A Unified Theory of Tarantino



Pretty entertaining short, but is this anything new? As a big fan of the video store clerk from Tennessee who influenced a generation, I appreciate that somebody actually went to the trouble of outlining and organizing every observation, stray thought and half-formulated theory that me, my friends and a legion of other drunken guys of my generation came up with in our rec rooms over a few beers.

Tarantino movies have been dissected to death by every movie geek who came of age in the nineties, so none of this is new. Tarantino is the fountainhead for post-eighties cinema, and will probably be remembered as a towering figure in the history of filmaking. That being said, however, I'm beginning to see that the law of diminishing returns applies even in the case of the guy who wrote and directed possibly the coolest film ever committed to celluloid.

I just saw Grindhouse and, it pains me to write this, Deathproof got tedious.

Not the whole thing, of course. QT is still too dynamic and imaginative to ever descend to hack-like levels of mediocrity, but it still feels lazy.

We know the formula by now... Cast one iconic, slightly-past-his-best-before-date genre actor as a lead character: Keitel, Travolta, Carradine, and in this case, Snake Plissken himself, Kurt Russell; surround with compelling, quirky supporting cast, preferably including at least one or two hot women (this flick has several babes-du-jour); be really self-referrential by casting people who have appeared in other Tarantino/Rodriguez movies as similar yet-not identical characters (step forward Rose McGowa, star of Rodriguez Grindhouse entry Planet Terror ), and insert liberal amounts of violence, genre aesthetics, pop culture references, and signature Tarantino Dialogue. Why screw with the formula? It works .

Except, this time, it didn't.

Not for me. Not completely, anyway.

If you are going to make the kind of dialogue-heavy movies that QT makes, you better make sure the dialogue is up to snuff. If it ain't, the talky bits can be a bit much. For the first time, I found myself viewing a Tarantino movie and thinking "Get on with it, already!". I watched in dismay as Tarantino descended into self-parody, with absurd parabolic profanity-laced riffs that contributed nothing to the plot and went absolutely nowhere. It wasn't that the characters were badly-written, it was more that at times they seemed to be working to arrest the plot, rather than propel it forward. Of course, this being Tarantino, he did manage to redeem himself with virtuoso action set-pieces and some compelling character work from Kurt Russell, among others, so the movie is still very much worth seeing, especially the parts where Stuntman Mike is onscreen.

It becomes very clear when you watch the Grindhouse special features on DVD that Quentin is a man still very much enthused and besotted by film and the art of filmmaking. I trust that for his next work --supposedly the long-awaited Inglorious Bastards, Tarantino will recover his footing and deliver a war flick that will cement his place among the giants of contemporary cinema.

Empty Suit in Need of Filling

Terrence Corcoran thinks November is a long time from now. Now that he is the frontrunner for the Democratic nomination, very soon Obama is going to begin to come under much heavier fire, and eventually his followers won't be able to just shrug it off and go right back to spewing their same old vague platitudes about "change" and "inspiring people" --the kind of thing I have really enjoyed, since it has usually led to steam shooting out of both Bill and Hillary's ears. The continue to look on, incredulously, as everything they toss at Obama just slides right off of the media-applied teflon coating. By the time Hillary's run ends, both Clintons should be certifiable.

Already, there are signs that the honeymoon is over. Barry Obama's wife is taking hits for saying that for the first time in her adult lifetime, she is proud of her country and for whining about the student loans that paid for the ivy-league educations that enable her and her hubby to make a nice fat six-figure salaries. Even some of his acolytes have been forced to come to terms with the fact that he is not Jesus. Check out erstwhile Obama fluffer Chris Matthews beat the piss out of Kirk Watson



Embarrassing. Chris Matthews did the Obama campaign a favour. He gave them a bit of a preview of what is rolling on down the road towards them as the Republicans coalesce around their man and load up the rocketlaunchers. They better hand out some meatier talking points or else prevent starry-eyed goofballs like this from championing their man in the media.

***

After all the craziness of the Kinsella/Levant Blogwar of 2008, which I'm not going to rehash here, it is great to read something so genuinely thought provoking on such an important topic like this piece from Andrew Potter. On a not-entirely-unrelated subject....

In Slate, Christopher Hitchens does one of his trademark imolations on another religious target, and on this occasion I can't help but agree with his disdain for the Archbishop of Canterbury. Because what the Archbishop said was a disgrace :

just look at how casually this sheep-faced English cleric throws away the work of centuries of civilization:

[A]n approach to law which simply said "there's one law for everybody and that's all there is to be said, and anything else that commands your loyalty or allegiance is completely irrelevant in the processes of the courts"—I think that's a bit of a danger.

