EXETER
I arrest thee of high treason, by the name of
Richard Earl of Cambridge.
I arrest thee of high treason, by the name of
Henry Lord Scroop of Masham.
I arrest thee of high treason, by the name of
Thomas Grey, knight, of Northumberland.

SCROOP
Our purposes God justly hath discover'd;
And I repent my fault more than my death;
Which I beseech your highness to forgive,
Although my body pay the price of it.

CAMBRIDGE
For me, the gold of France did not seduce;
Although I did admit it as a motive
The sooner to effect what I intended:
But God be thanked for prevention;
Which I in sufferance heartily will rejoice,
Beseeching God and you to pardon me.

GREY
Never did faithful subject more rejoice
At the discovery of most dangerous treason
Than I do at this hour joy o'er myself.
Prevented from a damned enterprise:
My fault, but not my body, pardon, sovereign.

KING HENRY V
God quit you in his mercy! Hear your sentence.
You have conspired against our royal person,
Join'd with an enemy proclaim'd and from his coffers
Received the golden earnest of our death;
Wherein you would have sold your king to slaughter,
His princes and his peers to servitude,
His subjects to oppression and contempt
And his whole kingdom into desolation.
Touching our person seek we no revenge;
But we our kingdom's safety must so tender,
Whose ruin you have sought, that to her laws
We do deliver you. Get you therefore hence,
Poor miserable wretches, to your death:
The taste whereof, God of his mercy give
You patience to endure, and true repentance
Of all your dear offences! Bear them hence.

This is a section of Shakespeare's Henry V that seems particularly relevant today, as a murderer awaits his punishment.

A bittersweet announcement...Donald Fagen will be releasing his third solo album in March. His last came out in '93, the first in the 80s, so it's been a long time coming. He's also touring to support the album. Of course, nowhere near Kansas City is on the list. I've a mind to email him, perhaps toss a few lyrics back at him, maybe "Kansas City born and growing" from Parker's Band, or "East St. Louis Toodle-Oo". Although even I know how small a crowd he would draw, relatively, here in the midwest. How about Toby Keith opens for him???

Oh well, I've seen him in concert before (with Becker as Steely Dan), but it would have been cool nonetheless, especially as a solo act.

"It's time for us to rebuild a New Orleans, the one that should be a
chocolate New Orleans. And I don't care what people are saying in Uptown or
wherever they are. This city will be chocolate at the end of the day. This city
will be a majority African-American city. It's the way God wants it to be. You
can't have it no other way." - Mayor Ray Nagin

OK, let's take a quick look at this despite it being old news. A few weeks have passed...has anyone ANYONE in the civil rights community called for this bigoted racist twat to resign?

Imagine a slightly different wording:

"It's time for us to rebuild a New Orleans, the one that should be
a snow-white New Orleans. And I don't care what people are saying in Uptown
or wherever they are. This city will be white as the driven snow at
the end of the day. This city will be a majority Caucasian city. It's the
way God wants it to be. You can't have it no other way." - Mayor Ray Nagin

Anyone else find that to be offensive? Anyone think that a prominent politician claiming the God-ordained destiny of his constituents are to become more and more white would have a snowball's chance in hell of political survival?

What a stupid idiot. But he doesn't make me mad...it's the fools and hypocrites who cry racism at the silliest things but then turn a blind eye to the most bald-faced racist rhetoric I've heard from a prominent politician in a loooong time. I mean, from the invocation of God's will in political matters to the call for racial purity, this guy should be more at home in the National Socialist party than with the Democrats. Note to libs, clean up your house, if you want to pretend that racism offends you so much, and dump this guy from your party pronto.

Alright, I won't post too much background info here regarding the personal connection, but allow me to rant for a moment. There is a case open right now contesting that Missouri's method of execution, a three drug injection, causes unnecessary pain and is somehow thus unconstitutional. I have doubts as to the truth of this, naturally, but a larger question remains...since when has capital punishment been mandated to be entirely pain-free? "Cruel and unusual punishment" now implies anything painful? Is there a more humane method of execution? I suggest this tongue in cheek, but somewhat seriously: if this lawyer's objection is genuinely only regarding the method of execution, why don't we offer him and his client a form, roughly as follows:

State of Missouri Execution Method Request Form
(Reorder # MO1X24-B)

Please mark a number '1' by your first choice, a number '2' by your second
choice, and a number '3' by your third choice for your preferred method of
execution. All efforts will be made to provide you with your first choice,
but you are ensured at least one of your three selections will be made available
to you.

