Category Archives: Popular culture

Isn’t being Irish Catholic considered an extenuating circumstance?

Torn from the pages of a Caddyshack script, we have this item of sad celebrity news:

By KARL RITTER    
Associated Press Writer

STOCKHOLM,
Sweden
(AP) – Bill Murray could face a drunken driving charge after
cruising through downtown Stockholm in a golf cart and refusing to take
a breath test, citing U.S. law.Murraybill
    Police officers spotted the
"Caddyshack" star early Monday in the slow-moving vehicle and noticed
he smelled of alcohol when they pulled him over, said
Detective-Inspector Christer Holmlund of the Stockholm police.
    "He
refused to blow in the (breath test) instrument, citing American
legislation," Holmlund told The Associated Press on Wednesday. "So we
applied the old method — a blood test. It will take 14 days before the
results are in."
    Murray, who had been at a golf tournament in
Sweden, signed a document admitting that he was driving under the
influence, and agreed to let a police officer plead guilty for him if
the case goes to court, Holmlund said.
    "Then he was let go. My guess is he went back to America," Holmlund said…

Here’s another way to test how much he’d had — if he did his character from "Caddyshack" when stopped, they should throw the book at him. I’m a huge Bill Murray fan, but that was his one bit that I never could abide.

Hillary bumps Biden, quickly makes my Top Five list


M
y Top Five Videos, that is. She’s not on my Top Five Candidates list. That doesn’t mean she won’t be; I just haven’t composed that one yet.

But in just two weeks of boffo box-office, she has muscled her way to No. 3 among my most-watched video clips on YouTube. Well, she didn’t do it herself. Some credit goes to the star of the clip — the woman who heckled her at the College Democrats meeting in Columbia — and to her cinematographer, moi.

The title ("Hillary’s Heckler") probably helped. Alliteration is a powerful thing. Also boosting it was the fact that there was a CNN clip of the same incident. Still, that one — shot with a better camera and from a somewhat more advantageous vantage point — only got 2,232 hits, while mine had received 5,639.

How could that happen? Well, I’m going to credit the rough style of mine. First, I used the Steven Spielberg/"Saving Private Ryan" hand-held-no-steadicam style, rather than the stodgy, omniscient-viewer, fixed-position technique of the network. This really puts you in the action.

It’s shot from a combatants’ viewpoint. This is what a rapt young Democrat, fascinated by everything Mrs. Clinton had to say, would have seen and heard. The camera stays on Hillary, then there are murmurs and cries of "No!" and you don’t know what’s happening at first. Is the crowd turning against Hillary? Do they not like what she’s saying? But wait! The camera swings in the direction of the sounds, and here’s this nutty lady yelling at her, and (unlike in the CNN clip) you can hear what she’s saying — not that it makes sense, but you can’t have everything.

The jostling, the confusion, the lack of explanation of what just happened, Hillary’s smooth slide back into her speech — all add to a dynamic viewing experience.

That’s my interpretation, anyway.

Whatever the explanation, no video of mine has ever topped 5,000 in less than two weeks. And it makes poor Joe Biden — whose frenetic Rotary performance topped the chart for a time — even more of a footnote. Show biz is hell.

Here’s the list as it stands now:

So we see what sells, don’t we? Cars, cocaine, controversy and Nazis. At least I haven’t stooped to luring y’all in with sex. But that’s just because Ségolène Royal‘s agent has been completely unreasonable.

Now we know how debates can be stupider

Dems1

    "I think this is a ridiculous exercise."
            — Joe Biden

Amen.

If the frontiersmen who trashed the White House after Andrew Jackson’s inaugural had had YouTube, it would have looked like what we saw out of Charleston Monday night.

No, I take that back. The yahoos who had to be lured back out of the mansion with ice cream in 1829 were not this insipid. They were real; they were who they were, and I shouldn’t malign them by comparing them to the "Ain’t I cute" questioners on the "YouTube debate."

Gail Collins has it exactly right on today’s op-ed page, as I’ve said before (sorry; can’t show it to you — you know how the NYT is. You can’t have a serious debate with five or six or — come on, eight? — candidates on the stage. But there are worse things than the debates we had seen up to now — people who would occupy the most important job in the world being subjected to "Reality TV," and having to be deeply respectful of this abuse. (Certainly I think it’s a very important question," said Chris Dodd to the first one. It wasn’t.)

Joe Biden was only answering one of the questions that came out of this process in the quote above, but it easily applied to the evening — or most of it. Some of the questions were questions that should have been asked. But they would have been better asked by people who did not see themselves and the message. And they say politicians are narcissistic.

I like YouTube. I love YouTube. It can be fun. It can be useful. But unless it is applied much better than it was in this case, it cannot bring intelligence or coherence to a format that is far too fragmented and distracting already — the free-for-all debate among anyone and everyone who says he or she wants the nomination.

