General Stuff's Order of the Day

A Guest Commentary on The Passion of the Christ

Mon, 22 Mar 2004 16:29:32 GMT

[General Stuff's note: The following is an editorial written by a friend of General Stuff. When the General originally wrote about The Passion of the Christ, I made it clear I would invite an alternative opinion from a person of faith, and so I did. My opinion of the film has not changed.]

Maybe Later:

A Look at The Passion of the Christ

Mel Gibson is a fine film director. The Academy and at least several other film fans and theorists would probably agree with me. Braveheart is my favourite film of all time. It is a compelling story of an individual who takes courage against all odds and has faith in himself to do the right thing. It is also an extremely violent film. With that in mind, The Passion of the Christ appears to be a similar movie to Braveheart on many levels. Is it any coincidence that William Wallace must endure a torturous execution just as Christ must in The Passion? Mel Gibson enjoys this type of character/story, and I argue that he does it well. However, unlike my adoration of Braveheart, I have no current desire to see The Passion.

Despite my undying worship of Gibson’s mullet-wearing, blood-spilling 1995 hero, I do not wish to see this comparable tale of self-sacrifice. After I read extensive reviews of The Passion and talked about the film with several veterans of The Passion experience, I became more and more apprehensive about seeing the movie in all its big-screen magnificence. I have no wish to see legs breaking; eyes eaten out by crows; and demonic visions. I just don’t. I do not wish to see the extreme violence in The Passion.

Perhaps I should add one more disclaimer to this decision. When Braveheart was first released, I felt the same way about that film. I had no desire to see hands hacked off; eyes stabbed; and throats slit. Several years after Braveheart’s release, I actually watched the film at a friend’s home. Perhaps the laid-back and relaxed atmosphere made it easier to watch the film? Perhaps I was in a violent mood at the time? For whatever reason, I watched the film, and I loved it. I still love it. Somehow, my reluctance to see the violence of the movie faded away, and I enjoyed Braveheart.

Perhaps someday, I will have the same experience with The Passion. However for now, why would I put myself through the anxiety and anticipation of the imagery? Would it be to see if the film is really as bad as people say? Would it be to witness the aesthetics of the film over and above the gore? These might all serve as valid reasons; but they are not important reasons to me right now. This is my choice, and I must say that I respect this choice when it is made by others. I can only hope that others will respect my choice now.

An interesting element in my decision to not see The Passion of the Christ is that I am a follower of Christ. I love Christ dearly, and I strive to learn more about Him and follow His teachings. There has been an unfortunate crusade (yes, I will use this word fully aware of its meaning) to present this film as a second revelation of Scripture. People talk about how this film transformed them, and how it is such a powerful depiction of the Christ story that it could change anyone who sees it. Maybe it is these things. However, it is still just a film. It is still a group of actors reading a script; a series of petroleum and digital-based special effects; and a series of camera angles compiled into several reels of 35mm film. Movies are powerful visualizations of stories that contain life-changing truths, but this only comes through a person’s interpretation and reception of a film. The film itself does not contain these things.

There is an extraordinary amount of subtle pressure for Christ-followers to see The Passion and take their friends to see it. Perhaps one day, I will do this; but for now, I will not. I simply do not want to see the violence that Gibson has chosen to include in the film, and I do not feel that my faith will become any lesser if I refuse to see The Passion. Perhaps I missed the portion of Scripture that says “Thou shalt pay thine $12 Canadian dollars to see thine saviour’s back flogged.”

A few people have argued that as a Christian, I should understand the severity of the Crucifixion, and that Gibson’s depiction is simply “how terrible it would have been.” Therefore, I should see the film. I have two responses to that. Firstly, I need to understand how people are executed and tortured in Third World countries, but I do not think I have to see it in order to understand it. Secondly, Gibson’s depiction of the Crucifixion is not THE image of the Crucifixion. THE image of the Crucifixion came and went almost 2000 years ago. Gibson’s depiction is an imitation; a reproduction based on archaeological evidence and academic conjecture. The framing, colouring, movement, and expressions of the scene are products of Gibson’s creative imagination and the equipment involved. What you see is not a completely accurate image of the Crucifixion. The audience sees a creative portrait; an imagining of the Crucifixion. Again, I do not believe that someone must see something as brutal as the Crucifixion in its entirety in order to understand the trial that Christ endured. A simple description seems to cause enough sphincter-tightening to get the point across.

Ultimately, The Passion of the Christ is a film. This means that it only holds so much aesthetic value and importance as the viewer gleans from it. It could very well be a fantastic film; however, at this current moment in time, I have no wish to see its violence in order to enjoy its subject material.

Justice Department Opens Inquiry Into Shell Oil

Wed, 17 Mar 2004 21:34:19 GMT

This blogging software is so buggy. I posted stuff yesterday that still hasn't shown up on my home page.

Anyway, here's more news on oil shortages:

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/17/business/17oil.html?th

The Justice Department has opened an inquiry into whether executives at the Royal Dutch/Shell Group violated any laws by failing to disclose in a timely fashion a significant shortfall in proven reserves of oil and natural gas, a person involved in the inquiry said Tuesday.

The company and its executives are already the focus of investigations by European regulators and officials from the Securities and Exchange Commission. But the Justice Department, unlike the commission, has the authority to bring criminal charges as well as civil ones. British and Dutch regulators are also examining the company.

...

Two months ago, the company lowered its estimates of proven oil and gas reserves by about 20 percent, or 3.9 billion barrels. Company documents from two years ago show that current and former top executives were aware of a significant shortfall in reserves and came up with an "external storyline" and "investor relations script" that minimized its significance.

