Monday, October 6, 2008
100
This is my 100th post. Which isn't that great since I've had this blog for over a year. But this is 100. And I wasted it on being meta, kind of.
I've Been Writing
I've been writing a little, mostly working on some new fiction, but here are a couple of other things...also I started this new list of links at the side. I often link other writing I like from writer's I like, but now I'm just putting it all over there, with some other stuff from magazines that I like, and some random stuff, like the Constitution.
Intentionally Urban
Stuff at F10 again (subscribe to the RSS feed, it's pretty solid)
Film-Forward
Intentionally Urban
Stuff at F10 again (subscribe to the RSS feed, it's pretty solid)
Film-Forward
Friday, October 3, 2008
Point, Counterpoint, Point
In case you haven't read a frustrated post on here called Why Do the Candidates Continue to Refuse to Talk About Anything, David Luke Doody (responses are posted at his blog This Is How I Love You) and I are having a battle in which we agree, but somehow disagree in some abstract way that no one really understands. Here is what has happened some far, followed by the latest counterpoint:
Point (Question):
Why Do the Candidates Continue to Refuse to Talk About Anything
It seems like the election has been a constant contest to seem who can say the least. I'm really amazed that we are only five weeks away from this being over. It feels like they are just getting started. Obama and Biden have really receded from the headlines and McCain is either stealing the headlines with Palin's idiocy (I believe my recent favorite was that she can't name a supreme court case outside of Roe v. Wade), or he's in the news aimlessly attacking Obama. What about what's actually happening, particularly the erosion of American civil liberties. Neither candidate would touch that topic with a ten foot pole. In their defense, it's lethal. What can you say on the topic that wouldn't piss someone off? But isn't that what we really want? I leader who isn't scared of opinion polls or talking about a something that people might get sensitive about? It's a real issue. The Bush administration has slowly but surely given the executive branch increased control of torture, spying, and all intelligence routes through the government. This is a flagrant violation of our constitution, of our rights. Yet, no one really seems to want to prod the candidates into speaking on the subject.
Obama is scared of looking left wing. And McCain has voted with Bush through the entire erosion. (and Obama is not innocent here) Why doesn't someone try to make them talk about it in a debate, or why aren't reporters hitting them with these questions. Katie Couric made Palin look dumb, but Palin has nothing to do with this, she is not a national politician, in my mind she's not much of a politician at all, but that's besides the point. Why can't we actually have an open discussion about these kind of issues in an election year? I think I know the answer, and maybe I'm being naive and idealistic in hoping that this could be possible, but dammit I don't care, I want to hear them speak about this. This may be a great plan for McCain in fact. It seems as though the debate would go to Obama, because McCain has always followed Bush through this erosion of our rights, and anyone that cares would have to side with Obama. But what if Obama can't defend a somewhat patchy track record here? What if he can't speak about it as eloquently as you would imagine? It might be a good chance for McCain to win over some of the liberal vote...try it, see what happens. It won't happen, but it's fun to imagine what kind of democracy you would wish for.
-Dustin Luke Nelson
Counterpoint:
There's a book by Dana Nelson called "Bad for Democracy" that shows how over decades and decades--not just through the W years--the presidency has sought and received more and more power, throwing the balance of government completely out of whack. The position becomes more and more like that of a king, and all the while the American people have accepted this piracy of the balance originally sought after by our founding fathers. Think of the language we use: "The leader of the free world," "The most powerful position in the land," et al. This is not what the presidency was supposed to be. It was supposed to be just one branch with no more and no less power than the others, or at least it was supposed to be able to be checked and put in line when it stepped out of that line.
But, more specifically in response to this post, you're right, they won't talk about incendiary issues because they cannot afford to piss anyone off who may be on the fence about those issues. It's like when they say "middle class" but never utter the word "poverty." It's spinning what they say to get votes...a watered down version of tackling the tough topics in order to get votes.
The point is, the position of president carries too much power and importance in the average American's mind. Yes, it is important that our representatives actually discuss important issues. But it's even more important that we not rely on them as much as we do to do anything about those important issues.
