Do you ever have one of those favorite songs that you keep imagining in a movie? I feel that way about a lot of my favorites, especially I Like My Toys by The Idle Race. This song would be perfect for movie like Fahrenheit 911 over a montage of George W. Bush or some other “rich kid who got to fail his way to the top”. Unfortunately The Idle Race’s work is out of print. If you can anything by them, grab it. They’re one of the great unknown bands from the late 60’s.

It seems that there are two basic styles of zombie movie :

The “What the hell is happening?!” style focuses on the reactions of normal people as their friends and family are slowly killed by and turn into zombies. These films usually have a claustrophobic element and end up focusing on a small mismatched group of people who are killed one by one. These films almost always include a family that has to deal with the fact that one member has risen from the dead and is trying to eat them while the most badass or sensible member of the group tries to kill theie newly-zombified.

The “Lock and Load” (for lack of a better term) films tend to take place shortly after the zombie infestation and feature a militant band of outsiders who have adjusted to post-zombie life (often in a fortified base of some sort). Having grown accustomed to being surrounded by the undead, the characters in these films are generally cocky and are punished for their hubris. These films also tend to have a secondary villain in the form of a despotic human leader of some sort.

Of these two subgenres, all of my favorite zombie movies are in the first category. Night of the Living Dead, both versions of Dawn of the Dead, Shaun of the Dead, and the first half of 28 Days Later are all great takes on how normal people would deal with an incredibly abnormal situation. The second category, which includes Day of the Dead, Land of the Dead, and the second half of 28 Days Later, have some interesting stuff going on but mostly disappoint me in retrospect. Lucio Fulci’s Zombi 2, though it technically would fit into the first subgenre, is brilliant in its own way not only for having the best ending of any zombie movie ever, but also for having the best zombie vs. shark battle I’ve ever seen.

WARNING - This post begins with a violation of Godwin’s law, and ends with a brief aside about the magic of boobies.

Hi Gang, the Ross here. Remember those creepy scenes in any film that takes place in Nazi Occupied Europe, or a fictionalized Latin American dictatorship (but never ever ever the US!!!), where the civil servant with martial authority intimidates and robs a protagonist? Remember how cool it looked, and how much fun it seemed. Didn’t you think to yourself, “Self, I sure as fuck would love me some of that.”

Yeah, me too! And I’m overjoyed to welcome you to the land of bad fiction.

BOSTON - A Quincy woman who apparently stuffed $46,950 in cash in her bra before trying to board a plane to Texas for plastic surgery has sued a federal agency, demanding the return of her money.

I’m not sure what, exactly, is the creepiest part of this story, but my money is on the Feds arbitrarily sizing up someone’s appearance while mugging them:

The money was seized from Ileana Valdez, 26, after a security check at a metal detector at Logan International Airport on Feb. 3. Valdez told authorities she was heading to Texas for plastic surgery on her buttocks and breasts.

“I don’t know why she was carrying it (the cash) in her bra,” said Boston lawyer Tony V. Blaize, who filed the suit Wednesday in U.S. District Court in Boston on behalf of Valdez.

In her suit, Valdez said a male Drug Enforcement Administration agent told her she had a nice body and didn’t need surgery — and then seized the cash, claiming it was drug money.

That’s sweet. Like when I was 18, and after kicking my ass, a bunch of Skinheads told me they liked my shoes. Of course, last I checked this s still a nominally free country. Regardless of paranoia about DRUGS, DRUGS!, we still have the right, however risky, to carry however much money we want whenever we want.

Valdez, a single mother said in her suit that she has no criminal record and earned the money by selling her Dorchester business and two parcels of property in Boston’s Jamaica Plain section.

In the first place, I’m not sure how her status as a single mother is actually fucking relevant, unless the journalist actually intented to talk about the magical unicorn land of single mothers (Single mothers being oh-so-popular these days), and not, actually, to subtley villify their very existence.