___ Electric Chair
___ Hanging
___ Being Thrown Off a Cliff
___ Lethal Injection
___ Gas Chamber
___ Starvation
___ Firing Squad (please indicate preferred caliber: _____ )
___ Assisted Suicide
___ Guillotine (a 3 week lead time may be required)
___ Walking the Plank
___ Being Shot into Space towards the Sun

Pardon the slightly darker than usual humour...I know by all rights this is no laughing matter, but perhaps the absurdity in the above suggestion will make my point. Well, and for "assisted suicide" one wonders what difference there is between the injections Dr. Kevorkian used and those the State of Missouri uses.

OK this is tremendously ugly in Visio format but its a quick idea. It illustrates my rantings regarding the battle tactics (or lack thereof) in The Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe. First note how the defensive line is arrayed with the mountain cliffs on its flank. In the movie they arrayed themselves in front of the mountain, which had the effect of cutting off a clear withdrawal path, and also offered no protection of the flank. My plan protects the left flank. The enemy were essentially all mounted or unmounted shock troops, and they advanced in an unorderly rabble straight for the Narnian line. You array your heavy infantry at the front, preferably behind some kind of fortification such as wooden stakes (to ward off cavalry charges). The light infantry is directly behind them, and can rain down arrows as soon as the enemy is within range, which would be especially effective since the fortifications could slow down the advance. Then, your heavy cavalry pours out from the right flank, speeds around and attacks the enemy's rear and flank. At this point the heavy infantry and heavy cavalry would be fully engaged in melee combat, and you would want to command your light infantry to lay down their bows and prepare for melee combat. Use them as a reserve, rushing in to bolster weak or broken points in the line. You would also want to wait until the enemy heavy infantry had reached the line and was engaged with your heavy infantry before unleashing the cavalry's flank attack. By springing the trap too soon they could double back and overwhelm the cavalry, forcing a hasty retreat and possibly a rout of your horsemen. Once they were encumbered in combat and clambering over the fortifications, there would be no way for them to properly reform on their left flank and rear to drive off the cavalry flank attack.

Here is the diagram:

Just watched Walden/Disney's film version of The Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe.

I'm a longtime fan of the Narnia books, having read them repeatedly from a young age. I also enjoyed the cheesy late 80s/early 90s BBC television version a lot of us saw growing up. Cheesy effects, admittedly, but true to the book.

This isn't a bad movie. But for the book it was loosely patterned after, it'd be quite a good movie. But for me, its another example of foolish, illiterate screenwriters turning the words of one of my literary heroes into processed, Americanised tripe masked with occasionally tasteless CGI overindulgence. First Tolkien, now Lewis.

Don't even for a moment feed me the wretched excuse that "books can't be translated onscreen". This movie was not just cut, not just rewritten, but it was APPENDED to, it was extended. I can abide parts being cut out, I admit, but the wanton, inexplicably pointless rewritings of the plot and dialogue leave me disgusted. It's as if they wrote it for the bleeding video game. Think I'm joking? It was released November 05 by Buena Vista Games.

The plot changes were not quite pointless, but don't be deceived into thinking they were necessary adaptations for the cinema. It's the screenwriters...they need a job and unfortunately an accurate transcription of an already fairly screen-friendly book would not reflect on them as a worthy or great accomplishment. So, just like Peter Jackson, Fran Walsh, and Philippa Boyens thought that they could make improvements on Tolkien's work ("let's have an elf skateboard down some stairs while shooting an arrow!"), these people have dumbed down the dialogue and monkeyed with the plot in the most obtuse and ridiculous ways. And why cast a former Jedi as Aslan? He ended up sounding like some sort of wigged out yoga teacher...all gentleness and no teeth. He's not a tame lion. Or an animated lion for that matter.

