Don’t see it. Sorry, I hated it and I probably should have never gone. It’s extremely depressing in a colonial sort of way, and the feel-good ending doesn’t really change that. I would include details but I don’t want to depress anyone who liked the film. If you care to comment though, I will respond.

Now on to what I really liked. Michelle Rodriquez kicked ass. Now don’t get me wrong it’s a stupid part. All she does is look sexy, deliver cheesy Cameron one-liners, and do the action star thing, but she does it so well. In fact, she does it like a man. She is every bit of the action start that Sylvester Stallone, Arnold Schwartzenagger, and Bruce Willis are. I’d love to see her in a James Bond style movie where she toys with men. I think with Rodriquez we actually would enjoy that very similar to Linda Fiorentino in The Last Seduction. Or maybe a Rambo0-type movie. One thing about the eighties action stars is that they talked very little. You didn’t see too many heart-wrenching scenes. There wasn’t a lot going on upstairs and it didn’t matter. They did their thing. I think someone needs to give Michelle Rodriquez the chance to do it.

Not only are roasted chestnuts perfect for the holiday season, but you’ll get a lot of accolades for bringing them to your holiday party despite the fact that they are easier than pie to make.

Cut a an X in each chestnut. Roast in the oven at 425 degrees F for a half of an hour. Pile them up in foil and take immediately to the party. If you’ve invited me over this season to a party, you may find that I’ll be bringing these. More info here.

Pat Robertson on NPR speaking about Oral Roberts’ 1987 plea to his supporters that they donate money to his church or God would kill him:

It was unseemly. We all have a mole or a wart somewhere in our lives.

What do you mean it was unseemly? He said God told him that he was going to kill him if he didn’t raise the money. Are you insinuating that Oral Roberts was lying? Is it so common for televangelists to lie that you can use that word unseemly instead?

Second observation of the day.

A new provision being rolled into the unified House health care bill would allow young adults to stay on their parents’ health care plans until they turn 27, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi told reporters Tuesday.

I think it says a lot about the state of this country’s health insurance problems that reform involves infantilizing adults in order to get them covered. And how classist is this anyway? This is a big benefit for upper middle class families who sent their kids off to college when their kids have not yet found work that includes benefits. Baristas anyone? What about poor 27 year olds? Chances are their parents don’t have insurance either. What a bunch of crap. Full disclosure: I was on my parents’ insurance until I was 23 years old.

The Sound of Music is one of my favorite movies of all time, but I’ve never seen it this way.

Here’s a great column from Glenn Greenwald:

Events like this provide an important reminder about how crucial and well-crafted the Constitution is.  Though rarely invoked, the ban on “bills of attainder” is no technical or legalistic right; it’s vital.  Allowing Congress — rather than courts — to pass judgment on parties’ guilt and then punish them for it is to circumvent all of the due process rights guaranteed in a judicial proceeding.  It virtually ensures that, as happened here, guilt will be imposed due to political passions and a lynch mob mentality rather than a careful and fair examination of evidence.  It also leaves weak and unpopular parties far more vulnerable to punishment.  The fact that groups far more powerful than ACORN have actually been found guilty of serious wrongdoing yet have never been de-funded by Congress –particularly defense contractors — illustrates that danger.

The reasons the Founders barred such bills of attainder are perfectly highlighted by the ACORN case.  During the reign of abusive Kings, it was a favorite instrument for enabling unpopular parties to be convicted, punished and deprived without benefit of a trial.  Under the Constitution, parties aren’t supposed to be found guilty of wrongdoing as a result of a Fox-News-led witch hunt joined by cowardly members of Congress.  The recent finding of the Massachusetts Attorney General that ACORN had not committed crimes in connection with the notorious prostitution videos underscores the danger of the state’s assuming someone’s guilt outside of the judicial process.  Congress is especially ill-suited to pass judgment on whether a particular party has violated the law, as they are far more likely to protect the powerful and popular and punish the weak and unpopular (which is one reason, incidentally, why it was wrong for Congress to retroactively immunize rich and powerful telecoms based on the consummately judicial finding that they acted in “good faith” when violating eavesdropping laws).