The fight does not end on November 5th, even if Obama is elected. Yes, we can all breath a sigh of relief if that is the outcome, because we will have taken a step in the right direction. But, and be sure of this, he is not a savior. He cannot undo all that has been done. He will not be able to retroactively give back all the civil liberties lost over the years. And you can be sure that there will be those fighting tooth and nail to keep the powers and tactics they have become accustomed to. The president is not our king and we cannot simply rely on him to answer all of our questions.
-David Luke Doody
Point:
I would not argue that this (straightforward dialogue on the issues) will ever happen, because that's election year politicking, this is not a new revelation for anyone. But what happens in a presidential race is mimicked extensively in congressional elections. The presidential race sets the tone for the rest of the contests. If we had candidates that weren't concerned that speaking about the issues that could irritate the “on the fence” voters the congressional races would follow suit.
I think there is something to be said for that, because while the president should not be the "king" of America, there is a collective mentality that it is so (to a certain extent). So, whether or not it's true, it is made true by the actions of the constituents.
This is easily exemplified by the debates last night when the moderator asked Palin and Biden how they would act as vice president and if they would use Cheney's interpretation of the vice president’s duties as outlined by the constitution. I don't have the exact quote from the moderator, but she spoke about the constitution being vague on the exact location of power for the vice president. Palin immediately responded that she agreed with Cheney (red flag anyone? The first time anyone besides Bush and Lucifer have publicly agreed with Cheney). The specific branch where the powers of the vice president lie are not vaguely stated in the constitution, he (or potentially she) is a part of the executive branch, he is not a roving force that hovers over all branches of the government. But because someone argues for such powers, and convinces people of them, that can make it reality, whether or not it should be. The mere fact that this was phrased in this fashion and that Palin, without hesitation, responded she subscribes to this doctrine legitimizes this view. The president, especially now, as the executive branch continually expands it's power, the position functions beyond it's equal power doctrine between the branches. The checks and balances are broken.
From Article One of the Constitution:
That said, I agree with you. Any time radical change has come from within the government (it's hard to believe sometimes, but it's happened) it is not a result of a president taking more power into the executive branch, it is a result of a sweeping majority in one party through both houses of Congress. Obama is not the savior, and he isn't going to save the country by becoming president. I certainly believe that it's a step in the right direction, but to see radical change in government it's going to take a whole lot more than a president who is willing to stand up for their policies. (unless they want to tear the constitution to shreds and kind of have a free for all - as has happened recently, but even then, the Republicans had a solid majority when Bush first took office).
- Dustin Luke Nelson
Point (Question):
Why Do the Candidates Continue to Refuse to Talk About Anything
It seems like the election has been a constant contest to seem who can say the least. I'm really amazed that we are only five weeks away from this being over. It feels like they are just getting started. Obama and Biden have really receded from the headlines and McCain is either stealing the headlines with Palin's idiocy (I believe my recent favorite was that she can't name a supreme court case outside of Roe v. Wade), or he's in the news aimlessly attacking Obama. What about what's actually happening, particularly the erosion of American civil liberties. Neither candidate would touch that topic with a ten foot pole. In their defense, it's lethal. What can you say on the topic that wouldn't piss someone off? But isn't that what we really want? I leader who isn't scared of opinion polls or talking about a something that people might get sensitive about? It's a real issue. The Bush administration has slowly but surely given the executive branch increased control of torture, spying, and all intelligence routes through the government. This is a flagrant violation of our constitution, of our rights. Yet, no one really seems to want to prod the candidates into speaking on the subject.
Obama is scared of looking left wing. And McCain has voted with Bush through the entire erosion. (and Obama is not innocent here) Why doesn't someone try to make them talk about it in a debate, or why aren't reporters hitting them with these questions. Katie Couric made Palin look dumb, but Palin has nothing to do with this, she is not a national politician, in my mind she's not much of a politician at all, but that's besides the point. Why can't we actually have an open discussion about these kind of issues in an election year? I think I know the answer, and maybe I'm being naive and idealistic in hoping that this could be possible, but dammit I don't care, I want to hear them speak about this. This may be a great plan for McCain in fact. It seems as though the debate would go to Obama, because McCain has always followed Bush through this erosion of our rights, and anyone that cares would have to side with Obama. But what if Obama can't defend a somewhat patchy track record here? What if he can't speak about it as eloquently as you would imagine? It might be a good chance for McCain to win over some of the liberal vote...try it, see what happens. It won't happen, but it's fun to imagine what kind of democracy you would wish for.