Certainly, IF this story is true, then it’s sad that this woman apparently sold all of her assets in order to mutilate her body so that men might ask her out. I’m the first to admit that given her age, it’s shady, but then again, shady isn’t the same thing as “beyond a resonable doubt”, and due process ought still apply.

Of course, due process, that quaint little Enlightenment era idea we know and love, is a moot point in the era when we’re so terrified of drugs and bombs that we gladly trust people who lied us into an immoral war to always do the right thing.

Lookout! Boobies! With drugs and guns! AIEEEEEEEE!

My point in posting about this story is to point out that it contains a multitude of unsettling underpinnings.

The sad possibility that this woman essentially amputated her financial freedom in order to live up to some kind of physical ideal is bad enough, but the incredible dickheadery illustrated by the well-meaning dipshit who told her that “she had a nice body and didn’t need surgery.” is beyond my ability to articulate. I don’t even know where to begin with that one, but perhaps the It’s None Of Your Fucking Business, Asshole position is as good as any.

Now before we judge someone for having plastic surgery, it’s important to point out that people have such surgery all the time, for reasons that have nothing to do with making themselves more attractive to the opposite sex. A woman I know once had minor surgery because one of her breasts was significantly larger than the other. She wasn’t flipping out with self hatred, and she wasn’t worried about how attractive she was. (It was impossible to see the boobies gangsta lean through her clothing). Her problem, to put it flippantly, is that her bras didn’t fit right and she hated the uneveness, so she had the larger breast reduced in size.

Which of course was her right, and it’s the right of the woman in this story, even if she’s having ridiculously mutilating surgery that does nothing, except perpetuate the idea that you gals ought to be forced to adhere to a cookie cutter version of femininity. Here is a woman behaving in, as a far as I know, a perfectly legal manner, being accosted, then judged, and finally, robbed.

That robbery is my main point - The war on drugs and the war on terra have empowered even low level thugs like Aiport security guards to act like FBI Agents cum Torquemadas. Thanks to Osama’s little gift, the wish list of the God and Government crowd is being increasingly enshrined in law, and we’re all suffering for it.

And as I’ve alluded, this is kind of a twofer story - Both a commentary on how our society’s extremely totalitarian beauty standards manifest in the minds of far too many people, and a depiction of our society’s increasingly creepy comfort level with actual political totalitarianism.

Anthony Pettigrew, a spokesman for the DEA in Boston, said he could not comment on the lawsuit. But he said federal asset forfeiture laws allow agents to seize suspected drug profits

I knew this guy was evil! You just can’t trust anyone named Pettigrew. Oh, well that’s certainly not fucking terrifying. Why, I feel like getting down on my knees right now and offering to Falafal Karl Rove’s backside. C’est la vie! L’Amérique, Baise ouais!!!

It’s too bad that in the end, the story is likely to be more well know for the inevitable jokes at this woman’s expense, than for the creepy big brother bullshit.

One last note: If I dare say so, breast implants ruin what are already examples of evolutionary perfection. For the love of Ross, please, please don’t stuff them full of sillicon. Soft breasts, oh so much more fun than hard and rigid breasts. And of course, since we all know it’s all about what us guys think, I’m sure the unintentional hypocrisy will go unnoted. Your cooperation is much appreciated.

For the record, another example of evolutionary perfection is how naturally comfortable your hand feels giving ‘the finger’. Seriously, it’s like we were born being able to tell people, in sign language, to fuck off.

Count me among those who think a ban on flag burning is both un-American and unnecessary, but the thing I find so fascinating is how untenable a ban would be as well. But let’s take a step back for a second here. One thing that is important to keep in mind is that the amendment in question doesn’t actually ban flag burning at all. Supposing that the amendment that made it through the House passes through the Senate and is approved by the state legistlatures of two-thirds of the states, the only change would be the addition of this sentence to the Constitution :

The Congress shall have power to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States.