If you wish to learn what was said — and I certainly don’t blame you if you didn’t watch it — without the distractions of the posturing, mugging, simpering and snideness of the the questioners hitting you full in the face — here’s a transcript. But it doesn’t help much.

Did I get anything out of this debate? Yes. I saw once again that behind all the "I want to get out of Iraq faster than Cindy Sheehan does" posturing by this crowd seeking the affections of the angry base, serious people know that it’s not that simple. Obama: "At this point, I think we can be as careful getting out as we were careless getting in." Of course, he went on to promise a quick retreat, but I think he knows better (at this point, I’ll grasp at any straw for hope that someone who might be president might have a clue). Biden: "You know we can’t just pull out now." Of course, he then quickly proposes a pullout, but at least he has a coherent plan. I think it’s an extraordinarily dangerous plan (creating an independent Kurdistan on Turkey’s border?), but it’s a plan.

I could go into other "issues," such as Chris Dodd’s white hair, or Anderson What’s-His-Name’s white hair, or whether John Edwards is better for women than Hillary Clinton (his wife says so, but let’s not go there), or how black Barack Obama is. But I think it’s safe to say that we’ll hear more about such things as the months grind slowly on.

Bottom line: We didn’t learn anything more from this than the middle-school slam-book stuff we had known before: Hillary projects presidential; Obama is smart and charismatic; Biden and Richardson are experienced, Gravel is certifiable, Kucinich is irritating, Edwards is a demagogue, and Dodd is uninteresting.

But hey; I can pander to the masses as much as the next guy: What did you think?

Democrats2

The coward that roared

We should always be on guard against harboring inaccurate stereotypes — not because it’s unPC, but because it interferes with our ability to perceive things as they are.

For instance: A blog tends to draw a lot of people who post outrageous statements, angry provocations and a whole lot of Big Talk under pseudonyms. Lacking other information, you tend to picture people who are either jerks all the time — and I don’t want to think that of them — or they are these Caspar Milquetoast types who get frustrated all day saying "Yes, sir; no, sir" to the world, or being bossed around by their wives, or whatever, and this is their dirty little outlet.

I’m picturing someone who, in "Brad Warthen’s Blog: The Movie," would best be played by someone like the late character actor John Fiedler. You don’t know the name, but you might recognize the photo, or remember him from some of his roles. (I didn’t know his name either; I had to figure out who played timid, squeaky-voiced Juror #2 in "12 Angry Men.")

But either the stereotype is completely wrong, or there are some fascinating departures from the type. Turns out that even brash, openly obnoxious, Big Shot CEOs like to hide behind fake names. This story is priceless:

UNRAVELING RAHODEB
A Grocer’s Brash Style
Takes Unhealthy Turn

Were Posts by Mackey,
CEO of Whole Foods,
A Case of Ethics, or Ego?

By DAVID KESMODEL and JONATHAN EIG
July 20, 2007; Page A1
    John Mackey has never needed the anonymity of the Internet to speak bluntly.
    "I’m going to destroy you," the co-founder and chief executive of Whole Foods Market Inc. shouted at Perry Odak, CEO of Wild Oats Markets Inc., the first time the two men met six years ago at a retailing conference in Manhattan, according to Mr. Odak.
    At that time, Mr. Mackey had already established a reputation as a maverick, whose growing chain of upscale natural-foods stores was shaking up the way traditional grocers did business. Officials at Whole Foods say Mr. Mackey tells a different version of the story — with milder language — but the confrontation has nonetheless become part of his food-industry legend. Mr. Mackey’s combativeness became even more widely known with the revelation last week that he used an alias for nearly eight years to post messages on Yahoo Finance message boards, bashing competitors and praising everything from his company’s quarterly financial performance to his own haircut…

Get your mind right, Luke

Assuming I wanted to make a movie about the S.C. prison system, even if I had a sort of magical, all-time, dead-or-alive set of actors to choose from, I don’t think I would have thought of the late Strother Martin to play Corrections chief Jon Ozmint.

But there’s an eerie similarity between what Mr. Ozmint had to say about denying food to rule-breakers…

"Our rule is simple … any inmate is allowed to decline the opportunity (to eat, exercise, shower or have visitors) by failure to comply with our reasonable requirements," Ozmint wrote in the e-mail. "Eating is a voluntary activity and any inmate may refuse to eat."

… and what the legendary character actor said as the "Captain" in "Cool Hand Luke:"

"What we’ve got here is… failure to communicate. Some men you just
can’t reach. So you get what we had here last week, which is the way he
wants it
… well, he gets it. I don’t like it any more than you men."

You see, as the Captain so clearly explained, Luke didn’t have his mind right. He could have followed the rules, but he chose to spend the night in the box and wear those chains and get whupped up ‘side the head. He chose all that when he back-sassed a free man (the Captain himself, no less) and when he kept gettin’ rabbit in his blood.