In the midst of this dismal verbiage and euphemism, the plain statement—"There's one law for everybody and that's all there is to be said"—still stands out like a diamond in a dunghill. It stands out precisely because it is said simply, and because its essential grandeur is intelligible to everybody. Its principles ought to be just as intelligible and accessible to those who don't yet speak English, in just the same way as the great Lord Mansfield once ruled that, wherever someone might have been born, and whatever he had been through, he could not be subject to slavery once he had set foot on English soil. Simple enough? For the women who are the principal prey of the sharia system, it is often only when they are shipped or flown to Britain that their true miseries begin. This modern disgrace is deepened and extended by a fatuous cleric who, presiding over an increasingly emaciated and schismatic and irrelevant church, nonetheless maintains that any faith is better than none at all.

Williams should really consider giving up his position as putative head of the Anglican Communion.

CRAP

CRAP CRAP CRAP

Day Seven is delayed until next year

What the heck do we do until then?

Oh, and just to rub salt in the wound, today we find out that co-creator Joel Surnow is leaving the show

Surnow was the right-wing wingnut who is largely seen as being most responsible for 24s controversial "ends justify the means" ethos during its early seasons.

One of my favourite examples of this particular sensibility was at the begining of Season 2, where Jack, having executed a police informant in cold blood, asks outraged CTU Director George Mason for a hacksaw so that he can decapitate the corpse in order to formulate an elaborate deception. When Mason protests Jack's drastic measures, the CTU agent rounds on him:

That's the problem with people like you, George. You want results, but you never want to get your hands dirty. I'd start rolling up your sleeves.

I can't help but think that with Surnow's departure, the show will lose a bit of its trademark ruthlessness and cruelty.

Five from Factory Records

I recently saw a really great movie about the heyday of Factory Records and the Haçienda in Manchester during the eighties called 24 Hour Party People. Before I saw the film, I had no idea what an important role the band New Order had played in supporting the iconic club.

While I'm a big fan of New Order's music, I never knew much about their history. I was only five when Ian Curtis died, so I didn't know the story of Joy Division and how it had reformed as New Order following Ian's suicide. It's really quite remarkable to listen to JD and NO songs back to back. The bands sound so different, and yet they consist of nearly all the same people. Of course, JD were post-punk, whereas New Order quickly transitioned to electronic and dance music, and Ian Curtis' vocals could not have been more different than those of Bernard Sumner, who never wanted to be a singer, and apparently only took on singing duties by necessity!

Apparently, there is a biopic about Ian Curtis out there -a 2007 film called Control, which has gotten good reviews -so I'll have to check that out next!.

Dead Souls
by Joy Division
Recorded 1979




Love Will Tear Us Apart
by Joy Division
Released 1980




Blue Monday
by New Order
Released 1983



Bizarre Love Triangle
by New Order
Released 1986




True Faith
by New Order
Released 1987

My Take on this Obama thing

Obama is a highly problematic candidate for the Democrats. On paper, he runs to the left of almost everyone on almost everything, and yet his rhetoric seems to be all about bipartisanship, and the Republi-cons ain't buyin' what he's sellin'. You can't reach out across the isle if the other guy thinks you are going to put him in a headlock and try to drag him over to your side. Thought Dubya was divisive? How is the tone in Washington gonna change if the right-wing ideologues running the show just get swapped out for left-wing ideologues?

The Democratic primary voters seemingly do not care about this because Obama is the candidate that makes you feel good about yourself. He is like a Hollywood idea of a black president. He isn’t Jesse Jackson, who was so deeply identified with identity politics that his very blackness became an issue. Obama transcends colour, and yet allows white voters to say to themselves “look at me, I’m voting for a black guy! I’m so progressive”. Deep down I think that if Obama was white, he would be dismissed by the electorate as quickly and comprehensively as other charismatic flash-in-the-pans like Edwards and Howard Dean. I think Liberal Blogmeister Cherniak is telling the truth when he writes the following:

Just like JFK actually won more votes because the media kept asking whether Americans would elect a Catholic, I believe that all this talk about whether Mr. Obama can win "white votes" has become a strength. It is almost like a challenge to white people to vote for him just to prove that they are willing to vote for him. He's a young, attractive, charismatic guy, so why not?

That would line up with what we saw on Super-duper Tuesday: Obama got the black and upper middle class white vote (i.e. people who love the idea of a black president). Hillary won low income whites, women, and latinos –all people who pragmatically ask "Which democrat is going to manage the economy and deliver concrete results for me and my loved ones?". Even some Republicans who loathe McCain have said they would vote for Hillary if it comes to that, because they recognize Obama for what he is, an empty suit.

