Beltmann

L'Etoile de mer (dir Man Ray, 1928). Honest. It's also only 8 minutes long, so I'm not sure if it counts. The last feature I watched was The Last Mimzy, which I enjoyed nearly as much as my daughter did. I also started watching Southland Tales a few nights back and haven't found time to finish.

But The Office isn't built solely around Jim & Pam; their relationship is just one facet of the overall office dynamic. Besides, what makes a coupling work or not work isn't so much the circumstances, it's the characters. In the case of Sam & Diane, the appeal of that coupling was the friction, a natural outcome of those specific personalities. In the case of Jim & Pam, the appeal has always been their easy-going friendship, a point of warmth and humor that has been consistent whether they were dating or not dating. In other words, these characters in this group dynamic don't e

As I said, shortcomings as perceived by him. As I also said, it's fair game to criticize him for the content of his assertions. I'm not about to defend that particular comment by him. My point is only that it's possible for a man to utter such a ludicrous and paranoid statement and still be a friend to America overall. If so, then we agree. Still, while Wright criticizes only aspects of American government, I suspect that dynamic is not true for the likes of Hannity and others--for them, there's no "tough love" in their criticisms; they hate the man entire.

Are there no other options? Is it possible that Wright's label was meant to target only specific instances of institutional racism, and therefore did not attack American ideals themselves but the systematic corruption of those ideals? (I don't presume to know the answer to that, but I always bristle when given either-or choices that are, most likely, reductive and cartoonish.) Having listened to the sermons in question, I'm inclined to believe that Rev. Wright loves the idea of America but hates certain aspects of its shortcomings (as perceived by him). That's not anti-Americanism; it's t

Even John Derbyshire over at National Review was left aghast by the movie's attack on the scientific method (one of the great contributions of Western civilization, according to Derbyshire). He said, "Civilization is a thin veneer... Reason and science are bulwarks against the dark."

I'm actually glad to see the show refuse to milk the old will-they-or-won't-they story thread. That gimmick has been worn to death. When two people that obviously ought to be together are artificially kept apart through endless contrivances, both the show and the characters just end up looking stupid. Besides, why can't an office sitcom include as part of its dynamic a committed couple? Might be refreshing to see a healthy, funny relationship, especially when they serve as foils for all the other lunatics.

Awesome.

This documentary seems relevant

When I heard about this, I think I may have cried a little.

Reservation Road is exceedingly well-acted--I remain convinced that Mark Ruffalo is our Montgomery Clift--but the story is frustratingly pedestrian, and too willing to embrace melodrama.

Really underrated. It was long, but never slow, and I was completely engrossed in its vision of celebrity culture. A masterpiece, I think.

I dunno. I might change that to: His talent for acting exceeds his talent for picking scripts. (I do think he has a fairly limited range... but within that range he is really something.)

Watched two horror films yesterday: 30 Days of Night and Severance. One was horrible, one was not horrible.

Same here. Although I always drive for 2 minutes instead.

Pen management is one of Ned Yost's greatest failings as an in-game manager... last year his pen decisions had me seeing red. Gagne has not been good for the Brewers--three blown saves already!--but he hasn't been terrible, either. In 9 appearances, only two have been atrocious (opening day and today), and he actually looked very strong in the other blown save; it was just a single bad pitch that cost him.

Damn you, Gagne, damn you.

Wasn't there a similar case a few years back, involving parts of a fetus being used on a canvas? At the time, I remember getting into an argument with my brother-in-law. He insisted that it couldn't possibly be described as art; I argued that it clearly was an artistic expression, but one that was, in my view, morally revolting and therefore very bad and indefensible art. He couldn't wrap his mind around the distinction. I'm equally disgusted by this new case.

I like the Beach Boys and love Pet Sounds, but I'm with you on Smile. I can't stand it. "Cheesy" is being too complimentary. I'll also second the thought that Electro-Shock Blues by the Eels is a masterpiece. Deerhoof is unlistenable.

Daniel Johnston's entire celebrity is the result a lot of people convincing themselves that he's a brilliant artist because wouldn't it be cool if this dysfunctional guy were a genius?

You just called a whole segment of Americans ridiculous, you condescending elitist. The thing with the lapel pin is that Obama didn't say he would never wear one; he only stopped when wearing one started to feel like an empty gesture (as opposed to, you know, actually living like a patriot). In this instance, he wore it because the gift from the veteran meant something more to Obama than just empty patriotism. If Republicans call that inconsistent, it would say nothing about Obama, but volumes about their own inability to recognize distinctions.

I read Kristol's piece earlier this afternoon and thought it was (as usual) poor punditry--he makes an astonishing number of specious assumptions in his attempt to extract as much poison as he can out of a few sentences spoken by Obama. Frankly, Kristol's ascriptions and conclusions strike me as a form of wide-eyed hysteria. Earlier I also read this piece by a reporter who was in the room in San Francisco: EDIT: Sorry about that long quote. Didn't realize it was quite so long.

Norton is great in it, but the movie always seemed a little too schematic and even a little cartoonish. It has a positive message, but it's expressed with no more depth or nuance than, say, Remember the Titans. It's the kind of film teens ought to see, I suppose. That teeth-on-the-curb scene... that was one of the few times I literally squirmed in the theater. It was all due to the sound editing, too.

I understand that's what you, and others, have taken from his SF statement, but that's not what I took from them. When I originally read them, my first reaction was, "What's the big deal here? He's showing concern about people on hard times. Hell, he's describing my own parents." His later clarifications reinforced my interpretation, and his 2004 statements now fortify it. The consistent pattern, I think, throughout Obama's books and his campaign, is a lack of condescension, which makes it even more difficult for me to project a kind of elitism onto a few slightly misphrased sentences in

Andrew Sullivan found a clip of Obama on Charlie Rose in 2004, basically expressing similar-sounding thoughts. Here's a portion: "They're not optimistic... What they do know is, is they can go out with their friends and hunt, and feel a sense of camaraderie and there's a connection between hunting and them going out with their father to hunt, just as there's a connection maybe for their wives to go into church, and go in with their grandmother to church. And if we don't have plausible answers on the economic front, and we appear to be condescending towards those traditions that are giving

Fox News on You Tube: PA Voter, a McCain Supporter, Says Obama Was Right On I know it's just one voice, but it makes me wonder why pundits--both professional and armchair--haven't considered the possibility that Obama's comments might actually appeal to many small town voters?