhymes with "bitch," a biting and incisive review of three new shows on the rich.
The first two provide hysterical material for Heather to roll around in, which sets up a stunning third act (for the column) that left me speechless.
From the opening of her disection of the second show, "The Simple Life" (premiering -- at least for the time being -- at 8:30 p.m. on Dec. 2), a reality show sending Paris Hilton Nicole Richie down south to stay with the Leding family in a poor town to show what stuck-up bitches they are:
what were they thinking? Are they not familiar with Fox, the network of chaotic evil?
This is just priceless:
Once they meet the Ledings and survey the room where they'll be staying, which is populated by flying insects and has a well in the middle of it ("What's a well?" Paris asks), the true nature of this escapade is beginning to dawn on them. "Maybe Fox didn't invite us out here to demonstrate our fabulousness and break down stereotypes of the rich like they said," their faces say. "Maybe this is really just about making us look like assholes."
But then:
It's hard not to feel a little sorry for the girls when you see their faces drop.
But then they flatly refuse to help the poor grandmother pluck chickens for dinner. When they're instead given $50 and instructed to do the grocery shopping for the family, they sulk around the store looking for the stuff on the list. When the bill comes to $65, the girls simply hand the cashier 50 bucks.
Cashier: Is this all you have?
Nicole: Yeah. Can we just have it?
Cashier: No, you can't just have it! This is not a soup kitchen.
By the time the girls get out to the car, they're angry.
Nicole: He wouldn't just give it to us!
Paris: He was like, "This isn't a soup kitchen."
Nicole: I know! What does that mean, "soup kitchen"?
It gets worse.
But then Heather gets to the third show, and I won't wreck it for you, but it's truly a revelation. And it provided some wonderful insights on the depression I was/am suffering from about my writing and my struggle to pay the rent lately.
I want to be Heather Havrilesky.
|
8:05:46 PM [Macro error: Can't evaluate the expression because the name "trackbackLink" hasn't been defined.]
|
|
|
First, the shitty news:
Oct. 25 — The Bush administration’s recent effort to highlight the positive about U.S. operations in Iraq is registering with Americans, a new NEWSWEEK poll shows. Forty-eight percent of those polled say they approve of Bush’s handling of Iraq, a 4-point boost from two weeks ago, though still down 26 points from when troops first entered Baghdad in mid-April.
Better news:
NONETHELESS, AMERICANS remain mixed about U.S. policy in Iraq. Forty-nine percent of those polled think that the Bush administration does not have a well-thought out plan for establishing stability in Iraq; 39 percent do. While the majority of Americans—59 percent—believe that the United States did the right thing by taking military action in Iraq, 58 percent also think that too much money is being spent on the operation.
And the Dem news--good for Dean, bad for Wes Clark:
Former Vermont Governor Howard Dean now ranks among the Democratic Party’s 2004 presidential candidates, taking the lead from retired General Wesley Clark. Dean now polls at 15 percent among registered Democrats and Democratic leaners, trailed by Clark (12 percent), Connecticut Sen. Joe Lieberman (10 percent), Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry (8 percent), Missouri Rep. Dick Gephardt (8 percent) and the Rev. Al Sharpton (8 percent). The other Democratic nominees each have 6 percent or less of votes. While Bush still leads in the polls against every one of the Democratic candidates, the gap between Bush and Dean has grown markedly tighter in recent weeks, from a 14 percent gap (52 percent vs. 38 percent) at the end of September, to a 6 percent gap (49 percent vs. 43 percent) in the latest poll. Clark fares identically against Bush, with a 6 percent gap (49 percent vs. 43 percent), while Lieberman, Kerry and Gephardt have slightly wider gaps (7, 8 and 9 percent, respectively).
|
4:08:45 PM [Macro error: Can't evaluate the expression because the name "trackbackLink" hasn't been defined.]
|
|
|
Just watched Trish Dunn on The Early Show. Couldn't have been nicer, more down to earth or less full of herself.
She was completely surprised by the development, by tickled by the irony of the twist. Either that or she put on a damn good act, but she didn't appear to be acting, and it fit right in with her Final Words speech taped two minutes after she was booted.