Here's the main point. Overall the changes reflected two things...simpler, plainer dialogue and harsher, more brutal violence. In the book Susan and Lucy hid their eyes when the stone knife fell; here you see it fall as well and watch the girls look on in horror. The innocence is stripped away, and you wonder, when it is written so explicitly, why would they make that subtle change? The battle scenes are hardly even included in the book, and are not grandiose, self-aggrandizing exercises in computer graphic-rendering power. We don't need to see thousands upon thousands of centaurs slaying and being slain in the tumultuous horrors of war. Lewis certainly never depicted anything of the like, at least in that book. More on the battle (and my most petty and vociferous protests!) later. But why should the screenwriters make the decision to dumb down the dialogue and the plot, and yet flesh out (literally) the horror, despair, and gore of war? Is that what children are in dire need of? Less vocabulary and more blood?

It's a series of compromises, and a great sell-out (thank you Disney). The BBC versions stuck faithfully to the book and are not exactly flying off the shelves, although they will do better now (I will be purchasing a set of DVDs soon myself). So I can't blame them all that much, but I'd much rather no version be made, than one that is all fluff and glitter with no substance, or much less substance at least.

There's much to praise in the movie, don't get me wrong. Despite the subtle downplaying of the, shall we say, deity of Aslan, it still makes a good faith effort to show the overall themes, however clumsily, and it communicates them well. I also loved the opening scene of the air raid (and the Heinkel HE-111s, somebody did their homework!)...that is an example of how to appropriately make a film adaptation. It explained what would otherwise have to be narrated without making terrible changes. And the children were well cast. So very, very English, pale, freckled, bad teeth and all (I mean that in the fondest way as quite the Anglophile). I was ever so thankful they didn't have Dakota Fanning in a wig as Lucy. They didn't go THAT far.

On to my nit-picking on the battle. They illustrated the great and persisting fallacy of medieval warfare...the chivalric superiority of the mounted warrior. Countless battles were lost by foolish leaders taking their knights into a brave charge against a well arrayed enemy, believing blindly in the superiority of their knights over the plebian footmen. Daft fools, it took them centuries to unlearn it...consider Agincourt, for example, but there are countless others. If I were Peter and the situation was laid out as specified?

First off, his position was terribly poor. He held no real high ground but his army was set with their backs to a high ridge, cutting them off from any real maneuverability. And before you make any protests regarding retreat as never being an option, consider that the famed Scot commander William Wallace (of Braveheart fame) had a preselected escape route for his men at the Battle of Falkirk, which, guess what, he made use of! Should his movie be redubbed Chickenheart?

But the great problem is that he made no use of defender's advantage. The enemy charged, and he charged, losing all formation. Once in melee, missile weapons are no use, so the light infantry (under Edmund) would have been useless, unless to kill as many of their own troops as they did their enemy. The wise leader would have fortified his heavy infantry, erected stakes and formed a tight line with his heavy shock cavalry (himself, centaurs, other mounted warriors) in reserve or on the flanks. Then with his light infantry (bowmen) deployed behind the fortified line, he could have goaded the enemy into charging by firing on them from a distance. The enemy was charging with the equivalent of heavy cavalry. Heavy cavalry is always (ALWAYS) turned away by heavy infantry in well-formed defence. They would have broken on their ranks like water. Heavy infantry could have advanced on the line, but they would suffer greatly under a withering hail of arrows from the Narnian light infantry, and would still be at a disadvantage (though less dramatically so) when they hit the Narnian heavy infantry line. Then once the enemy had reached the line, the heavy cavalry (again, centaurs/knights...mounted shock troops) would sweep out and FLANK the enemy. With the Witch's army advancing without formation or any apparent tactic other than run-at-them-and-try-to-kill-them, a carefully applied tactical plan like that would have completely routed the enemy, even in superior numbers. Again, remember Agincourt!

To quote Professor Digory Ketterly: "I wonder what they DO teach them at these schools."

[/RANT]

OK, brief post to say one thing...my wife Debra is awesome, because, among many other things, she is graduating tonight with a bachelor's degree in psychology from UMKC. I know you little college twits think, oh, big deal, but for a married couple to pay a mortgage, both work fulltime, have any involvement in ministry, and finish a college degree, its a bit of a challenge, especially at a university so indifferent to the situations of working students as UMKC. I have a much different idea of college graduation now than when I was a freshman and sophomore. You know what's funny? I almost called you guys something other than "little college twits"...something very close, only one vowel changed, and then I realized that it is a rather vulgar British expression that means something entirely inappropriate. HAHAHAHAHA *ahem*.

