Two Snouts Up for War of The Worlds

(:)(:) out of a possible 5 snouts (I've changed my rating system) for War of the Worlds directed by Steven Spielberg, in theaters now.

Bill tells me that there are people who liked this movie. I find it hard to believe. I mean, I guess it held my interest and the apocalyptic hellscape was visually arresting and everything but other than that...

It was a good date film though because most of the time Bill and I spent rolling our eyes and snickering to each other sarcastically like:

"oh right, like he's got the only van in the world that drives when all energy sources cease;" or

"outer space invasions are great teaching moments for noncustodial parents;" or

"honey, if you were trapped in a basement with Tim Robbins and our 8 year old daughter, would you kill Tim Robbins if you had to?" (Bill's answer btw was: it would depend how close by Susan Sarandon was and what she was wearing; which I considered nonresponsive)

So see it, by all means see it, and send me your sarcastic comments. We had more such comments, but we wouldn't want to "spoil" the experience for you with them.

Like, I'm sure all of us would like to know, does every good apocalypse have a silver lining?

Four Snouts up for March of the Penguins

(:)(:)(:)(:) belated snouts up for March of the Penguins the documentary about the huge and delightful Emperor penguins in antarctica--we went with my mother and our 8 year old and we all loved it.

On the Roberts nomination

Okay, here's why we're completely screwed on Roberts: yesterday I was talking to a friend of mine who is so far to the left he once referred to me as the "quote unquote left". So "the real left" tells me, apropo of the Roberts nomination that if he were a senator he'd vote to confirm him:

oh
my
god

If The Real Left would vote to confirm, we are in such deep trouble--and no one knows The Real Left like the Quote Unquote Left.

At first, I found myself agreeing with The Real Left. I know why he thinks that. He, like many americans, feel that somehow the only legitimate role of the Senate in confirming judicial appointments is to determine whether a candidate is qualified for the bench, whether s/he has "a judicial temperment." Naturally, by any standards, Roberts has one, so let's not even debate that.

What makes this such an appallingly smart choice by the Bush administration is that in one fell swoop they have managed to a) shift the debate away from Karl Rove b) nominate an arch conservative c) have him appear to be the kind of affable, insider boy that no one in their right mind could ever block to confirm.

Yet it's becoming very clear that Roberts could easily be a Scalia in Souter clothing--a 50 year old brilliant young arch conservative avowed corporatist who could completely change the court for generations with a quiet affable demeanor.

Part of me, ala another friend in the capitol who shall remain nameless even though he'd probably like the credit, wants to say, screw it, let them have the court-- a real huge win for the far right is probably the only thing that ultimately will galvanize the middle to wake up and vote us out of this nightmare. But there are other parts of me (most of me) that think we need to fight.

To return to an earlier thread, we are supposed to have separation of powers here. This is not a dictatorship. Just because the President was elected by a razor thin mandate doesn't mean that he gets to have whomever he wants on the court--there is a process here; let's use it. When we Borked Bork we ended up with Kennedy (of Sacramento's McGeorge Law school thank you very much) and that was at least an improvement.

Let's not go around saying we're not going to get any better out of the Bush administration. We might not get anyone smarter. We might not get anyone with a cuter family. But we could do better...let's.

Read my column in Rudolf's Diner

And read Rudolf's Diner.

Follow Your Mind...

Just spent 6 days in Yosemite reading Emerson's essay on Self-Reliance--this is the way to read Emerson (I can now say smugly, after only one essay, never having read Emerson before to my knowledge--I was a psych major, o-kay?).

As far as I was concerned Emerson was speaking directly to me in this essay--in many respects-- particularly in regard to the degree to which the integrity of mind is the only sacred thing.

Lately I have been praying for clarity, particularly in my career and focus. I have been preoccupied by external concerns, why don’t I have an income, a job title, an office; why don’t I have something easy to tell people?

I have been second-guessing my decision to concentrate so almost exclusively on my spiritual growth, on getting to know myself. Reading Emerson, for the first time in years I feel like an unqualified success. I have felt like the young man whom Emerson pities because he graduates from a top school and is lamenting and lamented for having not gotten a top appointment in the right city. Without realizing it, I have been more like the man whom Emerson lauds for fishing, farming, politicking and always growing, learning.

For Emerson, the right city is the city you’re in. The right job is the job you’re doing. Or, more accurately, what matters is not the job itself, but the integrity of mind with which one applies oneself to the job. Are you a cashier at Burger King? Fine. So long as you ring up the fries with integrity or, as Maria Nemeth puts it, “clarity, focus, ease and grace.” Are you the President of the United States? Well, who cares? The question is are you following your mind and true heart, or the mind of someone else, like, say, Dick Cheney?