I highly recommend reading the whole thing.

It would be a crime to swipe the images, so I’ll just link to RumpRoast here.

I’m fascinated by aspects of advertising like where the ideas come from and who makes the decisions.  It’s interesting how advertisers can get it wrong so many times. What they thought was appealing just isn’t. I ordered a latte at the cafe the other day and watched the barista put on a Bodies the Exhibition cup sleeve. Continuing my trend to be a somewhat difficult customer at times I promptly removed the sleeve from my cup and said “I know this wasn’t your idea, but what makes Bodies the Exhibition think that I want to drink my coffee looking at that thing?” At least they weren’t making subway sandwich wrappers.

So here is an interesting ad which is a takeoff of Dow Scrubbing Bubbles. If you don’t know about the controversy involving this video, then you should watch the video before reading on.

Okay, what are your thoughts? I have to say I don’t think it’s a very good advertisement. It certainly doesn’t make me want to buy Method cleaners and I do think it’s a bit creepy. Well apparently there’s been a lot of talk about this advert on feminist blogs and you can read Kate Harding’s take here. I really don’t have a feminist opinion about this, but I can say it’s not a very good commercial.

Here’s an interesting column on Ta-nehisi Coates’ blog where he talks about paying $1.99 per Mad Men episode on Hulu.

I think the problem in this thinking is the notion that people are going to Hulu because they don’t want to pay for TV. That’s part of it, but it’s a simplification. Again, speaking for myself, it’s not that I don’t want to pay for TV, it’s that I don’t want to pay for cable news recycling the same story, or Stuart Scott yelling “Boo-yah!” in order to get my Larry David fix.

What I want is to watch “Curb Your Enthusiasm” and then go on with my life–and I’ll gladly pay a premium for that privilege. I don’t want to have to flip through a hundred different channels of silliness in order to get to what I want to see. In other words, for me, the problem isn’t paying, it’s the lack of control.

I completely agree here. It’s not that I don’t want to watch tennis occasionally or Mad Men or Sex and the City. It’s that I don’t want to watch everything else, and I know that by having all those stations at my disposal I will watch those programs. When we had free cable TV I watched a lot of Keith Olbermann because it was there. Sure it was enjoyable, but I think I wasted precious hours of my life that could have been spent in a more positive way.

What I would really like is an a la carte television. I choose the channels that I want and that’s it. A la carte channels would also solve the problem of placing controls on what children watch. Just because Bratz is considered child-safe doesn’t mean that I want my (hypothetical) children watching it.

We’ve been primarily TV free for about a year now. I’d say about once a week I turn it on for a few minutes then turn it off. There is never anything good on anyway. Speaking of which there was some terrible femme-fatal Meryl Street/Roy Scheider movie on the other day. Don’t know what it was but it was really bad. That’s free TV for you.

My only regret is that I should be getting more accomplished with my life and I can’t say that I am. I do fill a lot of what would have been TV hours with radio, but the nice thing about radio is that you can do something else while listening to it.

I was reading a blog the other day that used the above title as a sarcastic jab at the Salvation Army in Houston who reportedly was requesting social security numbers to prevent non-citizens from getting toys.

Working in Information Technology, you learn that collecting social security numbers is by far the stupidest thing you could ever do as an organization. The liability of having those numbers is just not worth the minuscule value they may provide, but that’s aside the point.

You may recall the title of this post is a line from Dickens A Christmas Carol. I’m posting an excerpt with this fabulous exchange in the hopes that you may consider the meaning of charity this Christmas season.

The clerk, in letting Scrooge’s nephew out, had let two other people in. They were portly gentlemen, pleasant to behold, and now stood, with their hats off, in Scrooge’s office. They had books and papers in their hands, and bowed to him.    ’Scrooge and Marley’s, I believe,’ said one of the gentlemen, referring to his list. ‘Have I the pleasure of addressing Mr Scrooge, or Mr Marley?’