For a great summary of the Campaign thusfar, read Hanson's article
Domacrats Want to Lose, Republicans Don't Want to Win

Good News All Around

Nathan Rabin just concluded his magnum opus. Now he has decided it will be an ongoing monthly feature!

***

Alot of talk of "Free Speech", Ezra Levant, Macleans and Mark Steyn among the blogeratti lately. At long last, these stories are just starting to gain the attention of the media with the news that Keith Martin will be introducing a Private Member's Motion to Change the Human Rights Act, thereby paving the way for a return to power of the National Socialists, or so you would think...

Who is this "hatemonger" Mark Steyn and What does he stand for? Incidentally... you never hear about fishmongers or ironmongers anymore, but hatemongering has become a very popular occupation, apparently. Here is the man at Pepperdine:



***

New Kraft Doubles!

Maybe it was this quote that gave me a fit of giggles:

After years of catering exclusively to depressed, lonely men in their 30s, Kraft is proud to present a product for people who are capable of experiencing love and happiness," Kraft CEO Irene Rosenfeld said at a press conference.

Why We Fight

"I believe in a strong international role for Canada. I think this world is getting more complicated, more difficult, more dangerous. I don't think those issues should just be resolved by nuclear superpowers. I think that countries like Canada have an important, meaningful role to play. Projecting our values. Standing for the rights of individuals, of the human security of people whose own governments can't protect them. That's something that we as Canadians have talked a lot about and we believe in.

And what's our alternative? ... This is not, you know, you can't turn the rheostat on this. You either stay. And you say you mean it. And you get something that we can call success, which is giving the Afghan government the ability to maintain its own security like any sovereign country should be able to do it. Or you get out.

And if we get out, what's the next mission? ... We're a rich country. We've gotta do some of this stuff. Would it be in Darfur? Well, you know, regrettably, the government of Sudan doesn't want anyone in Darfur. And, let me tell you, it'd be just as dangerous. It would be a combat mission.

Would it be in Rwanda? We didn't have a combat mission in Rwanda, we had blue helmets. And the result was genocide.

You know, the world isn't a pretty place. But I happen to believe that the people that came before me in the Liberal party, that believed in a strong role for Canada on the international stage, would say, there are times when we have to count. There are times when it matters. We're not prepared to retreat under the U.S. missile shield and live in fortress North America. We're prepared to be out there and we're prepared to pay the price. Because that's what you expect of a country like Canada. That's what I say."

John Manley, commenting on the release of the report of the Independent Panel on Canada’s Future Role in Afghanistan

Since Nato has now confirmed that it intends to support Canada in its mission in Kandahar province, it is probably a good thing that we have eloquent men like John Manley, a proud Liberal, to remind us what Canadians stand for. Sometimes, I fear we have forgotten who we are, and what we have always been, regardless of what the revisionists would have us believe.

If Canada really is a one-and-a-half party state and the Liberals are the party of "the majority" of Canadians, then Mr. Manley, who is very much a mainstream Liberal and is therefore without the ideological bagage of the Harperites, did something that no Conservative has been thus far able do: Speaking the language of modern liberalism and Pearsonian foreign policy, he gave a most compelling explanation of why centrist and left-of-centre Canadians should get behind the Afghanistan mission.

****

Related: Ivison beats up May for her profound silliness on Afghanistan. I hear that tomorrow there will be an encore of some type involving fish in a barrel and a firearm.

Human Rights Omission

If there really should be limits on free speech, I submit that perhaps this fellow comes a bit closer to crossing the line than either Ezra Levant or Mark Steyn ever did... Not that I believe free speech should be limited.

But tell me there are at least a couple of Osgood Hall Law Students willing to speak out against this kind of hatred and incitement... Nah, didn't think so.

The Killing of Canadian Troops is Legitimate and Well-deserved?

So what I really want to know is at what point do we start talking about treason here? This is about as bald-faced as one can get.

While he writes that he approves of attacking Canadian troops, he also says he would not do so himself.

Of course not! He's at University in Mississauga, enjoying all the benefits of living in Canada! He doesn't want to roll his sleeves up and you know, actually do anything for the global struggle! He may be "hot for jihad", as Steyn would put it, but he prefers to outsource his war on those of the Christian/Crusader Heritage --Incidentally, I thought Canada was a multicultural nation, but thank you Elizabeth May for clearing that up.

I bet you "the brothers" are really glad that they have pampered college jokers in Canada cheering them on from the sidelines.