If you don’t understand that, then you don’t got your mind right, and maybe you’d best start gettin’ all of your dirt off Boss Godfrey’s yard, boy.

‘love me some fred’

Don’t get me wrong; I’ve got nothing against Fred Thompson. I like that ol’ Tennessee boy just fine. But I can’t help marveling at the extent to which others get excited about him.

Sometimes, they achieve a sort of frenzy that positively cracks me up.

Compared to a staid forum such as, say, an editorial page, the comments on this blog may seem wild and woolly to some — despite my occasional attempts to encourage decorum. But when it comes to sheer intellectual rigor, this is the Algonquin Round Table set against some other places out there on the ‘net.

Such a place is the comments feature on YouTube. I glanced today at one of the video clips I had posted of Sen. Thompson earlier this week, having noticed that it had already joined my top ten most-watched videos. (It had even bumped my least-watched Thomas Ravenel clip, so Mr. Ravenel now occupies only four of the top ten slots.)

There were only three comments so far, but one respondent had gushed:

For Gods sake Fred!!! Please annouce your candicacy!! We are all ready to support you anyway we can. I’d go along with that flat tax too igloo54! GO Fred GO!!!!!!

My absolute favorite, though, was the one before it:


Love me some fred

That’s it. No punctuation. This literary innovation allowed the beholder multiple interpretations. I assumed it meant, "Love me some, Fred!" A colleague took it as saying, essentially, I’m really loving that Fred! Either way, the tension created by its very sparseness, the fact that this writer is excited beyond the ability to articulate, is what strikes me: Don’t have to make sense! Doesn’t matter! I’m just so excited!

Increasing my enjoyment was a movie that I watched as much of as I could stand last night: "Idiocracy," starring Luke Wilson. I had rented it just because Mike Judge was behind it, and I really loved "Office Space."

It was, after a while, hard to take. But the premise was hilarious, and painfully true-to-life. It was based in the idea that in this generation, we have started reversing the evolutionary principle of the fittest surviving, at least in intellectual terms. With high-I.Q., educated people making a fetish of delaying having children, often until it’s too late, and everybody else fully attuned to a culture that increasingly spurs them to copulate like rabbits, the species is bound to get dumber and dumber.

So it is that Owen Wilson, as average a guy as you could find, wakes up from a frozen state 500 years in a post-literate future, and finds himself easily the smartest man in the world. In that new world, "Love me some fred" would pass as Shakespeare.

Unfortunately, "stupid" jokes do get old very quickly. And… well… some of the hyperbole wasn’t all that far beyond today’s reality — especially today’s reality TV. That made it it sort of painfully close to home. Is a show called "Oh, my Balls!," consisting entirely of some poor schmuck getting hit repeatedly in the yarbles, all that much dumber than today’s fare? I fear not.

Ravenel topples the classics

Here’s what a little news can do to your box-office.

Last time I mentioned my most popular blog videos, this Thomas Ravenel clip — last seen at 662 views had fallen off my Top Five most-watched on YouTube. But the classic of Grady Patterson talking about Ravenel, which for the first few months it was up had been my all-time most popular, was still hanging on.

Well, now that cocky pup Ravenel has bumped Grady again. First he took his job; now he’s taken his place in screen history. Both still trail the Nazis, though, and I’m gratified to see that my critically-acclaimed "Electric Car" video has climbed to second place. Still, my first Nazi video is far ahead, approaching 4,000 — remarkable in such a low-budget vehicle.

Nothing like a little publicity. Ravenel’s sudden notoriety has zipped him up to over 1,500 views, placing him solidly at the number five position. And with Biden’s presidential hopes pretty too small to measure, I expect "The Alpha and Beta" to be in fourth place before long. Grady is still stuck in triple-digits.

Anyway, here are the latest tallies:

  1. "Nazi Presidential Candidate Defends Confederate Flag" — 3,961 views
  2. "Who Resurrected the Electric Car?" — 2,283
  3. Nazis Defend Confederate Flag II — 2,137
  4. Joe Biden at Rotary — 1,926 views.
  5. The Alpha and Beta of Thomas Ravenel — 1,590

Is there a serious point in any of this? Yes, in a way. As I suggested yesterday, and at least one first-time viewer mentioned to me today, looking back at Ravenel’s breezy cockiness during the campaign has an extra punch for the viewer now. It’s hard to say exactly why; it just does.

South Carolinians for Fred Thompson

A group of South Carolinians officeholders — with Rep. Gresham Barrett being the most notable among them — gathered today to call on Fred Thompson to get in the race:

AP P M1030 SC FRED THOMPSON S.C.Download
m1030 scsc-
pbx
AP-SC FRED THOMPSON S.C.
Handful of SC lawmakers urge Fred Thompson to run for White House
By JIM DAVENPORT
Associated Press Writer

COLUMBIA, S.C. (AP) – A handful of South Carolina legislators on Wednesday urged Fred Thompson toward a formal presidential candidacy and said groundwork for a campaign was being laid in this early voting state.