So I'm listening to YES with headphones, and no, I do not partake in herbal recreation, thank-you-very-much.

But something about listening to this music at volumes that are probably outside the range of recommended headphone volumes, you can really hear it. I mean, HEAR it. Every nuance. Pieces you never heard before. You can hear Chris Squire's fingers slide up the fretboard, his right hand clatter against the strings...crazy, marvelous, genius SOB that he is. You can FEEL the music, the ebb and flow, the pulse, the drive, the build...but it isn't just like pumping up AC/DC or other loud rock, you feel more of it because there's more depth to it. Right now, I'm listening to Starship Trooper, and before you scoff at the cheesy early 70s name (recall this was long before Star Wars) listen to it late at night with good headphones and high volume.

Now I'm onto a new song, one only the most die-hard Yesfans will even have heard of, an outtake from the GTFO (or was it Tormato?) album, "Richard". The sweet melodic quality of this song (an obvious Jon Anderson credit) is augmented in a surprising manner by Squire's basslines. Where just about any other bassist would be content to augment a soft melodic song with a smooth bassline and basic groove, he seems discontent, and stretches into very strange territory on the instrument, but strange in a beautiful way, like seeing another country for the first time. For example, the bass line on the verse starting at about 1:45, the interwoven and overlapping scales, who would have thought of that? And the climax into the chorus, he stresses the 3rd, not the root, again in scalar way that continues slowly through the rest of the chorus. Is he worried about the chord structure? No, it's already established by layers of synth pads and vocal harmonies, he builds on that structure with astounding artistic beauty.

One more pick, not necessarily one focused on Squire as the others have been..."And You And I" from Close To The Edge. But I will mention the brief bass solo just after 7 minutes...I recall hearing that for the first time (I'd heard the song many times before, I mean really HEARING it), and I realized, wow, the bass can do so much more than I had thought. That was long ago, when I was getting started on the instrument.

All in all, for bassists, if you get a chance, listen to some good YES, and really, really LISTEN to it, and think about the bass parts, what he's doing, and why. I find I don't so much imitate Squire in a literal sense, but his influence on me has been to shirk conventions of bass guitar and use the instrument in melodic ways, which is in itself an indirect imitation. But listen and analyze his parts, and you will be surprised at how unconventional they are, but how pleasing and musical they can be.

BROG IT!

OK, so check this out. Apparently, the first recorded miracle of Jesus was none other than my current hobby...homebrewing. And according to the ruler of the feast, he was pretty good at it, too.

John 2:1-11
1 And the third day there was a marriage in Cana of Galilee; and the mother of Jesus was there:
2 And both Jesus was called, and his disciples, to the marriage.
3 And when they wanted wine, the mother of Jesus saith unto him, They have no wine.
4 Jesus saith unto her, Woman, what have I to do with thee? mine hour is not yet come.
5 His mother saith unto the servants, Whatsoever he saith unto you, do it.
6 And there were set there six waterpots of stone, after the manner of the purifying of the Jews, containing two or three firkins apiece.
7 Jesus saith unto them, Fill the waterpots with water. And they filled them up to the brim.
8 And he saith unto them, Draw out now, and bear unto the governor of the feast. And they bare it.
9 When the ruler of the feast had tasted the water that was made wine, and knew not whence it was: (but the servants which drew the water knew;) the governor of the feast called the bridegroom,
10 And saith unto him, Every man at the beginning doth set forth good wine; and when men have well drunk, then that which is worse: but thou hast kept the good wine until now.
11 This beginning of miracles did Jesus in Cana of Galilee, and manifested forth his glory; and his disciples believed on him.

Pretty nifty.

Here's the requisite link to my BROG.

I've got nothing. Sorry.