Two weeks ago, the group dismissed its chairman, Sir Philip Watts, and its head of exploration and production, Walter van de Vijver.

Bush is "weak on terror"

Tue, 16 Mar 2004 21:26:40 GMT

I don't how Paul Krugman is right as often as he is, but damn the guy is good:

The Bush administration, which baffled the world when it used an attack by Islamic fundamentalists to justify the overthrow of a brutal but secular regime, and which has been utterly ruthless in its political exploitation of 9/11, must be very, very afraid.

Polls suggest that a reputation for being tough on terror is just about the only remaining political strength George Bush has. Yet this reputation is based on image, not reality. The truth is that Mr. Bush, while eager to invoke 9/11 on behalf of an unrelated war, has shown consistent reluctance to focus on the terrorists who actually attacked America, or their backers in Saudi Arabia and Pakistan.

This reluctance dates back to Mr. Bush's first months in office. Why, after all, has his inner circle tried so hard to prevent a serious investigation of what happened on 9/11? There has been much speculation about whether officials ignored specific intelligence warnings, but what we know for sure is that the administration disregarded urgent pleas by departing Clinton officials to focus on the threat from Al Qaeda.

....

It's now clear that by shifting his focus to Iraq, Mr. Bush did Al Qaeda a huge favor. The terrorists and their Taliban allies were given time to regroup; the resurgent Taliban once again control almost a third of Afghanistan, and Al Qaeda has regained the ability to carry out large-scale atrocities.

But Mr. Bush's lapses in the struggle against terrorism extend beyond his decision to give Al Qaeda a breather. His administration has also run interference for Saudi Arabia — the home of most of the 9/11 hijackers, and the main financier of Islamic extremism — and Pakistan, which created the Taliban and has actively engaged in nuclear proliferation.

Some of the administration's actions have been so strange that those who reported them were initially accused of being nutty conspiracy theorists. For example, what are we to make of the post-9/11 Saudi airlift? Just days after the attack, at a time when private air travel was banned, the administration gave special clearance to flights that gathered up Saudi nationals, including a number of members of the bin Laden family, who were in the U.S. at the time. These Saudis were then allowed to leave the country, after at best cursory interviews with the F.B.I.

It's not the economy; it's Stupid, stupid

Tue, 16 Mar 2004 21:23:07 GMT

According to the Congressional Budget Office, the post-9/11 economic lull is not even close to being the central culprit for America's growing deficit.

When President Bush and his advisers talk about the widening federal budget deficit, they usually place part of the blame on economic shocks ranging from the recession of 2001 to the terrorist attacks that year.

But a report released on Monday by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimated that economic weakness would account for only 6 percent of a budget shortfall that could reach a record $500 billion this year.

Next year, the agency predicted, faster economic growth will actually increase tax revenues even as the deficit remains at a relatively high level of $374 billion.

The new numbers confirm what many analysts have predicted for some time: that budget deficits in the decade ahead will stem less from the lingering effects of the downturn and much more from rising government spending and progressively deeper tax cuts.

Was Bush "Unreliable"?

Tue, 16 Mar 2004 21:17:21 GMT

Bush and the National Guard: More Questions.

Spokane Spokesman-Review: Bush's partial history. Military rules used in 1974 to ground two Washington Air National Guard airmen with access to nuclear weapons also applied to a Texas Air National Guard unit where Lt. George W. Bush was a fighter pilot. Some military researchers and a former Texas Guard lieutenant colonel believe the stringent regulations -- known as the Human Reliability Program -- may have been invoked to stop Bush from flying Texas Air National Guard jets in 1972.

[Dan Gillmor's eJournal]

Bush Administration still looking for "bottom of the ethical barrel"

Mon, 15 Mar 2004 22:44:42 GMT

Bush Administration Invents Journalists to Tout Programs.

NY Times: U.S. Videos, for TV News, Come Under Scrutiny. Federal investigators are scrutinizing television segments in which the Bush administration paid people to pose as journalists praising the benefits of the new Medicare law, which would be offered to help elderly Americans with the costs of their prescription medicines. The videos are intended for use in local television news programs. Several include pictures of President Bush receiving a standing ovation from a crowd cheering as he signed the Medicare law on Dec. 8.

The deceptions are bad enough. The shamelessness of these people is even more amazing.

[Dan Gillmor's eJournal]

Have these guys no shame?

Spain First Country to Say, "Fuck you very much, George Bush"

Sun, 14 Mar 2004 23:49:48 GMT

Pay attention, George Bush. Your wrongheaded invasion of Iraq has just elected its first socialist government.

In surprise victory, Spain's Socialist Party defeated the ruling centre-right Popular Party in an election obviously overshadowed by the recent terrorist attack in Madrid. Voters apparently reacted to the governing party's handling of the attack, and the fact that it may have been retribution from Al-Qaeda for supporting America's invasion of Iraq.

The Spanish government backed the US-led invasion of Iraq last year despite polls showing 90% opposition to it from the Spanish public.

Even CNN recognized the issue in this election:

Turnout was high at 76 percent with voters seeming to express anger with the government, accusing it of provoking the Madrid attacks by supporting the U.S.-led war in Iraq, which most Spaniards opposed.

...

Many of the millions who rallied for peace on Friday across Spain said they felt Aznar had provoked the attacks by backing the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, according to The Associated Press.

This is true democracy in action. The fact that the former Spanish government could go to war with the United States even though 90% of Spain's people disagreed with the invasion of Iraq made a mockery of democracy. Tony Blair deserves his ass handed to him on a platter for the same reason.