State Sen. Larry Grooms said conservative voters in South Carolina are looking for something more than what the current field of Republican candidates has to offer.

"They’re all good guys, but there’s something lacking in every one of them," said Grooms, who was flanked by six other legislators and U.S. Rep. Gresham Barrett, R-S.C., at a Statehouse news conference. "I think Fred Thompson is the type of candidate that many people in this state are looking for."

People close to the former Tennessee senator and "Law & Order" actor say he will form a "testing the waters" committee that will allow him to raise money and that he plans a campaign swing through various early primary states in late June before an official campaign launch around July 4.

Barrett said the supporters were simply trying to build excitement for Thompson in South Carolina.

"We know he’s behind the 8-ball and he’s got a lot of ground to make up," Barrett said. This will "help him establish kind of a skeleton crew so when he does announce that we’ve got some people in place that he can build on."

Barrett said he did not know of any planned visits by Thompson to South Carolina.

Other presidential candidates have been raising money and soliciting support in South Carolina for months. Arizona Sen. John McCain enlisted a majority of Republican legislators here earlier this year for his exploratory campaign.

But some, like state Rep. Mike Pitts of Laurens, have said they are considering taking their endorsement elsewhere. Pitts was particularly upset because of McCain’s support for the illegal immigration bill now being debated in the Senate.

Joining Grooms at the news conference Wednesday were state Sens. John Hawkins and Ray Cleary and Reps. Michael Thompson, Brian White, Eric Bedingfield and Jeff Duncan.

I don’t know. I like Fred, and he made a good impression that one time he came to see me, back in 2000. But he was such a jerk to Clint Eastwood back when he was White House chief of staff, so I have my reservations.

It’s a song about Alice — you remember Alice…

This is a follow-up post.

First — Ed, take it easy. I was trying to be considerate of you in not naming you. It’s been pointed out that it can seem unfair for me to take a comment and answer it in a post — some say I’m using my position to tear down another person — so I didn’t name you. Of course, what would "Ed" have told anybody? Not much. So no harm either way, I guess.

Secondly, as Bill said (trust our Bill to recognize a song allusion), that’s from "Alice’s Restaurant." I try not to be too mysterious, which is why, if you click on the link in the first place where I refer to the song, you get the full lyrics.

The song was actually the inspiration for the post. In the song — supposedly inspired by real-life events — Arlo Guthrie gets rejected from the draft because of his criminal record. His crime? Littering. There’s a very funny passage (the "song" is mostly spoken, and it’s about 20 minutes or more long) in which, after acknowledging he has a record, he is sent to the Group W bench, where he sits with real criminals, who at first turn their backs on him when they learn he’s just a litterbug, but come back when he adds, "and creatin’ a nuisance."

Anyway, so you don’t have to scroll or search through all that, here’s the relevant passage:

… and he stopped me right there and said, "Kid, I want you to go and sit down on that bench that says Group W …. NOW kid!!"

And I, I walked over to the, to the bench there, and there is, Group W’s where they put you if you may not be moral enough to join the army after committing your special crime, and there was all kinds of mean nasty ugly looking people on the bench there.  Mother rapers.  Father stabbers.  Father rapers!  Father rapers sitting right there on the bench next to me!  And they was mean and nasty and ugly and horrible crime-type guys sitting on the bench next to me. And the meanest, ugliest, nastiest one, the meanest father raper of them all, was coming over to me and he was mean ‘n’ ugly
‘n’ nasty ‘n’ horrible and all kind of things and he sat down next to me and said, "Kid, whad’ya get?"  I said, "I didn’t get nothing, I had to pay $50 and pick up the garbage."  He said, "What were you arrested for, kid?"
And I said, "Littering."  And they all moved away from me on the bench there, and the hairy eyeball and all kinds of mean nasty things, till I said, "And creating a nuisance."  And they all came back, shook my hand, and we had a great time on the bench, talkin about crime, mother stabbing, father raping, all kinds of groovy things that we was talking about on the bench.  And everything was fine, we was smoking cigarettes and all kinds of things, until the Sergeant came over, had some paper in his hand, held it up and said…

Of course, it’s much better when you hear Arlo telling it.

Speaking of Arlo — did anybody notice that his daughter, who’s been living right here amongst us for years, had her last performance in Columbia a couple of weekends ago? She and her husband and kids are going to move up to the country somewhere near her Dad (which, as it happens, is not all that far from Stockbridge, Mass., where the littering crime occurred). They have plans to grow blueberries, and she wants to learn to make a pie with them. They plan to do other stuff, too — touring and such — but I really liked the part about the blueberries.

