Beltmann

That was the best episode of this season, so far at least.

One of my favorite Thanksgiving dinners ever was the year Stacy and I were in Atlanta visiting my sister and we all found the nastiest pizza dive we could. It was a refreshing change of pace.

And therefore wisdom. All I know is that my 33-year-old self sure is embarrassed about the notions espoused by my 20-year-old self. I'm no less idealistic now, but I'm much wiser--and hopefully I'll continue to accumulate wisdom with each passing year.

I've been listening to this a lot this week, and I'm diggin' it.

When was that Prodigy thing? That was my first message-board kind of thing.

Perfect.

No, as I said, it can't be imposed. I'm not prescribing what those ethics ought to be--just saying that ethical obligations to our fellow citizens exist, whatever that means.

Yeah, or their sense of ethics. Sometimes those things even coincide.

I also have a collection of severed limbs that I have accumulated over the years. I enjoy canning.

I sincerely thank you, but mostly I went into teaching to torment children with emotional and psychological devastation.

I don't think what I said contradicts your point, which I already acknowledge. I think I just failed to clarify what I meant by "relatively," mostly because I didn't think it was necessary. Admittedly, it was a vague statement--but the larger point holds, I think, regardless of the vague and debatable meaning of "relatively."

I was speaking relatively--and you know it. And yes, English teachers are far more interchangeable than professional baseball players. If I quit today, my job would be easily filled by someone of relatively equal ability. But if a superstar leaves a team, very few others could fill that hole. This is why, while I feel underpaid, I don't think I should earn anywhere near what a professional athlete earns. Their abilities are relatively rare and therefore of greater value.

But for the most part, plumbers are interchangeable, one as good as another. I don't mean to minimize their contributions; I believe firmly that anyone doing honest, useful work ought to earn a good living. Still, it's not the same with ballplayers, since ballplayers are often not interchangeable--especially when we're talking about top stars like A-Rod. I agree with you that the degree of worship and wealth accorded to athletes is obscene, and that many other professionals do not receive the respect, and by extension the compensation, that they deserve. This certainly reflects poorly on

Tonight, only enough time for a short film: Salaryman 6 / Jake Knight / Japan / 2002

I saw it a couple months ago, and overall it's not very strong, but it has some interesting aspects, including some weird reworkings of Romero, Re-Animator, and even Dead-Alive. It starts as an off-kilter horror movie, and then for a stretch it completely embraces broad, deadpan comedy--and that stretch was definitely worth seeing. Too bad it didn't stick with that.

I don't mind that Sandler movies are dumb--I mean, I love, really love stuff like Top Secret! and even Tommy Boy--it's just that I don't find them "good" dumb... although Wedding Singer wasn't too bad. I'm sure I'll rent the gay firefighter thing eventually.

I thought everybody knew Pseudo Echo was to blame.

If you can persuade all of humanity and all of future humanity to join us in thinking cosmically, I'm with ya.

Yeah, that's been in my queue for a few weeks now. I'm mostly interested because of the subject matter--and hey, it can't be any worse than Boston Public, right? Haven't seen it. Looks unbearable. While I think Sandler is an interesting guy, in general I can't stand his movies. I did catch up with Reign Over Me the other night and thought he did a pretty good job. Still, the only Sandler movie I would ever watch a second time is Punch-Drunk Love. I dunno. I'm intrigued. Have you heard about this movie called The Signal?

And he just keeps getting better. A History of Violence and Eastern Promises are two of my favorite movies of the last few years.

I totally agree with you that capitalism breeds a soulless kind of greed, but how do I know, exactly, when artists have crossed the line between making a reasonable living and shameless greed? I concede that there might be such a line, and what I'm asking is for you to tell me exactly where it is. This notion that some artists "don't need that much money" to "live a good life" is surely true, but those phrases are also far too vague for me--if I'm going to start judging the moral character of artists I don't personally know, I want to be absolutely certain that I'm on the right side of thin

I tend to feel the same way. Many of my art "heroes" were otherwise jackasses, and not really worth admiring as exemplary citizens. But no matter: My interest in them is related strictly to their art, and the other aspects of their identity usually bear zero weight in my mind.

If I'm reading you right, you are allowing that selling out is okay, but only to an extent. Which raises the question: If selling out is wrong, then why is the degree relevant--wrong is wrong, right? I guess I'm just confused about when I ought to begin judging an artist--is there a set percentage of profit that's the cutoff between "acceptable" selling out and "evil" selling out? And if so, what is that number, exactly?