-Dustin Luke Nelson
Counterpoint:
There's a book by Dana Nelson called "Bad for Democracy" that shows how over decades and decades--not just through the W years--the presidency has sought and received more and more power, throwing the balance of government completely out of whack. The position becomes more and more like that of a king, and all the while the American people have accepted this piracy of the balance originally sought after by our founding fathers. Think of the language we use: "The leader of the free world," "The most powerful position in the land," et al. This is not what the presidency was supposed to be. It was supposed to be just one branch with no more and no less power than the others, or at least it was supposed to be able to be checked and put in line when it stepped out of that line.
But, more specifically in response to this post, you're right, they won't talk about incendiary issues because they cannot afford to piss anyone off who may be on the fence about those issues. It's like when they say "middle class" but never utter the word "poverty." It's spinning what they say to get votes...a watered down version of tackling the tough topics in order to get votes.
The point is, the position of president carries too much power and importance in the average American's mind. Yes, it is important that our representatives actually discuss important issues. But it's even more important that we not rely on them as much as we do to do anything about those important issues.
The fight does not end on November 5th, even if Obama is elected. Yes, we can all breath a sigh of relief if that is the outcome, because we will have taken a step in the right direction. But, and be sure of this, he is not a savior. He cannot undo all that has been done. He will not be able to retroactively give back all the civil liberties lost over the years. And you can be sure that there will be those fighting tooth and nail to keep the powers and tactics they have become accustomed to. The president is not our king and we cannot simply rely on him to answer all of our questions.
-David Luke Doody
Point:
I would not argue that this (straightforward dialogue on the issues) will ever happen, because that's election year politicking, this is not a new revelation for anyone. But what happens in a presidential race is mimicked extensively in congressional elections. The presidential race sets the tone for the rest of the contests. If we had candidates that weren't concerned that speaking about the issues that could irritate the “on the fence” voters the congressional races would follow suit.
I think there is something to be said for that, because while the president should not be the "king" of America, there is a collective mentality that it is so (to a certain extent). So, whether or not it's true, it is made true by the actions of the constituents.
This is easily exemplified by the debates last night when the moderator asked Palin and Biden how they would act as vice president and if they would use Cheney's interpretation of the vice president’s duties as outlined by the constitution. I don't have the exact quote from the moderator, but she spoke about the constitution being vague on the exact location of power for the vice president. Palin immediately responded that she agreed with Cheney (red flag anyone? The first time anyone besides Bush and Lucifer have publicly agreed with Cheney). The specific branch where the powers of the vice president lie are not vaguely stated in the constitution, he (or potentially she) is a part of the executive branch, he is not a roving force that hovers over all branches of the government. But because someone argues for such powers, and convinces people of them, that can make it reality, whether or not it should be. The mere fact that this was phrased in this fashion and that Palin, without hesitation, responded she subscribes to this doctrine legitimizes this view. The president, especially now, as the executive branch continually expands it's power, the position functions beyond it's equal power doctrine between the branches. The checks and balances are broken.
From Article One of the Constitution:
The Vice President of the United States shall be President of the Senate, but shall have no vote, unless they be equally divided.
The Senate shall choose their other officers, and also a President pro tempore, in the absence of the Vice President, or when he shall exercise the office of President of the United States.
That said, I agree with you. Any time radical change has come from within the government (it's hard to believe sometimes, but it's happened) it is not a result of a president taking more power into the executive branch, it is a result of a sweeping majority in one party through both houses of Congress. Obama is not the savior, and he isn't going to save the country by becoming president. I certainly believe that it's a step in the right direction, but to see radical change in government it's going to take a whole lot more than a president who is willing to stand up for their policies. (unless they want to tear the constitution to shreds and kind of have a free for all - as has happened recently, but even then, the Republicans had a solid majority when Bush first took office).
- Dustin Luke Nelson
New Ideas? Anyone?