Not surprisingly, the Bush Administration has used the Madrid bombing to suggest people all over the world are threatened by terrorism, ignoring the fact that the countries being targeted, beginning with the United States on 9/11, are countries that cooperated with America in the invasion of Iraq. I'm sure Bush was dancing with glee when those unfortunate people in Madrid became victims. For Bush, this just confirms the presence of a ubiquitous threat. But one has to see these actions in a larger context, based on American foreign policy prior to 9/11 (and certainly after), to appreciate the meaning of these attacks.

The rhetoric of the incoming Spanish Prime Minister is a clear rebuttal of the Bush Administration's unilateral thuggery:

Zapatero said he would seek to increase the prestige of democratic institutions in Spain, and vowed to create a transparent government that "will act from dialogue ... it is a government that will work for peace."

Obviously, terrorist attacks should be condemned. But the world must begin to look more closely at the causes of terrorism, instead of obsessing over the horrific effects because it makes for compelling TV. These events are always more complicated than a simple "they're crazy and we're not" scenario. The fact is, the Arabs have been getting screwed by the West for the past century, first at the hands of the British, and now at the hands of the Americans. We all know the purpose of these colonial excursions is to secure Arab oil for Western consumption. This is not a clash of religious civilizations. This is a clash of colonial powers against the colonized, and the only reason this confrontation exists is oil.

Americans must stop recoiling from this kind of criticism. Everytime someone from outside America suggests American foreign policy is at the root of problems with terrorism, the knee-jerk reaction of America is to say, "What, are you saying you support terrorism?" No, of course not. What people from outside of America are saying is, "You have to see the bigger picture. You have to understand how your way of life affects other countries. You have to take the blinders off and realize that sometimes America is in the wrong. Sometimes America does horrible things to other countries. Sometimes America has many different agendas, and not simply the spread of democracy and free market capitalism."

Who knows: Maybe the election in Spain is just the beginning of a worldwide reaction to the Bush Administration's bullying ways? The power elites in Britain and Spain may have their reasons for supporting Bush, but the people opposed him and his illegal invasion. The people of Spain have rejected George Bush and the misery he has wrought on their country.

The people of Spain weren't blinded by the horrific effects of terrorism. I believe today they have reacted to one of the causes.

Now What Do We Do?

Sun, 14 Mar 2004 16:47:14 GMT

Bigfoot was a hoax. I feel so dirty.

Actresses Who Should Have Made It Bigger (huh?)

Sat, 13 Mar 2004 19:33:37 GMT

Well, I can't always be prattling on self-assuredly about serious stuff.

In the biological bazaar of Hollywood, where an actress can earn millions of dollars for the pout of her lips or the perk of her breasts, sometimes the right hotties come along at the wrong time and in the wrong movie and for some reason the public just isn't buying what they're selling. The General would like to nominate three actresses whose relative success has occurred only after they have passed their prime (now I'm talking in purely superficial terms here), or their success has not happened to the degree warranted by their hotness.

I'm saying these lovely ladies should have made it bigger. Ahem.

Gretchen Mol -- Although she has appeared in relatively high profile movies such as Donnie Brasco (1997), Celebrity (1998), and Rounders (1998), I always thought her breakthrough role should have been The Thirteenth Floor (1999), an underrated sci-fi noir movie about virtual reality. Mol isn't a great actress by any means, but I felt like she came across as a sexier Meg Ryan. She's been doing TV lately.
Kate Beckinsale -- She's been in films both critically lauded (Cold Comfort Farm, The Last Days of Disco) and popular (Pearl Harbor), but she never achieved superstar status. I mean, what does Julia Roberts have that Kate Beckinsale doesn't? Beckinsale is much hotter, and can play more delicate, nuanced characters (versus the broadly drawn and always bodacious characters played by the likes of Roberts and Sandra Bullock, for example). Beckinsale's breakthrough role may be her portrayal of Ava Gardner in Martin Scorscese's upcoming biopic of Howard Hughes, The Aviator. To this point, Beckinsale's big budget film leading roles have mostly been duds like Underworld and Serendipity. She's getting on in years (by Hollywood standards), but her new glam look (compare with her Cold Comfort days) has at least prepared her image to take the next step.
Winona Ryder -- I know she's had some success in her career, but it feels like she went on a decade-long slump just as it looked like she would solidify her status as a big Hollywood star. Consider the films she did at the beginning of her career: Beetlejuice, Heathers, Edward Scissorhands, Dracula, The Age of Innocence. Then, around 1993/1994, it's as though the wheels came off whatever gravy train she was riding: Reality Bites, Alien: Resurrection, Autumn in New York, Lost Souls. If you consider Mr. Deeds is her only box office hit in the last 10 years, then you realize her career hasn't been going so swimmingly. What happened to this talented and totally hot actress? Even when she tried to do something relevant, in the way of a would-be satire like S1mOne, she wound up picking a real dud. She was everyone's favourite grunge girl for a few years, and then it was as if there was no more place for her at the table.

They're probably not analogous examples, upon reflection. But they were the ones who came to mind. Sometimes it just seems so wrong that a Tara Reid or a Sarah Michelle Gellar has a career at all, let alone a successful one.

Please come back, Gretchen Mol. I miss you.

And another U.S.-backed coup is in the making

Thu, 11 Mar 2004 16:07:50 GMT

Chávez Says U.S. Is Fueling His Enemies [New York Times: International News]

Mr. Chávez has seized on the information in reams of United States government documents, made public by a pro-Chávez group in New York that show Washington is trying to strengthen political parties and other antigovernment groups that want to remove the populist firebrand through a recall.

Aid to opposition groups by the National Endowment for Democracy, a nonprofit agency financed by the United States Congress, is not new. Nor is the $1 million spent here last year excessively high for an organization that spends $40 million a year to finance hundreds of organizations in 81 countries.