I never saw her all the time she lived here. I did see her once, though, on stage with her Dad. You’ll never guess where, so I won’t ask you to. They were performing at Disney World — Epcot, in fact. They were in this amphitheater on the lake or lagoon or whatever, and they were part of a "flower power" series.

We just sort of happened upon it, on a warm late spring or early summer afternoon. It was quite odd. Arlo knew that, and one of the first things he said to the audience was, "Yeah, I think it’s kinda weird, too."

It was a fairly intimate setting, and folks called out songs they wanted to hear. At one point, I couldn’t hear the request, but he replied, "Now you know I can’t do that here." I suppose he was referring to "Alice’s Restaurant," although it could have been "Mr. Customs Man." Anyway, he didn’t do either.

I apologize for doing another whole post on this. It started as just an answer to Ed among the comments, but then it stretched out, and I kept on adding "circles and arrows and a paragraph on the back of each one explaining what each one was" (that’s another song allusion), and figured I wouldn’t waste all that effort on something nobody saw, so here it is.

Immigration most foul

OK, now I see why everybody gets so upset about illegal immigrants from Mexico. It’s because what they have done is so thoroughly heinous. A correspondent on a previous post responded, after I had noted the absurdity of the idea that a non-police state would or could round up 12 million people and deport them, thusly:

We can’t catch all bank robbers, so let’s bring them out of the shadows
and get paper work on them too, Brad. And child molesters. And
murderers. Sure, we’ll get some paperwork on ’em, make ’em pay a fine,
and everything is OK, right? Is that your logic? We don’t do what’s in
this "compromise" for any other class of criminal, and it’s really so
ridiculous that no one even proposes it for murderers and child
molesters. Why are we even contemplating it for illegal aliens?

Let’s see — bank robbers, child molesters, murderers, mother rapers, father stabbers, and what else do we have here on the Group W bench? Oh, yes — a few people who walked across an invisible line in the desert to do menial labor for a pittance.

At that point, everybody moves away from the illegal aliens there on the Group W bench, but then they say, "And creating a nuisance," and everybody moves back and shakes their hands and they all have a fine time together talking about father-rapin’ and bank-robbin’ and pickin’ vegetables in the hot sun, and all sorts of groovy things …

What an odd crime to hyperventilate about. Kind of like jaywalking, only without the immediate threat of causing a traffic accident.

Her majesty had it right

Having been too busy lately to so much as watch a DVD from Netflix (I’ve really been wasting that money), I overindulged over the weekend. My younger son and I went to see "Next," then I went straight home to watch the rental that had come of "The Queen." Brief thoughts:

  • Next was better than expected, but it had this problem — if a guy can see his own future for two minutes out, how can he change it? If he changes it, that means it doesn’t happen, which means it isn’t actually his future, so how can he see it? What he should be seeing is himself changing it, and what happens instead as a result. But how could he act to change it if he didn’t see it, because it was never going to happen? I could see him winning at cards, because all he has to do is bet differently, knowing what cards are coming, but not changing the cards that are coming. In that case, he would probably see himself winning, because that’s his actual future. But dodging bullets? Preventing his girlfriend from getting blown up? I don’t think so. My son told me that this wasn’t a problem, that if I read more comic books I’d get it, but I don’t know. The whole time paradox was treated better in "The Final Countdown" (although what that title had to do with the actual film, I don’t know). It was very satisfactory right up until the time that — WARNING: PLOT SPOILER — the Nimitz was about to fight off the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, then they got snatched back to 1980. I guess they didn’t have a big enough budget for more than two Mitsubishis, or the writers just got too confused to go on.
  • The Queen was more or less as good as I had expected, which was quite. I don’t know about you, but I cheered for Her Majesty’s position all the way through. I will never, ever understand the tears and flapdoodle that seemed universal over the death of her ex-daughter-in-law. I understand it no better than I do the appeal of reality TV, or the idiots who bit their fingernails hoping Michael Jackson would be acquited. Of course, it’s all the same thing. Diana was a lovely young woman — graceful, sweet-looking. But give me the I-grew-up-during-the-war, stiff-upper-lip approach every time. Grief should be private, and what business do total strangers have grieving anyway? Lowering a flag at Buckingham, when the queen wasn’t even there, meaning there should be no standard anyway? It was idiocy, and she shouldn’t have been compelled to give in to it. I was much bothered by the way his role made Tony Blair look like a shallow twit through much of the film — the pandering apologist to celebrity-soaked, trashy sentimentalism — but when he got a little backbone and defended his sovereign from first his wife, then his churlish press aide, he seemed more like the Tony I admire so. Elizabeth was bound to lose her battle for a little dignity, of course, especially with her whiny scrub of a son undermining her, but I admire her for holding out as long as she did.

Oh, Elvis, come home! We’ll forgive you


        I was committed to life and then commuted to the outskirts
With all the love in the world
        Living for thirty minutes at a time with a break in the middle for adverts

      — "The Invisible Man," by Elvis Costello

I don’t watch much TV, aside from DVDs, and when I do, it tends to be a bit of a culture shock.