So if everything goes as the conservatives plan, the only thing they’ve gained is the ability to pass a law that prevents flag desecration. Once that’s done, they have to go back to square one and define the words “flag” and “desecration”. For example, take this picture that was posted at BoingBoing :

Is this an American flag? Technically, no. The flag above the 49 stars and one circle. It’s a snarky point since we can agree that the American flag has 50 five-sided stars on a blue field with 13 stripes alternating between red and white in color, but even given this rather strict definition, does that make this an American flag?



Well, it’s got the correct number of stars and stripes and it’s got the colors right, but the stars need to be in the upper left of the flag. Perhaps this is a flag then?



Nice try, smartass. That’s a t-shirt with a picture of a flag. Even though we’ve got all the details right, the object in the picture above isn’t a flag because what surrounds the red, white, and blue rectangular image makes it a shirt. How about this then?



There are flags with yellow trim, so I assume that doesn’t disqualify the image above. But if we can conclude that this isn’t a picture of a flag, but a patch, then would that mean the difference would be the material, the size, or the purpose of the object above? If that’s the case, then does this let the President off the hook for this infamous bit of flag desecration?

I would say “no”. Despite all the nitpicking about size, layout, shape, and material, the pictures above meet the common sense definition of flag desecration. Even then, should what the President did be considered a crime? That’s where the two sides differ. Conservatives think that it’s okay to arrest and/or fine someone for being disrespectful to our national symbols. Liberals on the other hand think that just because the President is acting like a jerk doesn’t mean he’s a criminal.

Even if the conservatives get their way with this stupid flag desecration amendment, they have to follow this bit of feel good pandering with the hard work of defining exactly what a flag is, what constitutes desecration, and what the penalties should be. That is, of course, unless Congres decides to punt the issue to the courts by passing a law that’s incredibly vague. This is what they do with abortion laws in order to get some election year kudos without having to worry about crafting a law that actually works, but those of us who actually take this stuff seriously should be asking these questions now.

So for the time being, it’s open season on flag burning. If you burn a flag around me, however, be prepared for a verbal or physical backlash. Unlike the babies in the Republican party, if somebody pisses me off by insulting our country, I’m not gonna go crying to the government for protection.

The other day I finally got a chance to watch the documentary “I Am Trying To Break Your Heart”, which follows the recording and eventual release of Wilco’s “Yankee Hotel Foxtrot”. It’s a pretty good film if you’re a fan of the band, but the most dramatic portions of the film (a member getting kicked out & their label troubles) take a back seat to the musical numbers. If you’re looking for equal parts story and music, “Dig!” does a much better job since it doesn’t let fawning praise of the music get in the way of examining the friendship and rivalry between The Brian Jonestown Massacre and The Dandy Warhols.

While I’m on the subject of documentaries about 90’s bands, I would love to see the Behind the Music episode about Blind Melon expanded into a full-length feature. Lead singer Shannon Hoon obsessively videotaped every major moment in his career, from record company showcases, signing their major label contract, and even late night drug-fueled confessionals. Along with interviews with family and friends, who occasionally read from his journals, it was a gripping portrait of the rise and fall of a one-hit wonder. Not many people remember the episode since it (a) came at the end of BtM’s run and (b) premiered two days before 9/11, but it’s easily the best episode of the series and would make a brilliant documentary. And that’s coming from someone who doesn’t like Blind Melon’s music.

Apparently I was just featured on CNN’s “Inside the Blogs” segment. As much as I love the opportunity to provide cheat-sheet punditry for a bunch of people who are getting paid to pretend to do what I’m doing for free, lemme just say “thanks, but no thanks”. As much as I like the attention, I can’t ignore the fact that it’s coming from a news organization that’s been straddling the line between hard news and tabloid garbage for a while now.

CNN Viewers, the only reason you were pointed towards my site is because the head honchos at CNN realize that it’s easy to fill up a few minutes of airtime by quoting people who they wouldn’t invite to appear on their programs in the first place^{[1]Not that I have any interest in appearing on television.}. It’s a win-win situation for them. They show a couple of people reading from a computer screen, cash in on the “blog” trend, and get to free up additional resources to cover the latest celebrity trial, missing white woman, or whatever faux news that Larry King is covering^{[2]Who’s done five shows on psychics since Aug. 2000.}.