But the unearthing of 2,000 pages of documents has provided details of how the Bush administration considers the rehabilitation of Venezuela's battered political parties the best way to counter a leader Washington views as erratic and authoritarian.

Yeah, right, this about democracy. If that's the case, why doesn't the United States accept the democratically elected Chavez?

It's interesting to note how the word "democracy" has been devalued as much as the word "terrorism." When you want to control a country's oil, you just say you're restoring its "democracy." When you disagree with someone's politics and wish to rally support for your own, you call them "terrorists." Neither word carries any meaning anymore.

The Venezuelan parties and the workers confederation that are beneficiaries of aid are important components of the Democratic Coordinator, an anti-Chávez umbrella organization led by politicians, labor leaders, former managers at the state oil company and media executives.

There's the real reason for this bogus recall: "former managers at the state oil company." Bush just wants his lackeys back in charge of Venezuelan oil. I know it sounds like a tired refrain by now, but sometimes the truth really is that simple. Watch the documentary The Revolution Will Not Be Televised for an excellent perspective on American interference in Venezuela.

Bertuzzi out for playoffs, possibly more

Thu, 11 Mar 2004 15:37:40 GMT

Vancouver criminal probe into hit from behind continues

PIERRE LEBRUN
CANADIAN PRESS

Canucks star Todd Bertuzzi was suspended for at least the rest of the regular season and the playoffs by the NHL today for his attack on Colorado rookie Steve Moore.

Bertuzzi’s “eligibility” for the 2004-05 NHL season will be determined by commissioner Gary Bettman at the start of training camp, the league said.
“No final determination on the total duration of Mr. Bertuzzi’s suspension has yet been made,” Colin Campbell, the NHL’s executive vice-president and director of hockey operations, said in a statement.
Bertuzzi will forfeit at least $501,926.39 (U.S.) in salary, money the Canucks will pay into the NHL Players’ Emergency Assistance Fund.

Read the rest.

Hockey Only Sport That Assumes The Rules Aren't Enough

Thu, 11 Mar 2004 05:35:06 GMT

Today, all three national newspapers in Canada ran photos of the Todd Bertuzzi incident from Monday night. Bertuzzi, a forward for the Vancouver Canucks, sucker-punched Steve Moore of the Colorado Avalanche at the end of Monday night's contest, as retaliation for a hit Moore delivered on Canucks forward Markus Naslund earlier in the season. Naslund missed several games with a concussion, as a result of the hit. After punching Moore in the head, Bertuzzi drove his face into the ice. Moore's neck was fractured and he received a concussion. The Vancouver police are investigating the incident.

Moore's father called the incident "a dark moment for hockey." This evening Bertuzzi issued a tearful apology.

Undoubtedly, the Bertuzzi incident was the topic of discussion across Canada today. It's difficult to find an American analogy to explain the prominence of an event like this in the sport of hockey, because America is so much larger than Canada, and as a result it supports several sports fanatically. In Canada, there is hockey, and there is everything else.

In my mind, the Bertuzzi incident raises at least the following questions: How long should Bertuzzi's suspension be? Is the incident indicative of broader trends in the game? Is the incident justification for a ban on fighting in hockey (keeping in mind that this was not a "fight" but a surprise assault)?

First, if the NHL does not ban Bertuzzi for at least the rest of the season and the playoffs, it will be an insult to Steve Moore, an insult to the professionals who play hockey, and an insult to the fans. Personally, I think he should be banned for at least 1 year. In a more perfect world, he would be banned for as long as Moore is injured. It is possible that Moore will never play hockey again.

Second, the incident is not indicative of broader trends in hockey. This is an anomalous incident. Yes, similar acts of goonery have happened before. But I don't believe the NHL is in any way approaching a state of Slapshot-like parody. That said, I do think the NHL is the most barbaric professional sports league on the planet. Incidents like this just don't happen in other sports. Damien Cox of the Toronto Star sums up the unfortunate mentality that rules hockey:

That line heard over and over yesterday was that Bertuzzi's unprovoked, unwarranted and cowardly attack on Colorado's Steve Moore two nights ago that left Moore with a fractured neck was an "unfortunate" incident.

Unfortunate? Try sickening, despicable and an affront to the sport.

But you won't hear that from this league, an environment in which goalies were once labelled as sissies for wearing masks and players thought of as less-than-manly for wearing helmets.

You won't hear a player or coach or GM or union rep stand up and call for justice on behalf of Moore. You likely won't hear any significant figures in the sport demand the NHL put an end to these vicious incidents that every two or three years lands one of the league's players in a criminal court.

You will only hear excuses and clichés and silence and empty apologies.

It's all part of a sick, age-old hockey mentality. A running back in football can cut through a hole and get drilled by a middle linebacker, and then shake off the blow and retreat to his huddle.

He doesn't demand that a player on his own team cross to the other huddle and challenge that linebacker to a fight.

In hockey, however, every clean hit is an insult to be avenged.

Every issue, to those who believe in this culture, is best resolved with fists.

You hit our guy, we high-stick you.

You knock our guy out, we put your guy in the hospital.

As long as that remains the dominant mentality, people like Steve Moore will have to suffer now and then.

Canadians have to take responsibility for this mentality. This is not America's fault (a popular choice for Canadians, on all manner of subjects). For some reason, hockey culture retains the kind of violent populist barbarism that usually gets filtered from other sports for the sake of selling it to the kids, or simply because society's standards in these matters have improved.