Blogging requires the presumption that you have something so valuable to communicate that it must be published for the world to see and benefit from. I know the preposition rule, but blast it I don't care, stuff your grammar rules up your...nose. Sure, I blog, with the omnipresent realization that precious few readers exist, but I also know good and well that most of what is written here is a waste of everyone's time, including mine. Ideas drawn from other more brilliant writers, random links to columns, and silly rants on random topics that happen to interest me...nothing else. That said, I find it an amusing waste of time...occasionally. I'm not a terrifically chatty person, and don't really like to hear myself talk (as many people do), but I admit I enjoy flexing my admittedly atrophied writing muscles.

Rickenbacker basses are beautiful, powerful instruments. When used properly they are thunderous and elegant in their voice. For evidence, listen to Chris Squire's "Fish Out Of Water".

It's BROGtime!

How about one of those Captain Obvious posts...

Vatican says sexually active gays unwelcome in the priesthood

Hmmmmm...on its face that sounds quite repressive and intolerant doesn't it. I'm sure there are enough libs bristling at that out there, and it struck me (all too late, I'm afraid...getting slower, I am) how silly the news story is in the first place.

So sexually active gays are unwelcome in the priesthood. Newsflash, guys...sexually active straights are ALSO unwelcome in the priesthood.

Oh what silliness. And I'm not even Catholic.

Who are these children who scheme and run wild
Who speak with their wings and the way that they smile
What are the secrets they trace in the sky
And why do you tremble each time they ride by

Who are these strangers who pass through the door
Who cover your action and go you one more
If you're feeling lucky you best not refuse
It's your game the rules are your own win or lose

Throw out your gold teeth and see how they roll
The answer they reveal
Life is unreal

And as always, my well-updated brog.

Johnny's playroom is a bunker filled with sand. He's become a third world man.

Smoky Sunday...he's been mobilized since dawn, now he's crouching on the lawn...he's a third world man.

Soon you'll throw down your disguise, we'll see behind those bright eyes...by and by, when the sidewalks are safe for the little guys.

I saw the fireworks, I believed that I was dreaming till the neighbors came out screaming, "He's a third world man."

Soon you'll throw down your disguise, we'll see behind those bright eyes...by and by, when the sidewalks are safe for the little guys.

When he's crying out I just sing that Ghana Rondo: "E l'era del terzo mondo"...he's a third world man.

"If judgments about the prudence of overruling are invoked, the justices should take note of the fact that Roe lies at the center of the bitter polarization of much of American society. In countries where the issue is decided democratically, no such intense animus exists. Compromises are worked out and each side knows that it is free to continue the public debate in hope of doing better next time. That was, and would be again, the case in America if the subject of abortion were returned to state legislatures and electorates. Overruling Roe would not, as some Democrats will claim, make abortion illegal, but merely the subject of democratic regulation. We have paid a high price for a ruling that rests upon nothing in the Constitution and was arrived at in an opinion of just over 51 pages that contains not a line of legal reasoning." --Robert Bork

Funny to see the irony...Democrats don't consider democracy to be worthy of regulating the central rite of American liberalism, abortion. He is right...where else but America is abortion such a hot-button issue? Do other countries not have hard-line left/right wingers? Of course they do. But here is the issue; the American Right is passionate to overturn Roe because it was unjust, in that a court wrote a relatively shabby ruling based on the beliefs of just a handful of unaccountable men, and democracy was subjugated to the perceived divine right of the Court. The American Left is equally passionate because the tenet of Roe is the highest example of how a minority can impose its will upon a majority. Although to be honest I can't begin to explain why abortion really is that most sacred of liberal tenets. So you want the unchallengeable legalization of surgical infanticide to be the core platform upon which you campaign? Oh, great. I can't install a high-flow toilet in my house, but I can hack apart unborn children in the womb with a mother's consent. Not only that, but it is a Constitutional RIGHT...no state or federal government can challenge my right to do so. Never mind that there isn't a single thing in the Constitution that says that.

But even that isn't the issue. The legalization or illegalization of abortion is beside the point, and not what mobilizes most true conservatives on the issue. What angers us is that democracy did not decide the issue. America did not have a voice. It was decided for us by our "betters", a ruling handed down from On High. If we made the decision for ourselves as Americans and legalized abortion, that would be much more acceptable. I still would vote to criminalize it out of my moral and intellectual convictions, but I would accept its legalization as authentic and just law.