It seems as though the Republican mantra of trickle down economics is something that we are sticking resiliently to. The notion that giving $700 billion dollars to Wall Street is going to, in turn, trickle down to the mythical “main street” both McCain and Biden have spoken of in debates. But where is the evidence of this working? Certainly not anywhere in the last 9 to 10 years. The parallel of our times to the Great Depression has been omnipresent, both in straight comparison of the economic downturn and when the comparison has been shrugged off, like McCain’s former advisor calling American’s a nation of whiners, invoking the Great Depression as something we couldn’t fathom.
Yet, looking back at one of the nation’s darkest economic times seems entirely relevant to a country where relatively few people remain from that difficult era. It was not a trickle down effect that led America out of the Depression (though war, in the end, didn’t hurt either). FDR’s New Deal policies never took the stance that a trickle down was an option, that there was time to watch the money trickle at all. The New Deal policies held it most important to get money in the hands of the middle and lower classes first. To allow the, um, steam to rise…I’m not exactly sure what to call this, but I guess that’s the only way I know that water rises.
Putting systems in place, such as social security, and using the government to temporarily employee citizens while they assisted in making the country a better place were policies that attacked a number of the nation’s problems at once. With Bush’s approval rating in danger of falling far below 30%, and congress at dismal 15% (who knows where Cheney is, what the percentage for 40 people in the country?) it seems more than reasonable to suggest that it is this kind of multi-pronged policy that is necessary to pull the nation out of this turmoil, to let the steam rise.
Obama has promised change relentlessly, but as the election lumbers forward his policies seem to be inching closer to centrist than ever before. Election years are notorious for making centrists out of the most earnest reformers, because that’s politics, policies can change; once the votes are cast they are cast. But isn’t it time for America to take on some bold new ideas, because whatever is happening now, isn’t working. Unemployment is at an all time low, the stock market has bottomed out in the past couple of weeks, increasing amounts of corruption are being unveiled on Wall Street, gas prices are at all time highs, the government is about to offer fiscal assistance to Wall Street while the housing market is collapsing, global warming is taking place at an alarmingly fast rate, parts of the country are still in need of repair from a hurricane that hit over three years ago, our president and congress are universally disliked, America is more unpopular than ever abroad, oh, and there are those two wars we are still involved in.
Obama once taunted Senator McCain’s adaptation of his “change” slogan saying, “Change isn't about slogans. It's about substance.” How about some substance? How about we implement a program that employees the growing number of unemployed whose jobs are being outsourced because of loose tax regulations, who are loosing their homes because of loose oversight on shady mortgages, who are loosing their social security and retirement funds due to poor oversight and the market crash? It’s no coincidence that some of the best policies still in place for the middle class were implemented by FDR. If the government helped the middle class to get back on their feet by assisting the country in rebuilding crumbling infrastructure such as old bridges and levees in disrepair, if they could help housing developments in urban centers go green to offset fears about global warming and the increased burden of gas prices on the lower class, wouldn’t that help everyone? Wouldn’t the steam rise?
With that increased income in their bank account maybe the bank wouldn’t have to close and they have some dispensable income that they might invest, or just try to clothe their families with, maybe they could keep up on their mortgages and not lose their homes because of laws that were loosened during the Clinton administration that had lasted from the original New Deal.
To some this might sound like Socialism. But desperate times call for some new ideas, and after Friday night’s presidential debate and last night’s abysmal vice presidential debate I’m tired of hearing the same old centrist banter, name-calling, and partisan politics. I’d like to hear some new ideas from a leader. I’d like to see them throw some water on the smouldering remains of the reigning policies of trickle down economics, so that the steam can rise.
Yet, looking back at one of the nation’s darkest economic times seems entirely relevant to a country where relatively few people remain from that difficult era. It was not a trickle down effect that led America out of the Depression (though war, in the end, didn’t hurt either). FDR’s New Deal policies never took the stance that a trickle down was an option, that there was time to watch the money trickle at all. The New Deal policies held it most important to get money in the hands of the middle and lower classes first. To allow the, um, steam to rise…I’m not exactly sure what to call this, but I guess that’s the only way I know that water rises.