I watched "House" last night, knowing it will be a while before I can buy the third season, and I saw something truly appalling — Elvis Costello, doing what appeared to be a car commercial.

Sure, he did it in a cool and hip sort of way, but still, it was just so, well… commercial. And this from our angry young man.

First Michael Jackson owning the Beatles’ catalog, now this. The disillusionments we must suffer as we grow old.

Who resurrected the electric car?


A
s part of my continuing quest to stay within shouting distance of at least a passing acquaintance with recent film, I watched the following three (on DVD of course):

  • "All the King’s Men."
    Fairly entertaining, but bizarre. I don’t
    think there was a single Southerner in it, much less a Louisianan, and
    the accents were all over the place. Why couldn’t they have gotten
    James Carville to play Sugarboy? Of course, Stark’s boys wouldn’t have been Cajun. He could have been Tiny Duffy, then, instead of Tony Soprano filling that part. It didn’t really disappoint, but my expectations weren’t high.
  • My expectations were very high for "The Departed," and I’m happy to report that they were exceeded. This may be Scorcese’s best, and that’s say a LOT. Yeah, it’s another gangster film, but it’s as different from "Goodfellas" as "Goodfellas" was from "Mean Streets." And it completely deserves to be mentioned alongside them. I’ll say no more about it; I don’t want to spoil anything. See it.
  • "Who Killed the Electric Car." Maybe not as great esthetically as "The Departed," but still a must-see. The conspiracy of interested parties that together ended California’s experiment in creating a market for electric cars is enough to turn the most sensible person into Oliver Stone. To see the wonderful vehicles GM and other major automakers created to meet that demand, then to see them crush the movement, then round up every one of the vehicles for destruction — even though the leaseholders (they never let anybody buy one) desperately wanted to keep them — is pretty powerful stuff.

But imagine my surprise, after seeing that, to go down to party on St. Patrick’s Day in Five Points and find — an electric car.

Not a mere hybrid, mind you, but a car that you can plug in anywhere, a car that uses NO fossil fuels whatsoever. (At least, not unless your electricity is provided by coal, which is too often the case.) Hybrids have their advantages, of course, with their unlimited range. But there’s such an inspiring purity about the electric car. If we could all drive those, with electricity provided by nukes, the Energy Party dream would be here.

In case you’re interested: The vehicle is called a Zap car (ZAP stands for Zero Air Pollution), and are being promoted locally by Dr. F. Steven Isom. His Website is EVCarolina.com, and the phone number on his business card — which proclaims "Electric Vehicles NOW!" — is (803) 233-1700.

Cool stuff.

Beer and WHAT?!?

Cleaning up my desk, I run into the March 7 edition of the print version of politico.com, and there’s a story about the beverage preferences between Democrats and Republicans, as observed by Washington bartenders.

The findings are fairly pedestrian, mostly:

    "A Democrat’s drink? I think of a gin and tonic or a martini," said Matt Saperstone, a server at Smith & Wollensky on 19th Street, adding that an older, more conservative male crowd orders scotch on the rocks.
    "I think Republicans have a tendency to drink more high-end stuff. … I think of Democrats as more beer drinking," said Matt Weiss, owner of Lounge 201 on Capitol Hill.
    Wine, meanwhile, has bipartisan appeal, Saperstone said. "Republicans drink just as much wine as Democrats."
    The effects, however, are totally bipartisan: "At the end of the night, they’re both inebriated," said Weiss.

I have no doubt. I certainly hope they’re numb before they try the favorite concoction of Sen. Jon Tester of Montana. He orders a Bud Lite, and then asks:Jon_tester1

    "Can you throw some tomato juice in there for me?" he asks the waitress, who, as it happens, works days for Sen. Larry Craig (R-Idaho).
    The uninitiated at the table learn that the beer/veggie concoction is called "Red Beer" in Tester territory.
    Remember the first time you had a beer, he asks, and how horrible it tasted?
    "If you put tomato juice in it, you woulda liked it right out of the chute," he says, and you just kind of get what "right out of the chute" means.

(Actually, in the print version, "chute" was misspelled "shoot," which shows what you get when you have a publication started by reporters rather than editors. Looks like they’ve got an editor on the Web version.)

Thank the Lord I wasn’t born as a Montana Democrat.

What about around here? I don’t get out to the watering holes much. I’m still at work during "Happy Hour." But what have y’all observed as the favorite drinks of the respective factions?

