Salty goodness.

Although I'm busy in Jersey fighting the good fight, my friend Jeff caught an interesting article in Rolling Stone. A snippet to whet your appetite:

These past six years were more than just the most shameful, corrupt and incompetent period in the history of the American legislative branch. These were the years when the U.S. parliament became a historical punch line, a political obscenity on par with the court of Nero or Caligula -- a stable of thieves and perverts who committed crimes rolling out of bed in the morning and did their very best to turn the mighty American empire into a debt-laden, despotic backwater, a Burkina Faso with cable.

Burkina Faso with cable? Sounds about right.

DEFINITELY check out their list of the 10 worst Congressmen, too. Very informative (if a bit depressing). I did enjoy Rep. Barney Franks's (D-MA) snarky comments on Rep. Marilyn Musgrave (R-CO).

Honestly, if you've got some extra cash sitting around, consider making a campaign contribution to Angie Paccione. She's running an extremely close race against Musgrave and could use a bit of a push to victory. Musgrave is an evil woman whose ideals would make even Rick Santorum blink. Throwing her out on her ass would be excellent. I'll buy a drink for anyone who sends Angie some money and shows me the confirmation e-mail.

Go forth and save America, my friends.

If the Dems don't win a majority in at least the House, I'm becoming a bartender in Cambodia.

Democrats: First, read "Return of the Yellow Dog" by Michael Kinsley on Slate. After that, take a moment to reflect on the importance of voting in this election. (Ok, unless you're in DC, but everyone I know in DC should know better and stay registered in their home states.) Although a House win looks decent, momentum is slowing with only a week before the Election. This isn't helping an already difficult road toward a majority in the Senate. Over the next 8 days, the Democrats need to hold on to increasingly less comfortable leads in Pennsylvania, Ohio, Montana, and Rhode Island; pick up two out of three of Missouri, Tennessee, and Virginia; and not lose Jersey or Michigan. This won't be easy, folks. Get everyone you know -- particularly in the important states -- to turn out on Election Day.

Republicans: First, read "Return of the Yellow Dog" by Michael Kinsley on Slate. Second, realize that your party has done one shoddy-ass job of representing you over the last few years. If you're not outraged, you haven't been paying attention (especially my fiscally conservative pals out there). Go vote for the Democrat, if only to inspire Republicans you can respect to take control of your party over the next decade. Also, not to stereotype but, dear Republican friend, you're probably from a so-called red state. Definitely reach out to the fam back home and explain the importance of removing people who will continue to merely support the policies of a failed administration. (And try the "inspiring new Republican leadership" line above. They'll love it.)

Everyone else: See instructions under "Democrats" above. (Unless you're foreign or not a citizen. In that case, read the article and then harass family and friends as appropriate based on their political affiliation.)

As Frank Rich said a few weeks ago, the Dems are brilliant at "yanking defeat from the jaws of victory." Please, oh please, let's all do our part to keep this from happening this year. If you want to do more than your part, let me know and I'll do what I can to find you info on GOTV efforts or, if you're a lawyer, election protection work. Too much is riding on this election. In the immortal words of Diddy: "Vote or die."

(Tee! I just quoted Frank Rich and Puff Daddy in the same paragraph.)

GOTV.

So, I suppose this is as good a forum as any to announce that I'm leaving DC for a few weeks. I've decided that my time between now and Election Day is best spent working towards that possible yet still distant goal of achieving a Democratic majority in the U.S. Senate. As you probably know, the Dems need to gain at least six (6) seats to take back the Senate. At the moment, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Rhode Island, and Montana are all leaning toward flipping from red to blue. Missouri, Virginia, and Tennessee are all complete toss-ups (the latter two with the mildest Republican advantage). Fortunately, no senate seat seems to be in danger of flipping blue to red. No seat, that is, except Bob Menendez from NJ. If the Dems lose Jersey, they must win all three of the other toss-ups to have a majority in the Senate. And that just isn't likely.

With that in mind -- and even though he bugged me royally when he voted for the Military Commissions Act -- I've decided to return to my home state and join the campaign to elect Menendez to the U.S. Senate. As you probably know, this is a pretty momentous period in my state's history and I'm really looking forward to getting involved with NJ politics for a bit. I'll be back in DC shortly after Election Day. (Unless the Dems win back neither the House nor the Senate, in which case I'll be bartending at Angkor What? in Siem Reap, Cambodia. Tell me that you read the blog and I'll give you a free drink.)