Give Me That G-D Clickerbox

That title, completely unrelated to the content of the actual post, is in honour of Ma and Eddie Reardon,the grossly underappreciated culture critics from This Hour Has 22 Minutes. God how I miss them. Somebody should YouTube some of their stuff. It's classic.

On the subject of brilliant use of the 'ol YouTube...seen some of the promos for Cloverfield? There's some pretty groovy viral stuff out there. This is the trailer:



Have you seen Cloverfield? I mean the actual movie. In the words of Jules Winnfield, "That was some chilling shit".

Jonah Goldberg of the NRO says it is Godzilla meets Blair Witch. That seems like a pretty good description to me.

I dare not ruin any of it for you so I don't know what to say about it except to say it is very much worth seeing... Ryan and I had a little e-mail back-and-forth on it after we each watched it separately. Here is part of that conversation, sans spoilers. The names have not been changed to protect the innocent:

Ryan:

I am interested in the talk of a sequel as long as it doesn’t become a
Blair Witch 2 project type thing. I hear it may document another group’s
perspective of the attack. Still once may be enough. I really have no commitment
either way.

James:

agree… it is a singular movie event, and if they go
back to the well too many times, it will lose its unique appeal… maybe a TV news
team’s perspective, which would mean much better footage, and a more
professional approach. It could be unedited footage –a series of stand-ups and
interviews at various locations with the reporter giving her perspective and
talking to military leaders, survivors etc , followed by out-takes, where they
don’t turn the camera off, and we get exposition from various characters, and
even some “coverage” where you get some “combat camera” type footage. It writes
itself

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now watch those bastards steal my idea that I already stole from War of the Worlds!

Back to Blog

It has been about three weeks since I last signed on. Many family gatherings in the last little while, so I figured I would start off 2008 with a few photos from the holidays:

This is Malak, Nesrine's little cousin. She likes to dance whenever her uncle plays a certain song on his cell phone. Yes, it is adorable.

Three generations of the women of my family.

The old man thanks Joe and George for his Christmas gift: An Elliptical trainer.

I really like this photo. The Ellards have always been a demonstrative bunch, never shy about showing affection, as you can see.

Fantastic news! George and Yinzee announced their engagement at my folks' house.

Nesrine' aunt, a devout Shia Muslim, just got back from the Hajj, and the family had a dinner in honour of her return. She had some amazing photos of the pilgrimage and was still in a bit of a daze. I guess it can be an overwhelming event and I'm not surprised that it takes a while to process the experience.

Best Wishes for 2008

What did I learn this year?

A Calgary Bar Chick will gladly forsake the chance to become a prince's consort for a bit of cash... and if it means there is a chance that Pamela Anderson will play her in a TV movie.

Pam Anderson is now 40.

How about 46-year-old red-head Eric Stolz as Prince Harry?

*****

Bob Shaye's insanity was reversible after all. And all it took was a few flopperooneys for New Line. So rejoice, rejoice, o legions of the nerdly! Here comes The Hobbit.

*****

God and Science do not have to be at odds. Actually, I already knew that, but it is nice to read something intelligent that reinforces that notion!

*****

There is someone in Canada who writes about military affairs and actually seems to know what he is talking about --unlike 99% of the columnists out there.

And his name is not Scott Taylor, it is David Pugliese.

*****

Good news from Iraq may mean good news for us in Afghanistan ... and wouldn't it just piss some people right off to have the U.S. pick up the slack where NATO appears to have dropped it?

*****

Dana Perino is not that bright. Not that bright at all.

*****

And finally, life is tough for Osgood Hall crybabies. Why, oh why, won't anyone let them respond?
Damn those meanies at Macleans! Boo! They are so, like, oppresive, man!

Seriously, this face-off between Macleans magazine and the 4 law students is tiresome, and my wish for 2008 is that it be resolved quickly and utterly in favour of the magazine. The idea that the fundamental principle of free-speech could be challenged before a human rights commission is a startling enough notion, but the idea that these lawyers-in training only resorted to this measure because they were thwarted in their efforts to engage in a debate on the issue is ludicrous. Ali Eteraz, a lawyer whose progressive bonafides are beyond doubt, dismisses this notion completely:

“Thanks for your input, now what is left for you to do is to please show me the opening to this elusive gateway to public debate. Myself and thousands of Muslims would love to get a chance at engaging in this debate. This is the essence of the claim.

Please let us debate, please let us be heard, I urge and will even go as far to beg of you to help me express myself on an equal footing with these Islamophobes. You provide me a vehicle for debate I will gladly take that anytime of the year over a human rights complaint. What don’t you understand, we encourage debate, where is it? Please guide me to the forum!”

With all due respect, this is the saddest and most pathetic thing I have ever heard.