Third, the Bertuzzi incident should not be the reason to ban fighting in hockey. Fighting in hockey should be banned regardless. No other sport allows its participants to beat the hell out of each other while the officials stand around and watch (unless beating the hell out of people is the point of the sport, of course). Hockey is the only professional sport that retains such a stupid allowance.

Proponents of fighting, and apologists for Bertuzzi, will say there has to be some form of violent retribution allowed to act as a deterrent for violent retribution. It's a Cold War mentality in hockey that says, If fighting is allowed, players will avoid stepping out of line because they know they will be taken to task by the other players. You don't hit the goalie because you know you will be mobbed by the other players.

In hockey's antiquated culture, the rules are so ineffectual that built into them is an allowance for self-policing.

As soccer fans, I'm sure, would say, If you just make the infractions that lead to fighting, and fighting itself, illegal and punishable by suspension, you eliminate the need for fighting. Instead of five minutes for fighting, just suspend the players for a game. Soon, none will fight because it won't make any sense.

But this leads to more stick infractions, say people like Don Cherry. Well, then, penalize high sticking with more severe penalties. And on it goes. The apologists who suggest incidents like the Bertuzzi assault on Steve Moore will happen no matter what rules are created and enforced are assuming a kind of fatalism that rules are created to counter in the first place.

Why doesn't hockey change? I think it's because the people who could change it are so entrenched in its attitudes that they find such changes inconceivable. It's like when the police are asked to investigate themselves, and the internal culture of the institution overrides the considerations of outsiders. They take care of their own. Hockey's a similarly hyper-masculine institution in Canada, with grass roots support perhaps unimaginable for other sports in other countries. To these people, to many of the hockey dads out there, if you remove fighting from hockey, you remove a little piece of what makes a Canadian man a man.

Perhaps the analogy I'm looking for is this: Banning fighting in hockey is like asking NRA members to surrender their guns.

Unfortunately for Steve Moore, the barbaric mentality that rules hockey, the right to fight, may cost him his career, and it almost cost him his life.

"On a Mission From God": The Religious Right and the Emerging American Theocracy

Wed, 10 Mar 2004 04:01:25 GMT

http://www.buzzflash.com/farrell/04/03/far04007.html

What's So Endearing About William Hung?

Wed, 10 Mar 2004 03:47:05 GMT

So William Hung has a record deal.

Does Hung even qualify as "kitsch"? For those of you who have been lucky enough not to be following pop culture in the past six months, Hung was a failed contestant on American Idol. He was so bad, yet so earnest in his sucking, that he became some kind of celebrity. Hung is a third-year engineer at Berkeley. He yearns to be a singer, but he can't sing and he can't dance and he certainly doesn't have MTV-calibre looks. Despite this, he now has a record contract. You can visit his website here.

I know that every once in a while something strikes a nerve in American pop culture for no apparent reason. Some things just can't be explained, nor should they be. But I can't help but think that there is a racist form of paternalism that has framed the Hung story from the beginning. If a white American were as bad as Hung, even if he were as genuine as Hung in defeat, would he be featured on Entertainment Tonight and Dateline? If so, those shows would be nothing but failed dweebs all the time.

That is, what's so endearing about William Hung? Have we never seen a dweeb fail before? Even a well-intentioned (but deluded) dweeb?

I think what many people find "cute" or "funny" about Hung is (aside from his last name) the fact that he is playing the role of the "silly foreigner". It's similar to the way in which some of the humour in Lost in Translation is found in the way two Americans view Japanese culture. (I realize Hung is Chinese. I'm simply making an analogy on other grounds.) In Lost in Translation, many of the gags revolve around Japanese people trying to speak English, or Japanese people performing at a karaoke party. The humour, that is, is in watching foreigners butcher the English language. It's funny stuff, no doubt; but it also contains an element of racism in the way it condescends to this other culture.

I call it "paternalistic" racism because it objectifies the person in a way that infantilizes him; it reduces the object of ridicule to a "child," in effect. The humour is presumptuous. We're laughing at these Japanese people because they apparently don't know how ridiculous they look and sound. It's not simply a case of two people feeling "dislocated" in another culture (though it is certainly that); it's also a case of two people thumbing their noses at a foreign culture.

Don't get me wrong: Lost in Translation is not a racist movie. I think it's a wonderful movie, but it contains elements of this kind of paternalism that I think is also found in the celebration of William Hung. I'd like to think people are laughing with William, that they're in on the joke and just indulging this moment of cultural generosity; but I think instead people are laughing at William Hung, on the surface saying he is an emblem of optimism, a refreshing dose of genuine humanity in the otherwise hostile world of popular entertainment, while underneath what they really believe is that William is just another misguided foreigner trying to be like us and failing (laughably).

William Hung is less "the Hong Kong Ricky Martin" and more "the American Idol Charlie Chan." It's not his fault. And I don't begrudge him for running with his fame on this one. But I have to keep returning to my initial dilemma: Why is this talentless dweeb any more interesting / funny / entertaining / full of kitsch value than any other?

More Oil Shortage News (Which is Especially Bad News If You Are Hugo Chavez)

Tue, 09 Mar 2004 14:04:35 GMT

Oil Giant's Officials Knew of Gaps in Reserves in '02. Top executives of the Royal/Dutch Shell Group were advised of huge shortfalls in proven oil and natural gas reserves two years before they were publicly disclosed. By Stephen Labaton and Jeff Gerth. [New York Times: NYT HomePage]

This makes me think of global warming and its public face. Something tells me that even if most scientists were to agree that it's too late to reverse global warming trends, the government would sign up some scientists to promote an opposing view just so people don't go berserk.

Of course the impending gas shortage isn't exactly the same. But, oh, man, look out Hugo Chavez: The CIA is coming for you, my friend.