Footnote: Does the Web site for Lounge 201 remind you a lot of the poster art for "Swingers?" It does me. I’ll bet folks who hoist a glass there think they are SO money…

Pelosi column

The deep, dark secret of politics:
They’re all just people

BUSH: Is this movie gonna be called “George and Alexandra”; is that the name of this movie?
PELOSI: I don’t know. What do you think it should be called?
BUSH: Uhh… I don’t know — “Geourneys with George?” Pretty good one, huh? You can spell it with a G?
PELOSI: G, yeah! (laughs)

By BRAD WARTHEN
EDITORIAL PAGE EDITOR
CONSIDER this to be a last kind word before the madness begins. OK, so it’s already started. But it’s never too late for a kind word.
    Joe Biden’s been hanging out here a year or two. I’m not sure John McCain ever left in 2000. We’ve seen Christopher Dodd, Sam Brownback, Mike Huckabee, Tom Vilsack. I haven’t actually seen Bill Richardson, but he spoke to one of my colleagues on the phone, so I know he’s thinking about us. Mitt Romney was here last Wednesday. Then Barack Obama on Friday and Saturday, and the other media darling, Hillary Clinton, Monday.
    Rudy Giuliani today, ex-Gov. Romney back on Thursday, and some guy named Duncan Hunter Friday.
    With 18 contenders between the two major parties, I know I’m forgetting somebody. Oh, yeah — John Edwards was down in Charleston the other day, and his experience was a good example of the madness I’m talking about.
    He came to talk about health care. The State’s reporter actually wrote about that. But the traveling press corps only wanted to know about a couple of kids he had hired to blog for him. Really. Not that it was in any way important, but that was The Story of the Day, as decreed by 24-hour cable TV “news” and the always-on-message partisan blogs.
    Brace yourself for a lot of this. Gather your strength. Sit back, relax. Rent a movie, and watch it. Specifically, this one: “Journeys with George,” a documentary about George W. Bush’s 2000 campaign for president, made by Nancy Pelosi’s daughter.
    No, really, it’s good. I was worried, too. I had ordered it from Netflix in late November, thinking it was something I ought to see. Then I let it sit on top of the TV until last week.
    Bush according to Pelosi, I thought each night. Too much like work. Tired. Watch “House” episode for third time instead.
    I broke down last week, at the behest of one of my daughters. Two minutes into it, I called another daughter who was upstairs, told her she had to see this, and started it over. It was that good.
    What was so good about it? Well, certainly not the production values. It was shot with a camcorder by Alexandra Pelosi as a home movie of her year as an NBC producer, traveling with the Texas governor as he sought the presidency. You’ve seen YouTube? Like that, only longer.
    What was good about it was that everybody in the film came across as a human being. If you don’t find that surprising, you need a quick unreality check: Put this down, watch a couple of hours of TV “news,” then visit a few of the more popular blogs.
    See what I mean?
    In this movie, the president-to-be is neither the warmongering demon nor the stalwart defender of all that’s right and true.
    He’s just this guy. The joshing, never-serious, somewhat condescending uncle to the young woman who keeps sticking a camcorder in his face for reasons that aren’t entirely apparent. A little on the goofy side, but no idiot.
    And Ms. Pelosi is neither the Spawn of the Liberal She-Devil nor what you think of when you say “NBC Nightly News” either. She’s not the former because, brace yourself, Nancy Pelosi is actually a human being, too. She’s not the latter partly because she’s a producer, not the on-air “talent” you’re used to. Producers are the ones behind the scenes who get actual work done — arranging travel, lining up interviews, soothing hurt feelings — while the ones you know are checking their hair. Think Andie MacDowell to Bill Murray’s weatherman in “Groundhog Day.”
    She comes across as what she apparently is — a bright, friendly young woman who is very tired of getting up at 6 a.m., herded to airplanes and fed turkey sandwiches all day.
    The two of them are practically friends. When she gets interested in a smiley guy from Newsweek (who later turns out to be a cad), Gov. Bush teases her, then offers semiserious advice. When she reports a little too accurately on her fellow media types and they all refuse to speak to her, George steps in to make peace.
    In other words, they act like people. Likable people, no matter what you think of their politics. So do the others on the bus, including some familiar faces. Nobody took the camcorder girl seriously, so they forgot to put their masks on. Sure, the candidate is deliberately trying to charm the press. What will surprise his detractors is that he’s so good at it. Karl Rove still comes across as a creep, but that’s because it’s real life.
    This brilliant little ditty of a film reveals a deep, dark secret: Like Soylent Green, politics is actually made of people. Real people, whom you are not required by law either to hate or to love. You just hang with them, and see them as they are in the tedium of daily coexistence. People, living their lives. Not symbols, not abstractions, not caricatures.
    I ordered the movie because Columbia attorney Jim Leventis, a perfectly normal guy who belongs to my Rotary Club, is Alexandra Pelosi’s godfather. He describes the speaker of the House as “just a wonderful mom and just a wonderful friend.” Really.
    You should see it if you can, and remember the lesson it teaches. It might ground you enough to preserve your faith in people over the next 12 months.
    I’ll try to remember it, too, as those 18 candidates posture for the extremists in their respective parties. If I forget, remind me.