“Please let us be heard?”

“Provide me a vehicle for debate?”

Is something wrong with you?

1 -Did you call Mark Steyn’s agent and try and set up a public debate? I bet he’d love a go; the right wing pundits do.

2 - Did you contact opposition publications to Macleans and publish stuff there? I bet they’d love a go to make Macleans look bad.

3 - Did you try and raise funds to start a new liberal magazine so you can respond to people like Mark Steyn?

4 - Did you contact the writer of Little Mosque on the Prairie, who is quite sympathetic to the CIC, and ask her to make a snide reference to the demographics issue that Steyn raises?

5 - Did you call Tarek Fateh, who and his associates seemingly have NO PROBLEM WHATSOEVER getting published works critical of Steyn?

6 - Did you even think about taking me up on my offer to get you guys published in the Guardian?

7 - Did you try and contact Anar Ali, the short story writer, to use her influence to write a rebuttal?

8 - Did you try to contact Irshad Manji — who last year wrote a piece damning all those who seek to stifle immigration — to help use her influence in challenging Steyn?

9 - Did you try to contact an agent for yourself or your other equally inept legal friends so that you might write an anti-Steyn?

I’m sorry if this sounds too much like a generalization, but I’ve dealt with individuals propounding the same kind of rhetoric you are — willful victimization, complete ignorance of how the world works, wallowing in self pity — and they often love to attach themselves to Western Muslim communities after 9/11 and drag them down. I’m sure you’ve got a few Muslim enablers as well. The individuals I am describing often tended to be highly educated, driven by some kind of parochial original sin which motivates them to teach utter and total despair to the community they attach themselves to, so that they may then save said community, and feel good about themselves.

I bet you and the other law students who have done nothing but toe the line the entire life (and have now turned into “humanitarians!” in what I figure is the last year of law school) had grandiose visions of having your name appear in Macleans as “defenders of the weak.” To be followed by a parade led by beautiful Muslim muhajjibas (oh, but how dare I suggest that YOU might be an orientalist).

Again, like I said, the statement of yours that I just quoted, is one of the saddest things I’ve read; quite helpless in fact. I never respond at this length in the comments, and felt compelled to do so, because you are just so far gone its tragic.

Read the whole thread to get the picture!

*****

That's all I got for this year. Hope to blog alot more in 2008. If not for you, whoever you are, then for me, because it's fun to put my nonsense out there.

R.I.P. Borat Sagdiev

The well-known Kazakh reporter passed away suddenly yesterday



Mr Sagdiev is survived by his wife Lunelle, several girlfriends, a dozen prostitutes, a multitude of children (legitimate and illegitimate), as well as his mother and numerous brothers and sisters, half-brothers and half-sisters, brothercousins, sistercousins, ladyboys, he-shes and other indefinitely gendered relatives from the nuclear reactor zone near Kucik.

Funeral details and an obituary have yet to be published

¿¡Viva la Revolución!? ... ¡Viva Louis Vuitton!

The Spanish speaking world has been providing us with some good stuff lately! First King Juan Carlos telling off Chavez, and now this:



Basically, this Venezuelan politician is in the middle of a tirade:

"The only path to justice is socialism. It is not capitalism, it is not cannibalism..."

He is interrupted by the reporter:

"You want to talk about capitalism, and here you are in your Louis Vuitton tie and your shoes from..."

"Uh, that is, uh, I mean, uh...

(rough translation, but basically politician begins to stammer and do the speed-wobble)

...I would love it if all of this was produced in Venzuela, In which case, I would purchase everything that is produced here and we would not have to import 95% of the goods we consume."

Funny. The reporter has since been "disappeared" for double-plus-ungood thoughtcrime.

OK, maybe not...I made that last bit up.

The Chocolate Side of the Force



"**I move my frontal breathing vent away from the mic to respirate."

That's just awesome.

If you haven't yet, check out the original. Over 12 million views. Unbelievable.


*****

Jon Kay looks at military funding in this country over the last 40 years or so. The data may surprise you at first, but there is a reason something looks cockeyed. (hint: check the comments for the answer) The real kicker for me is that not only did I join the CF just as defence spending went into a nosedive, but I left just as it started to get better!

I can well imagine that nowadays the average no-hook buck private reservist with 18 months of service has already had access to more state-of-the-art military equipment and advanced training than I ever did as an NCM and Officer from 1993 to 1999. And that is as it should be.

Becoming a soldier today, even a reservist, is no longer the vague open-ended commitment it was when I got in fifteen years ago. The prospect of combat looms large, and the preparation for this eventuality must, I think, give the task of training and moulding the soldier a focus and urgency that the process may have lacked in the nineties.