Why We Love

Mon, 08 Mar 2004 23:56:39 GMT

From a review of Why We Love: The Nature and Chemistry of Romantic Love:

If, as Fisher states, 90 percent of prairie voles stick with one mate for life because they're good dopamine producers and have a sprig of DNA that enhances loyalty, and if norepinephrine automatically floods the brain of a ewe who's on the prowl every time she sees a slide of a ram's face, and those same chemicals burble through the human brain in love, will people one day be able to modify and medicate passions we once regarded as ungovernable? Will not only lust but love be buttressed, cured or even created with a prescription?

The question is not: Can passions be modified by pharamceuticals? The question is: Will we need a prescription for these pharmaceuticals when they become available, and why?

Time to get over our humanist hangover, people. You are the sum of your chemical impulses.

Dark Days Ahead

Mon, 08 Mar 2004 03:13:16 GMT

The General knows Howard Stern is not to be taken too seriously. When Stern recently proclaimed his reign on radio to be "over," one has to know that part of this claim is just Stern's usual penchant for hyperbole. It's his schtick. It's what he does.

"I'm guessing that sometime next week will be my last show on this station," said Stern, adding that he expected the FCC to hit him with a whopping indecency fine. "There's a cultural war going on. The religious right is winning. We're losing."

In this case, however, Stern's proclamation is also genuine: The religious right is winning in America, and that's bad news for America and the rest of the world. The world will get along fine without Howard Stern on the radio; but the world is headed for a dark era when the religious right controls the media.

Mad Mel's Jesus movie passed the $200 million mark after only 12 days. This is more than just a commercial triumph. This is a triumph for ignorance and superstition. This is a triumph for bigotry. This is a triumph for all the bestial properties of the human animal that religious people find so offensive. Goodbye, ethics and rational thought. Hello, stupid dogma.

Religion succeeds because most people are weak and stupid. Religion succeeds because it is the easy answer to all of life's complicated questions. That's too bad. But that's what the human animal is. Weak and stupid. Afraid to face the universal void with dignity and intelligence. The universe is silent, but the religious right fills the silence with self-righteous prattle and baseless dogma.

I don't like it. I don't like it one bit.

Frank Rich Responds to Mel Gibson's "Absolution"

Sun, 07 Mar 2004 17:14:47 GMT

In the past, The General has enjoyed some of NY Times columnist Frank Rich's editorials, but I was generally indifferent. As of today, Frank Rich is my hero. Why? Because he nailed that fucking hypocrite Mel Gibson.

Thank God — I think. Mel Gibson has granted me absolution for my sins. As "The Passion of the Christ" approached the $100 million mark, the star appeared on "The Tonight Show," where Jay Leno asked if he would forgive me. "Absolutely," he responded, adding that his dispute with me was "not personal." Then he waxed philosophical: "You try to perform an act of love even for those who persecute you, and I think that's the message of the film."

Thus we see the gospel according to Mel. If you criticize his film and the Jew-baiting by which he promoted it, you are persecuting him — all the way to the bank. If he says that he wants you killed, he wants your intestines "on a stick" and he wants to kill your dog — such was his fatwa against me in September — not only is there nothing personal about it but it's an act of love. And that is indeed the message of his film. "The Passion" is far more in love with putting Jesus' intestines on a stick than with dramatizing his godly teachings, which are relegated to a few brief, cryptic flashbacks.

With its laborious build-up to its orgasmic spurtings of blood and other bodily fluids, Mr. Gibson's film is constructed like nothing so much as a porn movie, replete with slo-mo climaxes and pounding music for the money shots. Of all the "Passion" critics, no one has nailed its artistic vision more precisely than Christopher Hitchens, who on "Hardball" called it a homoerotic "exercise in lurid sadomasochism" for those who "like seeing handsome young men stripped and flayed alive over a long period of time."

As if summarizing what The General has been saying here at The Order of the Day for the past week, Rich explains how ridiculous Gibson's persecution complex is:

There is also a mighty strange inversion of reality. America is 82 percent Christian, and 60 percent of the population believes the Bible is historical fact. (The Jewish population is 2 percent.) The president of the United States has endorsed Jesus as his favorite philosopher, and Mr. Gibson's movie had almost as large an opening week as "The Lord of the Rings." The star has won his battle. He's hotter than ever in Hollywood, a town whose first commandment is that you never argue with a hit. ("If Hitler did a movie with these numbers, we'd give him his next deal," one Jewish mogul told me in a phone conversation this week.) So by what stretch of the imagination is Mr. Gibson so aggrieved that he can go on "The Tonight Show," purport to be a victim and not be laughed at by Mr. Leno or anyone else? For all his talk of "suffering" for his art, it's hard to see exactly how Mr. Gibson has suffered. His production company is even licensing necklaces ($12.99 or $16.99, take your pick) that feature replicas of the nails used in the film's Crucifixion.

As I said before, the lesson of this film is not its aesthetic quality or its financial success; the lesson here is that often, maybe always, audience response matters more than the substance of a film, or book, or whatever. That is, what an audience brings to a film matters more than what the film contains. That's not a revelation to anyone. But in the case of The Passion of the Christ there is a new phenomenon: the branding of religious attitudes, the signification of religious disposition. Capitalists always ask people to "vote with their dollars," but did capitalists anticipate the ascendance of a theocratic government in the United States by this very means? Religion is good business, for capitalists and politicians alike (and, of course, the line between those two groups is practically nonexistent).