Putting systems in place, such as social security, and using the government to temporarily employee citizens while they assisted in making the country a better place were policies that attacked a number of the nation’s problems at once. With Bush’s approval rating in danger of falling far below 30%, and congress at dismal 15% (who knows where Cheney is, what the percentage for 40 people in the country?) it seems more than reasonable to suggest that it is this kind of multi-pronged policy that is necessary to pull the nation out of this turmoil, to let the steam rise.
Obama has promised change relentlessly, but as the election lumbers forward his policies seem to be inching closer to centrist than ever before. Election years are notorious for making centrists out of the most earnest reformers, because that’s politics, policies can change; once the votes are cast they are cast. But isn’t it time for America to take on some bold new ideas, because whatever is happening now, isn’t working. Unemployment is at an all time low, the stock market has bottomed out in the past couple of weeks, increasing amounts of corruption are being unveiled on Wall Street, gas prices are at all time highs, the government is about to offer fiscal assistance to Wall Street while the housing market is collapsing, global warming is taking place at an alarmingly fast rate, parts of the country are still in need of repair from a hurricane that hit over three years ago, our president and congress are universally disliked, America is more unpopular than ever abroad, oh, and there are those two wars we are still involved in.
Obama once taunted Senator McCain’s adaptation of his “change” slogan saying, “Change isn't about slogans. It's about substance.” How about some substance? How about we implement a program that employees the growing number of unemployed whose jobs are being outsourced because of loose tax regulations, who are loosing their homes because of loose oversight on shady mortgages, who are loosing their social security and retirement funds due to poor oversight and the market crash? It’s no coincidence that some of the best policies still in place for the middle class were implemented by FDR. If the government helped the middle class to get back on their feet by assisting the country in rebuilding crumbling infrastructure such as old bridges and levees in disrepair, if they could help housing developments in urban centers go green to offset fears about global warming and the increased burden of gas prices on the lower class, wouldn’t that help everyone? Wouldn’t the steam rise?
With that increased income in their bank account maybe the bank wouldn’t have to close and they have some dispensable income that they might invest, or just try to clothe their families with, maybe they could keep up on their mortgages and not lose their homes because of laws that were loosened during the Clinton administration that had lasted from the original New Deal.
To some this might sound like Socialism. But desperate times call for some new ideas, and after Friday night’s presidential debate and last night’s abysmal vice presidential debate I’m tired of hearing the same old centrist banter, name-calling, and partisan politics. I’d like to hear some new ideas from a leader. I’d like to see them throw some water on the smouldering remains of the reigning policies of trickle down economics, so that the steam can rise.
Thursday, October 2, 2008
Monday, September 29, 2008
Why Do the Candidates Continue to Refuse to Talk About Anything
It seems like the election has been a constant contest to seem who can say the least. I'm really amazed that we are only five weeks away from this being over. It feels like they are just getting started. Obama and Biden have really receded from the headlines and McCain is either stealing the headlines with Palin's idiocy (I believe my recent favorite was that she can't name a supreme court case outside of Roe v. Wade), or he's in the news aimlessly attacking Obama. What about what's actually happening, particularly the erosion of American civil liberties. Neither candidate would touch that topic with a ten foot pole. In their defense, it's lethal. What can you say on the topic that wouldn't piss someone off? But isn't that what we really want? I leader who isn't scared of opinion polls or talking about a something that people might get sensitive about? It's a real issue. The Bush administration has slowly but surely given the executive branch increased control of torture, spying, and all intelligence routes through the government. This is a flagrant violation of our constitution, of our rights. Yet, no one really seems to want to prod the candidates into speaking on the subject.
Obama is scared of looking left wing. And McCain has voted with Bush through the entire erosion. (and Obama is not innocent here) Why doesn't someone try to make them talk about it in a debate, or why aren't reporters hitting them with these questions. Katie Couric made Palin look dumb, but Palin has nothing to do with this, she is not a national politician, in my mind she's not much of a politician at all, but that's besides the point. Why can't we actually have an open discussion about these kind of issues in an election year? I think I know the answer, and maybe I'm being naive and idealistic in hoping that this could be possible, but dammit I don't care, I want to hear them speak about this. This may be a great plan for McCain in fact. It seems as though the debate would go to Obama, because McCain has always followed Bush through this erosion of our rights, and anyone that cares would have to side with Obama. But what if Obama can't defend a somewhat patchy track record here? What if he can't speak about it as eloquently as you would imagine? It might be a good chance for McCain to win over some of the liberal vote...try it, see what happens. It won't happen, but it's fun to imagine what kind of democracy you would wish for.