For instance, I have no doubt that nowadays, the average recruit gets familiarized with every weapon in the infantry's arsenal, including mortars and anti-armour weapons, sometime in their first couple of years of service.

Yet even though something like the .50 machine gun is considered one of the basic arms of the mounted infanteer, and I perhaps flatter myself to believe that I was trained as an infantryman – I never got to fire a single round from one.

The fifty cals were always in “war stores” (reserved for use on UN missions overseas and workup training for UN missions) whenever it came time to break them out and learn how to operate them on any given course during any given summer of my unremarkable militia career. As time and time again my training on the weapon was deferred, the "Fifty" began to take on an almost mythical status.

After a while, I came to suspect that the 50 cal did not in fact yet exist -- that it was a theoretical weapon that military theoreticians had developed to help formulate future doctrine in the war colleges of NATO. It wasn't theoretical. It was in fact an antique - it had existed for close to a century; basically a precursor of the weapon was used during the Great War. Imagine my surprise the first time I saw one being fired on exercise, 4 years after joining the military!

Such was life in the militia in the nineties!

A Silly Story

Sir Archibald Barclay and his wife Lady Edith occupy the penthouse of a lovely downtown apartment block. The two bluebloods are from old money, and though reputed to be indolent and selfish, have actually worked hard for philanthropic causes and contributed alot of money towards cancer research. That being said, they are both chain smokers, so maybe they are hoping that all of the money they raise will enable a cure to be found before their nasty habit catches up with them.

One day, a couple of Sloan Ranger types; Piers Piggot and his girlfriend Alexandra Jones move into the apartment just below the Barclays. The young couple are nouveau-riche, not old money like their upstairs neighbours, and they are nowhere near as well-off.They enjoy smoking as much as Sir Archibald and Lady Edith do. With the success of Piers' business their net-worth is increasing, and as it does, they are starting to develop a taste for luxuries.

One day soon after the new couple arrives, the landlord of the building, Mr. Kimoto, decides that henceforth, the building will be smoke-free. There have been several fires in the building caused by cigarette butts in wastebins and the general negligence of some tenants. This is causing insurance rates to skyrocket. Besides, Mr. Kimoto informs his tenants, science has conclusively proven that everyone is affected by second-hand smoke, and therefore he cannot allow some to pollute the air of their building to the detriment of everyone else.

To be sure, there is much grumbling among the tenants, but most agree that its for the better. Better still, although Sir Archibald and Lady Edith immediately quit smoking, they decide they will continue their charitable work for cancer research. One day however, as they are arriving home from a luncheon, they detect the smell of cigarette smoke wafting through the vents in their condo. A bit irritated, they head downstairs to check if their new neighbours can also smell the smoke.

To their surprise, they are greeted at the front door by Piers, puffing away on a pipe. Behind him they can see Alexandra and another young couple sitting in the living room enjoying some brandy and expensive Cuban cigars.

"Terribly sorry, old chap" says a flustered Sir Archibald, "but you do realize we are no longer permitted to pollute the air of our building with tobacco smoke, don't you? It is terrible for your health and bad for the rest of us too!" Piers grins at the old gent and his wife. "Oh, be fair Sir Archie!... you have had years to smoke in this building, whereas Lexi and I just got here!" Sir Archibald raises an eyebrow and Lady Edith snorts haughtily. "Well," Piers continues "I mean, it is hardly fair that just as we get here, all of a sudden everyone is saying we are no longer allowed to smoke, something that the rest of you have been doing all along! In fact, we have decided that we are no longer going to smoke plain old cigarettes, but now that we can afford them, we'll have fancy cigars too!"

"My good man!" Says, a flustered Sir Archibald "I don't follow your logic whatsoever! Do you mean to tell me that we must make an exception to the rules governing the use of something we have all agreed is detrimental, just for you?... are you saying that you should be allowed to smoke--even more than you were doing it before, I might add, just because you didn't get a chance to smoke in this building when the rest of did?"

Piers shrugs "Well, you see, Lexi and I could not afford to live here for the longest time... and we certainly couldn't afford to smoke cigars every day. But now we can, so you and the rest of the old boys club can sod off, yeah?"

And with that, Piers blows a cloud of smoke in Sir Archibald's face, and slams the door.

"What a peculiar point of view" says Lady Edith.