Predictably enough, both the president and Mrs. Bush have publicly indicated their desire to see Mr. Gibson's film. But when even Connecticut's John Rowland, a scandal-ridden governor facing impeachment, starts to rave about "The Passion" in public ("Unbelievable!" "Breathtaking!"), as he did last weekend, it's clear that we're witnessing the birth of a phenomenon. You come away from this whole sorry story feeling that Jesus died in "The Passion of the Christ" so cynics, whether seeking bucks or votes, could inherit the earth.

Preach on, Frank.

Summer Gas Shortage for US Predicted... Time for the CIA to head to Venezuela!

Sat, 06 Mar 2004 21:33:20 GMT

According to an article in USA Today (yesterday), there may be gas shortages in the United States this summer, leading to higher prices.

Fears of shortages. As warmer weather triggers more driving, demand for gasoline will rise from 8.8 million barrels a day now to 9.5 million by late summer. U.S. refineries can't make that much and depend on imported gas to fill the gap.

•Petro-politics: OPEC, the cartel that pumps one-third of world oil, says it will cut production April 1. Venezuela, a major source of U.S. oil and gas, is in political turmoil that is causing work stoppages in the petroleum industry.

•Regulations: U.S. clean-air rules require lower-sulfur gas that some overseas suppliers can provide. Also, refineries are shifting to summer-blend gas, which is designed to lower pollution. The switchovers can cause shortages.

Gee, do you think a state of emergency will be called in Venezuela this summer (since the bogus recall seems to have failed)?

On a related note, if you haven't seen the documentary The Revolution Will Not Be Televised, you should.

This Has The Potential To Be The Greatest Movie Ever

Wed, 03 Mar 2004 22:21:21 GMT

http://www.thegirlnextdoormovie.com

Oh, Elisha Cuthbert. How does someone so hot have such a goofy name?

Getting Married, Biblical Style

Wed, 03 Mar 2004 22:10:49 GMT

This is from CJ's Bullhorn. Fantastic stuff. I have to reproduce it here.

Isn't this what we're talking about here? Isn't BushCo trying to make US marriages adhere to biblical definitions? I acquired the following from a friend, the editor/writer is unknown to me. Seems like our president is fudging a bit here, but that's nothing new. The following is, as far as I know, accurate: I don't own a bible to verify this. One wonders if the first legalized divorce was that of an elected official. My guess would be "yes".

The Scriptures are verified with King James version - not a good one, but the fundies always use it.

In defense of Biblical Marriage

The Presidential Prayer Team is currently urging us to: "Pray for the President as he seeks wisdom on how to legally codify the definition of marriage. Pray that it will be according to Biblical principles. With any forces insisting on variant definitions of marriage, pray that God's Word and His standards will be honored by our government." This is true.

Any good religious person believes prayer should be balanced by action. So here, in support of the Prayer Team's admirable goals, is a proposed Constitutional Amendment codifying marriage entirely on biblical principles:

A. Marriage in the United States shall consist of a union between one man and one or more women. (Gen 29:17-28; II Sam 3:2-5)

B. Marriage shall not impede a man's right to take concubines in addition to his wife or wives. (II Sam 5:13; I Kings 11:3; II Chron 11:21)

C. A marriage shall be considered valid only if the wife is a virgin. If the wife is not a virgin, she shall be executed. (Deut 22:13-21)

D. Marriage of a believer and a non-believer shall be forbidden. (Gen24:3; Num 25:1-9; Ezra 9:12; Neh 10:30)

E. Since marriage is for life, neither this Constitution nor the constitution of any State, nor any state or federal law, shall be construed to permit divorce. (Deut 22:19; Mark 10:9)

F. If a married man dies without children, his brother shall marry the widow. If he refuses to marry his brother's widow or deliberately does not give her children, he shall pay a fine of one shoe and be otherwise punished in a manner to be determined by law. (Gen.38:6-10; Deut 25:5-10)

G. In lieu of marriage, if there are no acceptable men in your town, it is required that you get your father drunk and have sex with him (even if he had previously offered you up as a toy to men young and old), tag-teaming with any sisters you may have. Of course, this rule applies only if you are female. (Gen 19:31-36)

Caps Trade Gonchar, But Not To Toronto

Wed, 03 Mar 2004 21:59:05 GMT

After shipping out Jaromir Jagr, Peter Bondra and Robert Lang, the Washington Capitals have dumped some more salary - this time off their own blueline - sending defenceman Sergei Gonchar to the Boston Bruins in exchange for defenceman Shaone Morrisonn and a first and second round draft pick in the 2004 Entry Draft. [TSN]

As a hockey fan in general and a fan of the Toronto Maple Leafs in particular, General Stuff gets nervous at this time of year, just days before the trading deadline (March 9) for the NHL.

Today's deal between Washington and Boston must be considered a surprise, because none of the hockey analysts were mentioning Boston as a potential home for expensive and therefore expendable defenceman Sergei Gonchar. Maybe that just goes to show how little this talking heads know about what's going on behind the scenes. For weeks, Gonchar has been destined for Toronto or Colorado, according to the experts. Boston was never mentioned. Even yesterday, sports writers were convinced Gonchar was going to Colorado along with goalie Olaf Kolzig.

So much for the experts. However, TSN hockey analyst Glenn Healy did suggest Gonchar, an offensive defenceman, was not a good fit for Toronto, who already boast one of the most offensive group of rearguards in the game. TSN analyst Bob McKenzie thought Gonchar was too expensive for what the Leafs were willing to give away. But a Washington Post article yesterday had Gonchar and Kolzig going to Colorado.

I think the Leafs did the right thing, not pursuing Gonchar. What the Leafs need, if anything, is a defensive defenceman; second on their list would be a backup goalie for Belfour, whose back has troubled him much of his career, and recently made him miss 3 weeks on the injured reserve.