Worst recent war movies

Tell you what: To relieve the tension a bit (there’s a lot of angry back-and-forth in the last few days, and poor Mary keeps reposting her deleted posts, and is increasingly COMMUNICATING IN SHOUT MODE), let’s take a frivolous digression.

bud attaches great importance to Joe Lieberman having been seen cheering and pumping his fist when the Americans strike a blow against the Serbs in "Behind Enemy Lines." He sees this as reflective of a deep character defect.

Rather than our getting into a really angry back-and-forth about whether one should cheer for Americans or not (I come down on the "yes" side of that), I’m looking for common ground. bud says I don’t see flaws in my heroes. I say that cheering at any part of a movie as bad as "Behind Enemy Lines" is at least indicative of lousy cinematic taste.

Unlike the characters in Nick Hornby’s High Fidelity; I don’t consider tastes unlike my own to reflect a deep character defect.
But I do unconsciously give extra points to people who appreciate the "good" stuff — "good" as define by my own proclivities.

So let’s make like Rob, Dick and Barry and construct a Top Five Worst War Movies (post-Vietnam era only, just to limit the field):

  1. "Behind Enemy Lines" — This was done so very much better in "BAT*21," so you know we can’t blame Gene Hackman, since he was in both of them. I was about to blame John Woo, but he didn’t direct this one. It just looks cheesy enough to be one of his.
  2. "The Thin Red Line" — Such a horrible disappointment, by comparison with James Jones’ novel, that I wrote a whole column
    about it.
  3. "The Great Raid" — Another disappointment from a perfectly good book. Hollywood tried to turn a remarkable, true story about rescuing hundreds of Allied POWs from the murderous abuses of the Japanese into a sappy romance. Why, I don’t know, but it failed on all levels.
  4. "Pearl Harbor" — More sappy romance, but that wasn’t the worst thing (you want romance done right, see "From Here to Eternity"). The worst thing was the use of special effects for special effects’ sake. In fact, it seemed the entire excuse for the film. Worst moment: When two fighter aircraft, locked in a dog fight, fly between two one-story buildings, turning onto their wingtips to negotiate the narrow alleyway.
  5. "Enemy at the Gates" — This one almost didn’t make the list, but it did for a reason it has in common with Nos. 2, 3 and 4: Sheer disappointment. Finally, I thought, Hollywood was going to pay proper, respectful acknowledgement to the horrors of the Great Patriotic War. Up until then, you’d have thought the Americans and British won the war by themselves; talk about ethnocentric. But the titanic, genocidal struggle between Teutons and Slavs that was the Siege of Stalingrad was reduced to the level of a personal feud between Ed Harris and Jude Law (Jude Law! As the emblematic New Soviet Man!) Really, really disappointing.

Gerald, Saddam and James Brown

A little ditty that started the radio game show "Michael Feldman’s Whad’Ya Know?" Saturday on public radio sort of captured the weirdness of the juxtaposition of three prominent deaths that occurred over the first week of Christmas.

If you’d like to hear it, click on this address, scroll down to "Whad’Ya Know? For January 6, 2007," and click on Part 1.

An advance warning: It’s set to the tune of "Abraham, Martin and John." You might find it disturbingly disrespectful –but then, so is death.

Borat make controversy

Borat72

I
t’s not every day you get to put the star of "Borat: Cultural Learnings of America for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan" on the editorial page, but I managed it in this morning’s paper.

The thin excuse I used was the letter to the editor that touched — and indirectly, at that — on the subject on today’s page. I inserted a mug shot derived as a detail from the above photo. I hereby reproduce the full-length image for the benefit of you ladies out there — or at least, the really hard-up ladies.

I saw the movie over the weekend. It may be the funniest of the year, although it’s not for the easily offended. It’s not even for the moderately sensitive, for that matter. Come to think of it, it’s not all that tough to be the funniest movie around when one scene features the protagonist wrestling naked with a really hairy fat guy.

Anyway, have any of y’all seen it? What did you think?

Cleaning my desk I: Clemson list

Trying to clear the decks a bit as we draw close to the end of our endorsement interview marathon (both Mark Sanford and Tommy Moore today), I ran across the several blog-worthy items that had been lying around on my desk. Here’s the first:

Recently, Clemson President James F. Barker spoke to my Rotary, and he told us about "five things you don’t know about Clemson." Well, by the time I got a chance to take notes — about 45 minutes later — I could only remember three. I suppose they were the most interesting three. They were interesting to me, anyway:

  1. It has the largest collection of plant genes in the world. I mean, I knew they were into agriculture, but that’s quite a statistic.
  2. Athletes graduate in a higher percentage than at any other ACC school — a category that includes Duke and UVa.
  3. It runs the largest free public transit system in the world, serving 13,000 in the town of Clemson.

Around here in Gamecock country, those are not the kinds of items you normally hear in a list about Clemson.