"What a load of nonsense!" Says Sir Archibald

Laughter is Contagious



Sure, the act itself is lame, but the lead-up is just priceless

More Funny Stuff:

As far as pure comic talents go, it doesn't get any better than Jonathan Winters. Winters could adlib like nobody else. Here he is with Dino



Since 24 is postpond, here is the original 24 Pilot from 1994


Iowahawk: Hollywood seeks to expose the harsh truth about Christmas

"It's sad, but hopefully these wonderful films will do much better in the overseas market," said Ebert. "No matter how much down inside they know how Christmas is wrong, and Santa is wrong, it's hard for Americans to see their elves portrayed in a balanced, realistic way, as tragically haunted sadistic pederasts. By contrast European filmgoers are much more sophisticated and educated, so they eat that shit right up."

*****
For history nerds like me this is cool: Archeologists have found the heart of Rome. And on the topic of "old":

The Seikilos Epitaph is the oldest surviving example of a complete musical composition. It dates back to around the time of Christ. And to listen to it is to seriously freak oneself out.



It is exotic ...and yet oddly familiar. I can seriously imagine myself 2000 years ago throwing on a toga, kicking back on my couch in my villa's courtyard and digging the groovy tunes, man.

ADAMSKI

Killer

Live in Liverpool 1989



Damn! That really holds up... Even 18 years later

Grab-bag

Various items and tidbits that have caught my attention lately:



Redacted box office take as of November 25, 2007 - 10 days in release:

$44,651

Cuz I just can't let it go...

*****

Why do the Yanks have two land forces?

The Populist explains. A useful primer for anyone who has ever wondered what the difference is between the Army and the Marines.

*****

I have a bet with someone that Rosie will still be off the air one year to the day she left The View:
Right about now, my chances of collecting are looking pretty good! Keep it up, Rosie... I know I can count on your particular brand of crazy to sabotage any potential comeback.

*****

Who are hockey's real "most valuable" players?
Who would you rank first?

Hands up if you picked Milan Michálek of the San Jose Sharks.

Didn't think so!

This page gives you the straight numbers and a purely quantitative analysis, comparing salary, dollars-per-goal scored, dollars-per-game-played, and various other figures and ranks each skater accordingly. The others results may surprise you as well.

*****

And I thought eating Raw Kibbe was daring:

The Six most terrifying foods in the world

I simply must remember to pick up some Sardinian maggot-cheese for my next soiree.

*****

Prince Harry's brother Prince Baldy:

Wills needs some Rogaine pills



I thought I detected some straggliness on William's royal melon a year or two ago; those tell-tale whispy bits that don't quite end up as locks of hair. I know whereof I speak. I myself started to track the retreat of my legion of follicles a few years back. Thankfully in my case, it was a tactical withdrawal,and not a full-blown rout. I still have a reasonable head of hair.

The hair-challenged heir to the throne did pretty well for himself otherwise in the genetic lottery. Even if he ends up as bald as gramps,I'm quite certain he'll still cut a dashing figure.

*****

Last of all, Jon Kay heaps scorn upon the anti-racism racket:

For all their claim to progressive politics, there is something slightly old-fashioned and fusty about the people who run these conferences. Many of them have been fighting the evil of prejudice since the early days. And they have chalked up some spectacular successes during that time: the Charter of Rights, human rights tribunals in every province, hate speech laws, gay marriage, etc. Even more importantly, they have managed to make race-hatred the ultimate taboo -- a subject that can get you fired from any job or ostracized at any social gathering. But instead of taking a bow and declaring victory, the anti-racism industry is still chugging, seeking desperately to justify its existence by trumpeting ever more implausible and exotic theories of discrimination.

Read the whole thing, it really is worth it!

Iraq and Afghanistan

We may be witnessing something truly remarkable in Iraq:

OK, the New York Times is writing about it on the front page ... do we dare talk about it now? The possibility of non-defeat?

The Iraq War is a curious thing. It may very well end up being the first war where opponents of it get to paint it as a defeat, and the proponents get to declare victory, with no one being able to conclusively prove the other wrong.
















Nevertheless, as the NYT shows, even some longtime opponents of the war are just about ready to admit that things might be ever-so-slightly improving for Iraqis...

Is this permanent? Who knows. Is it reassuring? Definitely.

Does it jibe with what the Michaels (Totten and Yon) have been saying for weeks? Yes it does:


Here is some absolutely riveting writing from Michael J. Totten on the Anbar Awakening:

One night,” Lieutenant Markham said, “after several young people were beheaded
by Al Qaeda, the mosques in the city went crazy. The imams screamed jihad
from the loudspeakers. We went to the roof of the outpost and braced for a
major assault. Our interpreter joined us. Hold on, he said. They aren’t screaming
jihad against us. They are screaming jihad against the insurgents."

“A massive anti-Al Qaeda convulsion ripped through the city,” said Captain McGee.
“The locals rose up and began killing the terrorists on their own. They reached the tipping point where they just could not take any more. They told us where the weapon caches were. They pointed out IEDs under the road.”