Now is the time to hold one's breath, as a Leaf fan, and wait for the inevitable blockbuster deal involving Pierre Lacroix's Avalanche. Somehow, every year, the Colorado GM manages to make a blockbuster trade at the deadline, a trade that always seems to net much more than Colorado gives away. However, several such deals have already taken place, and one wonders what the hell Leaf management was doing when these bargains were being shopped:

February 27, 2004
Team	Acquisition
DET	ROBERT LANG
WAS	TOMAS FLEISCHMANN 1st Round Pick (2004) 4th Round Pick (2006)
Bob McKenzie's Analysis

Somehow, Detroit snagged the leading scorer IN THE ENTIRE NHL without giving up a roster player. Why wouldn't any team do the same deal? And yet, it's always a team such as Detroit, Colorado, Dallas, Philadelphia, or, this year, Ottawa, who manages to make such a trade. Somebody explain what's going on behind the scenes, please.

February 18, 2004
Team	Acquisition	Team	Acquisition
OTT	PETER BONDRA	WAS	BROOKS LAICH 2nd Round Pick (2005)

That's right: The Washington Capitals' all-time leading scorer gets picked up by Ottawa for BROOKS LAICH and a 2nd round pick? As most observers said at the time: Who the hell is Brooks Laich? Again, Ottawa received a Hall of Fame quality player without surrendering a roster player.

And what has been Toronto's big move so far?

February 11, 2004
Team	Acquisition	Team	Acquisition
TOR	DRAKE BEREHOWSKY	PIT	RIC JACKMAN

Former Leaf Drake Berehowsky makes his triumphant return. Like all of Pat Quinn's moves (he may not have the GM title anymore, but it's safe to say he is still calling the shots), this one involved a player Quinn is already familiar with. Quinn never trades for a player he didn't draft or coach at some point in his career.

In fairness to the Leafs, they may not need to trade for anyone. Their record has them sitting second in the Eastern Conference (though Ottawa and Tampa Bay have 2 games in hand). All they have to do is finish in the top 4 and I think they'll have a good chance in the first round of the playoffs. Lower than that, and they risk facing Philadelphia or Ottawa in the first round, and I don't think they want that (especially Philadelphia).

This has to be Toronto's year, because the team is too old, and there's a chance of a labour lockout next year. Whatever the Leafs do in the next week, they should gamble like there's no tomorrow. Because with a team average age at almost 30 years old, there may not be a tomorrow for a long time.

As I Said Below, Cutting Social Programs is Bullshit... Look What Doesn't Get Cut

Wed, 03 Mar 2004 04:12:57 GMT

http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/2004/03/02/transition/

President Bush is getting quite a reputation, even among fiscal hawks in his own party, for not spending our money wisely. Now comes a report that he wants to spend $1 million to "train" people who would work for him if he wins a second term. The request is unprecedented, the AP says. It's the first time a president has sought to use public transition funds to prepare officials to enter a re-elected administration. Meanwhile, Bush is proposing cuts in various programs. Critics say it's a nervy move.

"It's unbelievable that the same budget proposal that asks Congress to cut money for education, veterans and port security would propose to set aside $1 million to take care of themselves," said Sen. Patty Murray of Washington state, the top Democrat on the Senate Appropriations subcommittee that oversees White House spending.

Paul Krugman: Still Kicking Ass

Wed, 03 Mar 2004 04:00:02 GMT

The General loves Paul Krugman. The guy is kicking ass and taking names. From today:

....There are three lessons in this tale.

First, "starving the beast" is no longer a hypothetical scenario — it's happening as we speak. For decades, conservatives have sought tax cuts, not because they're affordable, but because they aren't. Tax cuts lead to budget deficits, and deficits offer an excuse to squeeze government spending.

Second, squeezing spending doesn't mean cutting back on wasteful programs nobody wants. Social Security and Medicare are the targets because that's where the money is. We might add that ideologues on the right have never given up on their hope of doing away with Social Security altogether. If Mr. Bush wins in November, we can be sure that they will move forward on privatization — the creation of personal retirement accounts. These will be sold as a way to "save" Social Security (from a nonexistent crisis), but will, in fact, undermine its finances. And that, of course, is the point.

Finally, the right-wing corruption of our government system — the partisan takeover of institutions that are supposed to be nonpolitical — continues, and even extends to the Federal Reserve.

The Bush White House has made it clear that it will destroy the careers of scientists, budget experts, intelligence operatives and even military officers who don't toe the line. But Mr. Greenspan should have been immune to such pressures, and he should have understood that the peculiarity of his position — as an unelected official who wields immense power — carries with it an obligation to stand above the fray. By using his office to promote a partisan agenda, he has betrayed his institution, and the nation.

When will people learn: (1) "Liberal" is not a dirty word, and (2) The right-wing tearing down of public infrastructure in the United States -- in the form of cutting social programs in the name of "self-reliance" and other bullshit rich people use to demonize the poor they helped create -- is not a solution to the real problem; privatization of essential social programs will only benefit the rich and destroy whatever sense of civility remains.

Corporate corruption is the problem. Not government.

Of the many sites that know Richard Perle is the Devil, General Stuff's Order of the Day ranks #6 on Google

Wed, 03 Mar 2004 02:30:39 GMT

I know I'm doing something right. Someone searched Google for "Richard Perle Satan" and found The Order of the Day #6 in the results.

If you search Google for "Richard Perle Satan Bride," The Order of the Day is #1. Thank you. Thank you very much. No, please, hold your applause.

As the giant cockroach in Family Guy says, "Good. Good."