Very, very nice person. Candid about everything, no excuses, just good feelings, good things to say about everyone.
The contrast to that piece of shit Burton Roberts just two weeks ago.
Survivor Pearl Islands page here .
Head here all week for Survivor Episode 6 Comments
|
3:56:01 PM [Macro error: Can't evaluate the expression because the name "trackbackLink" hasn't been defined.]
|
|
|
Another report on the Republican's evil schemes -- from the Washington Post / MSNBC:
Gay marriage looms as issue
WASHINGTON, Oct. 25 — Republican lawmakers and conservative activists are making plans to turn gay marriage into a major issue in next year’s elections, with some Christian groups saying that banning same-sex unions is a higher immediate priority for them than restricting abortion. . .
“It’s becoming a bigger issue by the day,” said Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, a conservative group with many friends in the White House. “It’s going to have a big impact on this election cycle. And we’re going to help it become a front-burner issue at the state and national level, if it doesn’t become one on its own.”
|
3:55:20 PM [Macro error: Can't evaluate the expression because the name "trackbackLink" hasn't been defined.]
|
|
|
So English Princes William and Harry have their panties all in a wad over their mom's butler writing a book about her, years after her death.
I can understand their displeasure, but they are so incredibly full of shit. They are nothing. They have done nothing. They have a life of entitlement behind and before them for doing absolutely nothing, and they just can't bear it when a working stiff respectfully waits half a decade and then capitalizes off the only chance he has, to earn just a fraction of their wealth.
At least he did something for his. I assume he was damn good at what he did to earn that job. Those little brats, on the other hand . . .
They should keep their royal traps shut. I can't wait for day their ridiculous positions are abolished. I sure hope it comes in their lifetime--and mine.
|
10:59:54 AM [Macro error: Can't evaluate the expression because the name "trackbackLink" hasn't been defined.]
|
|
|
Speaking of Andrew Savage, why is he the first Survivor (ever?) that Dimples is calling by his last name?
Oh, no. I bet it's because everyone calls him that--and the producers no longer care about disclosing last names, as they did in the beginning. And I bet that's because Savage thinks it's really cool and tough and butch to be called Savage out there. Oh brother. I'm only guessing, but I think I'm going to be sick. If that's true, he's right back down onto my shitlist.
But I won't let that destroy my newfound love for the Morgans.
Survivor Pearl Islands page here .
Head here all week for Survivor Episode 6 Comments
|
10:42:29 AM [Macro error: Can't evaluate the expression because the name "trackbackLink" hasn't been defined.]
|
|
|
I was rushed last night and made dinner through the Survivor Pelican scene. Just watched it, and that Pretty Ryan is fucking adorable. Sweetest little thing that ever lived. I could see marrying that boy.
And I could see him playing on my team, too, though probably just wishful thinking. Wouldn't be a stretch, though.
I also seem to have developed a crush on Tijuana. Love that smile of hers, love that laugh.
Same qualities I love about Pretty Ryan. Seem to be my favorite qualities--along with not being a dick to anyone, a test they both seem to have passed.
I'm even softening on Andrew. He has led miserably, and he's totally full of himself, but other than that, he's not a bad guy. And he really began to win me over when he held those weights till he cried. And he didn't mind crying about it.
Good lord, I do believe I'm starting to like the Morgans. It helped that they quit losing everything--it's really hard to love such pathetic fuckups--but Pretty Ryan has always been one of my faves, especially when he turned out to be the only prettyboy without a black heart. And Ti has been growing on me steadily for weeks.
I sure don't like what's left over at Drake: Sandra I like mostly, Rupert large parts of him. But nobody I could totally embrace. Trish was the only one I wholeheartedly liked over there, and even her, not in the same leauge as Pretty Ryan and Ti.
Good lord, I've switched sides.
Survivor Pearl Islands page here .
Head here all week for Survivor Episode 6 Comments
|
10:30:40 AM [Macro error: Can't evaluate the expression because the name "trackbackLink" hasn't been defined.]
|
|
|
I wish I had more to add to this:
Solar storm barrels towards earth
I do love this imagery (though I saw it described much more vividly in a different piece I saw in print):
The storm, called a "coronal mass ejection," is a mass of solar gas that swept toward Earth at 2 million mph.