As it stands now, the liberals fear to put policy in the hands of the people and their elected representatives; thus the anguish at a slow return of the court to judicial function on a more traditional, Constitutional level. The ivory tower from which they exercised rule is crumbling.

"If [Alito] is not qualified to serve on the Supreme Court, then no conservative is qualified." --Mark Levin

This is something that ought to be considered. If the possession of conservative ideology disqualifies a nominee, then likewise it would make sense that the possession of liberal ideology would disqualify a nominee. We confirmed Ginsburg [sic?], if you recall.

Also, keep in mind what a conservative judge is. Conservatism is the opposite of activism and radicalism. It is the preservation of things that have gone before. Original intent and precedent are what are important to conservative judges, not enacting social policies. Alito once struck down an anti-abortion law, despite his personal feelings on the issue. A non-conservative judge will not be bound by the Constitution or by precedent, and rule broadly based on his or her own feelings, drawing justification from the most unappropriate places (foreign laws should not be considered domestic precedent). The real fear is that the last bastion of liberal power is in danger of becoming what it was intended to be all along...an unideological body designed to interpret the Constitution, not administer social change. Democrats are desparate and they are going to fight tooth and claw for this. Like a wounded badger, my friends. It is going to be ugly but it was inevitable.

Kudos to Bush. You got your act together.

I haven't posted a good column quote in a while...I found this one quite truthful:

"Now, I've written thousands of words on why I don't think hypocrisy is the worst sin imaginable. There's not a good parent in the world who hasn't felt like a hypocrite at one point or another with their kids. Telling your kids not to do certain bad or unwise things you did when you were a kid may feel hypocritical, but telling your children it's O.K. to do wrong out of some craving to be hip or to assuage your own conscience is the most asinine form of vanity I can imagine. Similarly, it's certainly wrong to do drugs, but does giving in to your addiction mean you should also advocate doing drugs for everybody? During the run-up to the Iraq war, how many times did we hear that it was hypocritical for the United States to topple Saddam since we'd worked with him in the 1980s? The upshot seemed to be that it is better to do wrong consistently than do right inconsistently." --Jonah Goldberg

Time now for a pointless, meandering post on sundry relatively unimportant topics that nonetheless interest me.

First off, it hasn’t been much more than a month or two since I was last down at the lake with the in-laws, and already I feel the gnawing urge to get out and do some shooting. I think it was not this last time, but the time before (June, maybe?) that I fired the Spanish 1911 copy. Nice gun…powerful, moderate accuracy. It is actually more burdened by my shooting technique; as is common amongst shooters new to high recoil guns, the subconscious urge to brace against recoil causes you to dip the nose as you pull the trigger, resulting in me aiming low too often. I’ve just got to train myself out of it. I’ve temporarily given up on an assault rifle…for now, I’ll make do with an Enfield and various handguns. In a close combat situation such as home defence, the advantages offered by an assault rifle, while not nullified, are somewhat diminished. A high power .308 cartridge is more appropriate on the open battlefield, but the prospect of being able to easily shoot through hollow doors at a would-be assailant is worth considering, still. The Enfield could do that, though. There is a definite advantage there…the door is locked, and while them firing blindly into the door would have little chance of hitting us, especially without them knowing the layout of the room, a shot fired into the door from the other side would have a better chance of taking out the intruder, or at least dissuading them from further pursuit. Seizing the advantage is key…with myself and an intruder with a clear line of sight in an open room, the odds are fairly even. Of course, with multiple guns at the ready and my wife being a good shot, that changes it a bit.

You have to know, I’m mainly doing this just to give liberals hives. I enjoy envisioning and analyzing tactical scenarios. I think it is worthwhile to consider these things, as in the unlikely incident that a home invasion occurred, there would not be time to consider the best course of action, only time to react. So I’m mainly just thinking aloud whilst baiting the anti-gun crowd. But still, I have an admiration for a well made firearm. Just like the glistening beauty of a finely forged sabre, an elegant firearm like an Enfield has both power and graceful aesthetics.

I was going to wax eloquent on music, but now I feel the muse of writing has left me, and I would only wax obtuse.