Obama is scared of looking left wing. And McCain has voted with Bush through the entire erosion. (and Obama is not innocent here) Why doesn't someone try to make them talk about it in a debate, or why aren't reporters hitting them with these questions. Katie Couric made Palin look dumb, but Palin has nothing to do with this, she is not a national politician, in my mind she's not much of a politician at all, but that's besides the point. Why can't we actually have an open discussion about these kind of issues in an election year? I think I know the answer, and maybe I'm being naive and idealistic in hoping that this could be possible, but dammit I don't care, I want to hear them speak about this. This may be a great plan for McCain in fact. It seems as though the debate would go to Obama, because McCain has always followed Bush through this erosion of our rights, and anyone that cares would have to side with Obama. But what if Obama can't defend a somewhat patchy track record here? What if he can't speak about it as eloquently as you would imagine? It might be a good chance for McCain to win over some of the liberal vote...try it, see what happens. It won't happen, but it's fun to imagine what kind of democracy you would wish for.
Sunday, September 28, 2008
David has a story to tell
David Doody has a great piece of flash fiction up on MNartists.org miniStories that you should read. It's call On Telling Her about the Short Story “On Wanting to Get Three Walls Up Before She Gets Home”
Friday, September 26, 2008
InDigest is seeking submissions focused on Hurricane Katrina
InDigest (indigestmag.com), a literary magazine that seeks to create a dialogue about and between the arts, is interested in submissions focused on Hurricane Katrina. Why Katrina? Why now? We at InDigest were extremely troubled by the politicizing of events surrounding Hurricane Gustav—the photo ops, the self-serving talk of doing good for others, et al.—while people affected by Katrina are still living in FEMA trailers three years after Katrina hit. We feel that, unlike another national tragedy—9/11—Katrina has been dismissed, forgotten. We have our own opinions about why, but we seek artists’ and writers’ response to this national scar.
Please refer to indigestmag.com/submit.htm for guidelines to submit poetry, fiction, nonfiction, art, and music. Submissions can be sent to indigestsubmit@gmail.com.
Please refer to indigestmag.com/submit.htm for guidelines to submit poetry, fiction, nonfiction, art, and music. Submissions can be sent to indigestsubmit@gmail.com.
Thursday, September 18, 2008
Go Away, Bomb
I just finished reading the Gone Away World, the new book by Nick Harkaway, not that new is relevant, it's his first book. Anyhow, it's fantastic, and I'm recommending it. It's one of the best books I've read in so long. It's like the first time you hear Bob Dylan's Self Titled album on vinyl, or Bitches Brew on vinyl, when you prairie dog for a bit and then flat out poop. It was kind of like that and I loved it.
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
More Business
Here is some cool stuff:
Guernica Mag has some new stuff up.
This is a little behind but there is a great live recording of Nico Muhly up on the WNYC website.
Brandon Scott Gorrell has a good story up on InDigest (Did I already post that?)
Michael Azerrad wrote a beautiful, glowing review of the Signal Performs Steve Reich at LPR this weekend. It was awesome, I was there, I've fallen in love with Music for 18 Musicians.
Brad Liening wrote a poem that I like.
Meggie Elder also wrote a poem that I like.
Meakin Armstrong thinks Esquire sucks now. I do too.
Guernica Mag has some new stuff up.
This is a little behind but there is a great live recording of Nico Muhly up on the WNYC website.
Brandon Scott Gorrell has a good story up on InDigest (Did I already post that?)
Michael Azerrad wrote a beautiful, glowing review of the Signal Performs Steve Reich at LPR this weekend. It was awesome, I was there, I've fallen in love with Music for 18 Musicians.
Brad Liening wrote a poem that I like.
Meggie Elder also wrote a poem that I like.
Meakin Armstrong thinks Esquire sucks now. I do too.