What fascinates me is that this all goes on almost invisibly--invisibly to anyone not closely monitoring the sun. It is this enormous storm much larger than our entire planet, it is buffeting out planet, blasting the shit out of it, and it has been going on for all the thousands of years humans have been roaming around the planet and this entire time we've been oblivious to it.
Kind of puts you in your place, doesn't it?
|
12:48:06 AM [Macro error: Can't evaluate the expression because the name "trackbackLink" hasn't been defined.]
|
|
|
This is a crucial victory for indie films. Without it, most could not win Oscars, meaning most could not have a shot at making any money, meaning most would not get made:
Studios partly reverse Oscar screener ban
Hollywood studios partially reversed their ban Thursday on special video copies for awards groups, capitulating to widespread criticism that the move would make it harder for smaller films to win Oscars.
It still sucks, though, because of this:
The new agreement will allow "screener" copies to be sent to the approximately 5,600 Academy Awards voters, but not the far larger pool that hands out lesser honors.
That means groups that present the Golden Globes, Screen Actors Guild Awards, critics prizes and other movie honors will have to see films at theaters or at screenings arranged by studios. Oscar voters, meanwhile, can watch movies at home on copies sent by the films' distributors.
It's by winning those other awards--or at least getting lots of nominations--that smaller films and the individuals in them build the momentum to make a play for the Oscars. So it's still a really shitty situation.
|
12:39:53 AM [Macro error: Can't evaluate the expression because the name "trackbackLink" hasn't been defined.]
|
|
|
The big question on the preview:
This big twist: Is it for real?
This, time, yes, I'm betting.
Mark Burnett often bullshits us on this stuff, but I've felt a change in the wind this time. He didn't pull the early team-switch he had done the past few seasons, and the standard seventh-episode merge is getting old, old, old.
The one-time Rupert switch was fun, but minor. It feels like time for a bigger twist to the game, so I bet he's going to pull something really big on us/them.
I sure hope so.
---
Meanwhile, the previews look ominous for Rupert. Making the classic mistake of the person who goes ballistic when anyone votes for him. He already had a problem being too untouchable, the last thing he should do is rant and stomp his feet and scream about how untouchable he was, and no one had the right to write his name down.
That always goes over badly, but the stronger the person to begin with, the worse.
And it's just so pathetic. Someone has to get voted out every week. Most people get voted for. He's been all excited about voting several people off, including one he is now allied with, Shawn. Yet the thought of anyone voting for him . . .? He's not a fucking diety, for God's sake.
And he's just going to alienate Jon more when he needs him most. Has he noticed his team needs every vote it has and one more at this critical juncture?
Presumably critical. Either a merge or . . .?
Survivor Pearl Islands page here .
Head here all week for Survivor Episode 6 Comments
|
12:22:33 AM [Macro error: Can't evaluate the expression because the name "trackbackLink" hasn't been defined.]
|
|
|
I was just about to start thinking--very belatedly thinking--about who I wanted to predict for winning the entire Survivor Pearl Islands season.
I'm way too late, as usual, but just haven't had time to really analyze it.
But, one name did keep popping into my head, that I thought it might be. Trish. Damn. Trish Dunn.
Now the flipside of that is that I believe the whole "first thought = best thought" idea is one of THE stupidest concepts ever foisted on a large percentage of the public. Sometimes instincts are right, but more often they fall before better analysis. And I hadn't done the analysis yet, so she probably would not have ended up my final choice, but definitely on my list of finalists.
Now I don't even have a hunch.
And if Jon can't hold steady, it could actually be a Morgan.
I'll try to come down with a few picks this week.
You all should do the same. Go to this week's comment thread and stick them there.
Survivor Pearl Islands page here .
Head here all week for Survivor Episode 6 Comments
|
12:00:14 AM [Macro error: Can't evaluate the expression because the name "trackbackLink" hasn't been defined.]
|
|
|