‘Mr Marley has been dead these seven years,’ Scrooge replied. ‘He died seven years ago, this very night.’

‘We have no doubt his liberality is well represented by his surviving partner,’ said the gentleman, presenting his credentials.

It certainly was, for they had been two kindred spirits. At the ominous word liberality, Scrooge frowned, and shook his head, and handed the credentials back.

‘At this festive season of the year, Mr Scrooge,’ said the gentleman, taking up a pen, ‘it is more than usually desirable that we should make some slight provision for the Poor and destitute, who suffer greatly at the present time. Many thousands are in want of common necessaries; hundreds of thousands are in want of common comforts, sir.’

‘Are there no prisons?’ asked Scrooge.

‘Plenty of prisons,’ said the gentleman, laying down the pen again.

‘And the Union workhouses.’ demanded Scrooge. ‘Are they still in operation?’

‘They are. Still,’ returned the gentleman,’ I wish I could say they were not.’

‘The Treadmill and the Poor Law are in full vigour, then?’ said Scrooge.

‘Both very busy, sir.’

‘Oh. I was afraid, from what you said at first, that something had occurred to stop them in their useful course,’ said Scrooge. ‘I’m very glad to hear it.’

‘Under the impression that they scarcely furnish Christian cheer of mind or body to the multitude,’ returned the gentleman, ‘a few of us are endeavouring to raise a fund to buy the Poor some meat and drink, and means of warmth. We choose this time, because it is a time, of all others, when Want is keenly felt, and Abundance rejoices. What shall I put you down for?’

‘Nothing!’ Scrooge replied.

‘You wish to be anonymous?’

‘I wish to be left alone,’ said Scrooge. ‘Since you ask me what I wish, gentlemen, that is my answer. I don’t make merry myself at Christmas and I can’t afford to make idle people merry. I help to support the establishments I have mentioned-they cost enough; and those who are badly off must go there.’

‘Many can’t go there; and many would rather die.’

‘If they would rather die,’ said Scrooge, ‘they had better do it, and decrease the surplus population. Besides-excuse me-I don’t know that.’

‘But you might know it,’ observed the gentleman.

‘It’s not my business,’ Scrooge returned. ‘It’s enough for a man to understand his own business, and not to interfere with other people’s. Mine occupies me constantly. Good afternoon, gentlemen!’

Seeing clearly that it would be useless to pursue their point, the gentlemen withdrew. Scrooge resumed his labours with an improved opinion of himself, and in a more facetious temper than was usual with him.

I have only now finished season 3 of Mad Men. I don’t have cable and a friend gave me his recordings a couple of weeks ago. I was very intrigued by the episode where Pete is left alone for a week by his wife who is vacationing with her family. Spoilers after the jump.

What everyone is talking about in reference to that episode is the fact that Pete is now a rapist. I’m fairly confident anyone reading my blog would agree to the fact that the character Pete rapes the au pair, so I’m not really interested in discussing that aspect.

What really interested me is how I could see myself in Pete in that episode. Shocking? While I couldn’t see myself raping someone, I do recognize that when I’m left alone the worst parts of me come out. Take for instance Pete eating cereal watching TV without a shirt on. God, that’s so on target. I can be filthy, slovenly and all-around disgusting. It’s like I need people around me to not sucumb to my worst tendencies.

I lived by myself for a year in Los Angeles in a converted garage, and I was truly a disgusting person. I washed the dishes maybe once a week. Dirty dishes were everywhere. Clothes were everywhere. I started to go to bed at night later and later until I was actually going to bed at 5 in the morning. I had a job where I needed to be at work at 4:30 pm and I knew I hit bottom when I “slept in” and was late to work.

Jake can attest that when he met me my room was one of the messiest he had seen. I’m happy to say I am much better now. Sure I have the same tendencies, but I never let it get too bad.