Sunday, September 14, 2008
I've been writing
There is a new issue of InDigest on screens today! Some good stuff in there. Articles from me, David, fiction from Brandon Scott Gorrell, Art from Pamela Kirton, and lots of other stuff.
Also I've been writing a little in these places...
here (InDigest) (Interview with Reverend Billy)
here (Guernica)
here (guernica)
here (Film-Forward)
Something over at Rift
a bunch of stuff over at the Favorite 10 Blog
Also I've been writing a little in these places...
here (InDigest) (Interview with Reverend Billy)
here (Guernica)
here (guernica)
here (Film-Forward)
Something over at Rift
a bunch of stuff over at the Favorite 10 Blog
Thursday, September 11, 2008
You've got to be kidding me.
Is this a trick somehow? Or is the world just a beautiful place? A painting elephant has restored my faith in humanity, but I'm not sure why. It'll fade soon. David? You know what I'm talking about.
Tuesday, September 9, 2008
Radiohead live MP3s
Vin over at Favorite 10 spiced up my post on Radiohead's final performance of their American trek (in Santa Barbara, CA) being turned into a free podcast by NPR. He is now offering free, individual track downloads of every song of the performance here>>>>. I've been listening to this all morning, pretty great. Though I'd share the free downloads with you too.
Monday, September 8, 2008
One of my last photos from St. Paul...
I think I was watching the Stanley Cup with Colin that night...
Sunday, August 31, 2008
Sarah Palin...
It's a pretty intense claim that the Daily Kos is currently making about Trig Palin not actually being Sarah Palin's son. It sounds like the kind muck-raking BS that is a hallmark of American elections. I wasn't ready to buy into this at all. But they build a case that is pretty airtight, and frightening. It seems as though the kid is actually her granddaughter and she has been lying about it.
I won't claim that it's absolutely true, because I didn't do the research. But this is a tough case to argue against it.
You can read the article here.
Also here is a photo of Sarah Palin when she was actually pregnant with one of her earlier spawn.
I won't claim that it's absolutely true, because I didn't do the research. But this is a tough case to argue against it.
You can read the article here.
Also here is a photo of Sarah Palin when she was actually pregnant with one of her earlier spawn.
Friday, August 15, 2008
Help Save Cinema Revolution
For readers in the Minneapolis area:
If you are like me, you enjoy a good cup of coffee, a nice tumbler of whiskey, rain storms, and movies. Particularly movies that are not going to be found at your local Blockbuster. Also you probably enjoy all of these things at locally run businesses (damn those FOXNEWS sponsored thunderstorms...).
This isn't just a random rant about something that pissed me off so stick with me here.
I frequented Cinema Revolution for many years, it's easily one of the best video stores (if not the best) in Minneapolis/St. Paul, and they are in trouble. The store is having some financial difficulties and I thought I'd throw something up in hopes that you value what John and Cinema Revolution do for the community as much as I do. The store is run by volunteers who support film screenings around town, host cinema discussion evenings, allow you to rent local filmmakers (often for free) and have a selection that no one else in town can compare to. So here's a little bit of an e-mail John Koch (owner) sent out to some today, about why Cinema Revolution is important:
So, if you can donate a little bit to help them out, if you can't do that, make an effort to rent some films from there, go to a screening hosted by Cinema Revolution, or participate in one of their weekly film discussions.
Here are the details sent out about how you can help out:
That's all I've got, it's well worth a little bit of your time or money to help keep filmmaking in the city alive. Adios.
If you are like me, you enjoy a good cup of coffee, a nice tumbler of whiskey, rain storms, and movies. Particularly movies that are not going to be found at your local Blockbuster. Also you probably enjoy all of these things at locally run businesses (damn those FOXNEWS sponsored thunderstorms...).
This isn't just a random rant about something that pissed me off so stick with me here.