I’m having a great deal of fun with another hobby…see my brog:

http://stcrispins.blogspot.com

EDIT: Alright, alright. I finished watching the Steve Zissou movie. It picks up, has a few laugh out loud moments, and overall is a decent movie. I felt kind of bad after ripping into it. No, I didn't end up loving it or wanting to see it again, but it wasn't as bad as the first 20 minutes or so had led me to believe.

Watched a movie last night...Wes Anderson's "The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou". I know what some of you might be thinking: "here comes more effusive praise of some album, movie, or book he just discovered." Well, not exactly.

In fact I thought the movie was abysmal. And not just bad in a traditional sense. Technically there was much that was good about it, such as the beautiful colours and interesting camera angles. The real problem lies in Wes Anderson himself. The guy has finally started listening to the craven hordes of sycophantic jackasses that attach their identity and self-worth to indie art and indie music and open-source software (kidding, huh-hoy!) and any manner of self-important crap. They told him he was the Messiah, that he could do no wrong, that all he touched turned to gold, and he believed them. The guy thinks he can do a closeup of Bill Murray and it is funny...not even funny, some other annoyingly pretentious word, like "wry" or "pithy".

This was a vapid, vacuous movie that drips with snot-nosed arrogance. I can only imagine the types who sit around droning about the wit and irony and dualism and existentially interposed post-modernism of this movie, trying to convince their fellow snobs that they, too, "get it" and should be considered part of the stylish intelligentsia...while in their hearts they know as well as any of us that it really isn't that good. They just want to fit in.

I loved Royal Tenenbaums and Rushmore, don't get me wrong. I even liked Bottle Rocket. I'm all for intelligent humour, but this movie didn't make me laugh at all. I may have cracked a smile at the "rattlesnake bit the cat in the throat" bit, but that was it. Turned it off 2/3 of the way through. Couldn't handle any more of that utter tripe.

I can handle a bad movie that kind of realizes its bad...a humbly bad movie, you know, a low-budget, lets go out and make a cheap throwaway movie sort of thing. But a movie that reeks of arrogance and self-consciousness like this one, into the trash bin it goes.

On the subject of things I DO like...Chris Squire's "Fish Out Of Water" album is one of the best bits of music I've ever heard, and its so tragically obscure. Also, the grooves of Steely Dan's "My Old School" helped me wake up this morning over a cup of coffee. "That'll be the day I go back to Annandale!"

And don't forget my "brog":

http://stcrispins.blogspot.com

Greetings friends and fellow origami enthusiasts.

I make this post not only to bestow upon myself the dubious honor of being a blogger still (in this great wide world of pointless, unedited literary fecal matter, I'm but a tiny turd), but also to invite those with interest to a new blog...that of St. Crispin's. A project underway at a very, very slow pace. Progress is being made, however. Let's call it a technical journal of my hobby.

http://stcrispins.blogspot.com

May the funk be with you all. Get down with your funky selves.

You know what...if I wanted to I could write on and on about the hurricane aftermath, about the "lessons to be learned" and the rubbish to be refuted spewing out of the mouths of many of the politically-motivated punditry, but I don't really want to. I don't need to...most Americans can agree on the following:

* A hurricane is no one's fault, unless you factor God into the equation. And as far as dishing out blame, that's between you and Him, if you must.

* There were problems in the relief effort and evacuation.

* When you live in between a lake that is HIGHER than you and a gulf that is constantly ravaged by hurricanes, you should be prepared for flooding.

* America as a whole is pouring an enormous amount of money and effort into saving people.

That's it...no need to argue. Oorah for the troops down there making it all happen. It's hard not to bring up Nagin and Blanco, but now is not the time.

St. Crispin's is taking off. Critical reception to the initial products has been quite pleasant, with many more on the way. I've even thought of starting a seperate blog to log details and progress. I'd write more, but must get back to work.

Two words: wrist injury.

Getting a little less painful to type. My experimentation with the brewing arts is paying copious dividends and bespeaks great potential for future innovations. My most loved hobbies have always been productive ones...while I enjoy playing video games and reading about history, I prefer making music, making guitars, making food and drink. Something very satisfying in the act of creation.

But that's it...I shouldn't have typed that much.