So, thanks for coming by, new readers. I hope you like what you see and decide to stick around for a while. Since CNN was kind enough to send people my way, I hope I can repay the favor by sending people back to their feedback page with this question :

“Why is the majority of the programming on your network trivial and uninformative bullshit?”

Who wants to bet that won’t be a topic on “Inside the Blogs” anytime soon?

UPDATE : The transcript has been posted and it perfectly sums up what’s so wrong about the “Inside the Blogs” segment :

SCHECHNER:^{[3]The transcript notes that Schechner’s title is “blog reporter”. I’ve never been one of those people who thinks being a blogger makes me a journalist, but if paraphrasing what I said makes her a “reporter”, doesn’t that merit a de facto promotion of some sort? Perhaps “self-published columnist” or something.} Now, we should also mention that now there’s outrage on the left because they say that Dick Durbin had nothing to apologize for and they’re mad at him for being weak on this issue. One of those doing a little parody^{[4]Since the primary purpose of my original post was to make a political point and not just score a cheap laugh, I think the term “satire” is more appropriate here, but whatever…} is Greg over TheTalentShow.org. This is cross- posted at Tom Tomorrow’s This Modern World, and he basically parodies, with an analogy that has to do with a statement saying, if I read this to you and didn’t tell you it was a U.S. senator speaking, who would you think it was? So, a little play there, but they’re not happy on the left, now, with Dick Durbin. Ed?

Jeez, they’ve done a brilliant job squeezing all the funny out of my original post. Not that I expect them to quote the whole thing verbatim, but this mention was about as meaningful as saying “In the comedy world, Chris Rock has some interesting things to say about race relations noting that black people often do things one way while white people do the same things differently. Funny stuff, Ed?”

Seriously though, this whole “Inside the Blogs” business is ludicrous. The fact that a professional worldwide newsgathering organization is devoting any time to an unpublished amateur like me should be seen as the equivalent of waving a white flag. If the opinions of bloggers are so valuable, invite Glenn Reynolds and Duncan Black to co-host a “Capital Gang” type show or something. I’m grateful to reach a larger audience, but for a company with the staff, experience, resources, and reach of CNN to go trolling around the blogosphere looking for content to fill five minutes of airtime every day is just sad….

---

1 : Not that I have any interest in appearing on television.

2 : Who’s done five shows on psychics since Aug. 2000.

3 : The transcript notes that Schechner’s title is “blog reporter”. I’ve never been one of those people who thinks being a blogger makes me a journalist, but if paraphrasing what I said makes her a “reporter”, doesn’t that merit a de facto promotion of some sort? Perhaps “self-published columnist” or something.

4 : Since the primary purpose of my original post was to make a political point and not just score a cheap laugh, I think the term “satire” is more appropriate here, but whatever…

I’ve already written about my distaste for Stephanie Zacharek’s movie reviews, but the one she wrote for “Cinderella Man” is especially awful. I should probably start by saying that I loved the movie and that I never thought I’d say that about a Ron Howard film. I’ll admit that I have a soft spot for depression-era stories about boxing, so I can see how some people might have found the movie to be manipulative and/or hackneyed. But the problem with Zacharek’s review isn’t just that it’s a negative revie. It’s a bad one.

Here’s a perfect example of what I’m talking about (SPOILER ALERT) :

He even mucks up the dramatic opportunities that are practically dropped into his lap. In the movie, Braddock sustains numerous injuries to his right hand during the low point of his career, which meant that when he came back, his left hand was even stronger. Howard could have shown us the moment Braddock realized that his left was now stronger than his right: I can almost picture Russell Crowe’s face registering this revelation, and it’s tantalizing. Instead, Howard drops this tidbit as a line of dialogue — after the fact — a classic case of telling and not showing, which seems to be Howard’s stock in trade.