I frequented Cinema Revolution for many years, it's easily one of the best video stores (if not the best) in Minneapolis/St. Paul, and they are in trouble. The store is having some financial difficulties and I thought I'd throw something up in hopes that you value what John and Cinema Revolution do for the community as much as I do. The store is run by volunteers who support film screenings around town, host cinema discussion evenings, allow you to rent local filmmakers (often for free) and have a selection that no one else in town can compare to. So here's a little bit of an e-mail John Koch (owner) sent out to some today, about why Cinema Revolution is important:
We believe that a local store run by live local people is something of value - a store that curates film as a gallery would curate any other form of art, a store that actively promotes film in the community, a store with a real, tangible personality. Cinema Revolution creates an artistic context for your DVD rental experience; we help guide you through innumerable choices, and celebrate films that otherwise are marginalized or ignored. We are active in the community as well. Through the nearly five years of our existence, we have shot a feature film using all local talent, we have held dozens of film screenings through Cinema des Artistes and our Film Society, commissioned new original short films from local artists, held weekly live film discussion groups, started a local record label, and have helped actively promote countless festivals, performances and screenings by local producers. It is a major part of our mission to connect, support and inspire our local artistic community. If you value what we do for the community, we ask you to please help us continue in these endeavors.
So, if you can donate a little bit to help them out, if you can't do that, make an effort to rent some films from there, go to a screening hosted by Cinema Revolution, or participate in one of their weekly film discussions.
Here are the details sent out about how you can help out:
We are seeking to raise $5,000 by September 15th to help make our move to a new location a reality, as it cannot be done without this additional support. The suggested donation is $20 (and if 250 people can do this, we will make our goal), but please feel free to give at any level you can afford. With your collective help we can make this happen.
We are also seeking volunteers to help in this fundraising effort. If you are interested in helping out, contact john@cinemarevolution.com. We are also open to any suggestions or advice anyone may have to help us along.
In just the past two years we have lost legendary video stores Discount Video and Box Office Video. We have seen the Oak Street and Bell Auditorium film programs vanish, we have watched the entire film editorial staff at the City Pages lose their jobs, and Hollywood fare is now seeping into our beloved Lagoon Cinema. Please help keep an active, inspiring film culture alive in the Twin Cities and donate securely via PayPal today at www.cinemarevolution.com (Click on the link below).
Please note that if for any reason we do not achieve our financial goal, your generous donations will be refunded directly through PayPal. If we should raise more than our goal, the extra money will be applied to growing our movie collection to help fill our new space. Also be aware that we are not organized as a non-profit organization for tax purposes, so your donation is not tax deductible.
That's all I've got, it's well worth a little bit of your time or money to help keep filmmaking in the city alive. Adios.
Monday, August 4, 2008
Takes a Good Hard Look at Randy
Whoo-hoo. New Randy Newman tomorrow (it's so good) - and he's playing the entire album live on NPR tomorrow
Saturday, August 2, 2008
inlur Slovenian street art bon iver
That shouldn't have made much sense.
Just linking a few articles I just finished up. Did something about the unmasking of Banksy, a review of a recent Bon Iver show, a piece on the new Slovenian cinema, and a piece for Intentionally Urban on films that will make you want to save the world (or go hmmm...I guess) (that one you have to dig into the PDF to find that one).
that's all more later
Just linking a few articles I just finished up. Did something about the unmasking of Banksy, a review of a recent Bon Iver show, a piece on the new Slovenian cinema, and a piece for Intentionally Urban on films that will make you want to save the world (or go hmmm...I guess) (that one you have to dig into the PDF to find that one).
that's all more later
Friday, August 1, 2008
Here I am
I've been missing for a while, but the move and starting a new job has left little time for writing (though more time for writing than for unpacking boxes). I'm going to post an update on what's going soon, and some pictures of Le Poisson Rouge, but I just wanted to throw up a link. this one
I'm writing for the Favorite10.com blog right now. I've been doing some posting pretty regularly and I think it's kind of a cool site. Just thought I'd share, if you want to check it out go look at it, comment (I'll respond - it's just like talking). Join the RSS feed and get updates, because sometimes we post some pretty cool stuff, and who'd want to miss out on "some pretty cool stuff?"
Anyhow, something about life soon.
I'm writing for the Favorite10.com blog right now. I've been doing some posting pretty regularly and I think it's kind of a cool site. Just thought I'd share, if you want to check it out go look at it, comment (I'll respond - it's just like talking). Join the RSS feed and get updates, because sometimes we post some pretty cool stuff, and who'd want to miss out on "some pretty cool stuff?"
Anyhow, something about life soon.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)