Another missive from Iraq, one that dares give us hope that Iraqis can overcome their deep sectarian rifts: Muslims go to church

Then, on the other hand, there is Afghanistan:

The Senlis Council just released a sobering report, entitled Stumbling Into Chaos: Afghanistan On the Brink, which reminded me of something shocking Michael Yon posted on his site a few weeks ago.

I am far from a defeatist, but I must say that I am profoundly troubled. In the last year, the situation has deteriorated to the point that NATO is heading for a failure in its first major test as an organization. The implications of this are staggering, and we should not fool ourselves: A defeat in Afghanistan would be a fatal blow to the organization's credibility, and the dissolution of NATO thereafter would be likely. If NATO goes, what happens to Afghanistan? What happens to Canadian defence policy, for that matter?

So, given all of these developments, what will U.S. foreign policy be like in a post-Bush world?

Does the end of the Bush administration mean the end of empire? Not yet, says Macleans.

From the lips of Hilary Clinton:

"There is a refrain that we should intervene with force only when we face splendid little wars that we surely can win, preferably by overwhelming force in
a relatively short period of time. To those who believe we should become
involved only if it is easy to do, I think we have to say that America has never
and should not shy away from the hard task if it is the right one."

Looks like the next few years offer little in the way of certainty or reassuring platitudes from the heir-presumptive to the presidency.



Bonus heart-rending content:

A poignant remembrance of those who have fought and fallen there:

Last Letters from Kandahar

All my life I bugged my parents about when I could have a brother, and here I have all the brothers I could want.

Plus: Christopher Hitchens deals with a death

Instead of wasting your time going to see that Robert Redford flick, just read this. Trust me.

Invested in Defeat

Box office defeat, that is! Brian DePalma's Redacted is another failed campaign in the Hollywood War On Terrific Filmaking (HWOT):

As usual, Mark Steyn has some very interesting insights into a subject that has exercised me a great deal lately:

What the preview crowd were telling Berg is, hey, we'd love to see one film where our guys kick serious terrorist butt — and there isn't one, and there hasn't been one for six long years. If you buy the argument that Hollywood's anti Americanism derives necessarily from its role as purveyor of entertainment to the entire planet, well, so what? Terrorists killed a bunch of people in Bali, Madrid, London. Alongside the kick-ass Americans, sign Hugh Grant as an MI6 agent and Penelope Cruz as his Spanish dolly bird and Cate Blanchett as the head of the Australian SAS and Russell Crowe as her Kiwi bit of rough. As long as the enemy's the enemy, and not a Dick Cheney subsidiary. It's fine to show the American war machine warts and all, but Hollywood is showing only the warts — and, even if you stick perky little Reese Witherspoon in the middle of it, it's still just another pustulating carbuncle.

What is it with some of these filmakers? Do they really feel morally obligated to pontificate the way they do? Do they really see their role as educating the masses on what is really going down? Just where do they derive their expertise, or their moral authority, for that matter?

I could go on at great length about some of the new "secular religions" that have arisen lately, and the self-appointed popes who would be the guardians of orthodoxy... but also I'm starting to think that the problem lies with hybridization and the breaking down of barriers between education and entertainment.

More and more, when it comes to movies, the lines are blurring between the two. How many times do you hear that it is important that people watch a certain film to "learn something", and open their eyes to this or that particular issue?

That's absolutely fine by me, as long as people remember they also have to do some reading to supplement whatever that nicely-packaged, easily-digestible, inevitably slanted movie just taught them. The movie is context --an adjunct-- not the Gospel itself. Consider the danger of watching a piece of AgitProp like Loose Change free of any context or additional information.

I think back to all those days in Grade 12 English, watching movie adaptations of famous works of litterature. What if I had just watched the films and not read the books? Would Romeo and Juliet look like Baz Luhrman's South Beach, or Zefirelli's Verona? Having read the play, my Romeo and Juliet doesn't have to look like either... I can make up my own mind! I have additional information that gives me more context.

Do you go to the monkey cage at the zoo expecting a dissertation on Schopenhauer? Do you go to university, for that matter, expecting the professor to gibber, grimace and fling feces? So why should those who entertain us also have the role of educating us?

I say to Hollywood: Never mind the message movies... dance, monkey, dance!


******

Bonus: In addition to making reprehensible movies, DePalma is now torpedoing the careers of hungry young actors by allowing them to make fools of themselves and get eviscerated by critics.

Novice thespian challenged by role of improbably-obese, grotesque and ridiculous Marine caricature in Redacted