The fight in question is one of the most dramatic in the film because it comes at Braddock’s low point and the expectation is that he’s going to lose. If it were done Zacharek’s way, however, the fight would have been completely free of tension since the audience would already know that Braddock’s left was stronger. For someone who criticizes Ron Howard on his lack of subtlety, she sure is eager for him to plainly explain every detail of the film before it has a chance to create an impact.

What’s even more hilarious is this line :

Then again, few actors could survive the Ron Howard cliché pileup. Actually, the problem isn’t that Howard deals in clichés and conventions in the first place. Conventions by themselves are fine, if they’re used well. In fact, they can cut straight to our most unguarded emotions, which is what makes them eminently useful in the language of movies, maybe boxing movies particularly — it’s such a visceral and intimate sport. But while lots of people will see “Cinderella Man,” it frustrates me that relatively few people have the chance to see a picture like “Beautiful Boxer,” ….

Haven’t seen Beautiful Boxer, so I can’t comment on that, but check out how Zacharek ends a review in which she lambastes Ron Howard’s use of cliches :

But what about the time Howard has stolen from us, movie after movie, year after year? Those are lost hours we’ll never get back. It’s time for him to make amends for robbing us of our time and exploiting our emotions with his bloated extravaganzas.

Yes, she sunk to the hackneyed “stop stealing my time” line, which as far as I’m concerned is just as tiresome as the depression-era conventions that she derides while lacking both the emotional punch and an ounce of wit.

Goddamit CNN, do you really have to preempt your only good show for a press conference by the parents of a formerly-missing little boy?? I enjoy hearing about how this kid’s a brave little guy and about how Jesus is awesome or whatever religious mumbo-jumbo they’re going on and on about as much as the next guy, but you’ve stuck with this shit for 45 minutes now.

What the hell?! It just ended and you immediately cut to a montage of clips of the press conference that we just saw. Now you’re interviewing a guy that was there. At one point the text on the screen said “DEVELOPING STORY - Parents : Brennan told never talk to strangers.”

This is not news!

Due to the reaction he received to remarks that were wholly accurate and appropriate, a statement was released today that said :

“Some may believe that my remarks crossed the line…To them I extend my heartfelt apologies.”

If I read this to you and did not tell you that it was a United States Senator responding to critics who justify the use of torture, you would most certainly believe this must have been said by a coward, a wimp, or a chicken who has proven himself incapable of defending the truth against an onslaught of right-wing badgering. Sadly, that is the case. The quote above is from Sen. Dick Durbin, who won’t stand behind his own words…even when they’re right.

Cases like this are where my opposition to the death penalty gets a little shaky :

Killen, a part-time preacher and sawmill operator, was tried in 1967 on federal charges of violating the victims’ civil rights. But the all-white jury deadlocked, with one juror saying she could not convict a preacher. Seven others were convicted, but none served more than six years.

The trial moved along swiftly, with testimony over only four days. Many of the witnesses from the 1967 trial now dead; this time, their testimony was read aloud to the jury from the transcripts.

Chaney, a black Mississippian, and Goodman and Schwerner, white New Yorkers, were in Neshoba County to look into the torching of a black church and help register black voters during what was called Freedom Summer.

The three were stopped for speeding on the night of the attack, jailed briefly, and then released, after which they were followed out of town by a gang of Klansmen and intercepted.

Witnesses - primarily Klansmen - testified that Killen was a local Klan organizer who led meetings where members discussed the “elimination” of Schwerner, whom they called “Goatee” because of his beard.

Witnesses said on the day of the slayings, Killen drove about 35 miles to Meridian and rounded up carloads of Klansmen to intercept the three men in their station wagon. According to testimony, Killen told some Klansmen to get plastic gloves and helped arrange for a bulldozer to bury the bodies.

Our country should be ashamed of the fact that it took 41 years to send this son of a bitch to jail…

…and we should be even more ashamed that there are at least 11 Republican Senators who aren’t willing to condemn the evil acts of monsters like Edgar Ray Killen.