Remember to vote, fellow Democrats, especially if you vote in one of the seven states mentioned above. Also, be sure to get out the vote (GOTV). Have friends in those states who might vote Dem? Drop them an e-mail and remind them to vote, order an absentee ballot, and press their friends and family to do the same. If the Dems take back Congress then maybe -- just maybe, -- this world will stop sucking as much as it has over the last six years. Keep hope alive.

[BTW, worry not. I plan to blog from Jersey.]

Bull@shit.com

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

No more Barack talk until Nov. 8th.

On Thursday, I went to the NY Times Op-Ed page and I thought I was hallucinating. I was staring at David Brooks's column but it was titled "Run, Barack, Run." Why? Huh? What? As I read the article, I gave serious thought to writing a letter to the alien that had taken over his body to return the real David Brooks.

Coming from my own perspective, I should note that I disagree with many of Obama’s notions and could well end up agreeing more with one of his opponents. But anyone who’s observed him closely can see that Obama is a new kind of politician. As Klein once observed, he’s that rarest of creatures: a megahyped phenomenon that lives up to the hype.

What? Huh? Why are you writing this, David Brooks? More importantly, why aren't you writing about the upcoming elections?

Before I had real time to process this -- we all know that Ugly Betty and Grey's are on Thursday nights -- Saturday's Times came around with Maureen Dowd's latest column, "Obama's Project Runway." Here, Dowd ruminated on celebrity and politics and asked the question, "[S]hould Barack Obama stop lounging around in fashion magazines and do some honest work, like running for president?"

“Politics sometimes blends in with celebrity,” he told Oprah this week. “And it gobbles you up because the tendency is for people to want to see you perform and say what they want to hear, as opposed to you trying to stay in touch with, you know, that deepest part of you, that kernel of truth inside.” Doesn’t he see that when you express this skepticism on Oprah it is not skepticism at all?

Super, Maureen Dowd. (Am I alone in thinking that Maureen Dowd, while a gifted writer, often seems to write about the obvious?) But aren't you excited about the Dem surge in the polls? What about the close Senate races? I mean, the 2006 election is a bit more pressing and yet everyone's already talking about 2008.

So, David Brooks wants Barack to run. Maureen Dowd wants him to "to think about whether he really wants to be president, or whether he’s just getting swept away by people who want him to do it." Anyone else want to chime in on Obama or can we return to the situation at hand?

Sunday rolled around and it seemed like we might not be finished with Barack Obama. In the Sunday Times, Frank Rich jumped on the Obam-wagon with "Obama is Not a Miracle Elixir." I love Frank Rich. He's a terrific writer who, unlike Ms. Dowd, often makes me stop a say, "Wow, good point!" I loved his opening to this column:

THE Democrats are so brilliant at yanking defeat from the jaws of victory that it still seems unimaginable that they might win on Nov. 7. But even the most congenital skeptic has to face that possibility now. Things have gotten so bad for the Republicans that were President Bush to unveil Osama bin Laden’s corpse in the Rose Garden, some reporter would instantly check to see if his last meal had been on Jack Abramoff’s tab.

Funny and timely! But then he gets into the Barack talk. He starts with the craze around Obama then goes on to call Obama's big decision of whether to run for President a "no-brainer." He brushes away Obama's thin resume and instead shows more concern about the Democratic Party's effect on people. Rich worries that more time in the Senate will "likely to transform an unusually eloquent writer, speaker and public servant into another windbag like Joe Biden." (Tee!) Rich doesn't want that and hopes that "Barack Obama steps up and changes the party before the party of terminal timidity and equivocation changes him."

I agree that the Democratic Party needs leadership, a spine, and a platform. It's frustrating to not have a party that adequately represents my political beliefs. Instead, I feel like a contestant on The Price is Right who needs to get closest without going over. My favorite part of Rich's column had little to do with Barack and everything to do with the Democratic Party's need for leadership.

That’s the one lesson it should learn from George Bush. Call him arrogant or misguided or foolish, this president has been a leader. He had a controversial agenda — enacting big tax cuts, privatizing Social Security, waging “pre-emptive” war, packing the courts with judges who support his elisions of constitutional rights — and he didn’t fudge it. He didn’t care if half the country despised him along the way.

Good point, Mr. Rich. The Dems need to stop attempting to be everything to everyone because, in the current political climate, that's impossible. They need to stop caring if half the country despises them, particularly if that half is already well-represented by the Republican Party.

But I digress. Back to Barack. Today's Times features "The Obama Bandwagon" (I prefer my invention, The Obam-wagon) by Bob Herbert. He mentions the hype around Obama and concedes that it may be justified. But then Herbert stops being polite and starts getting real:

But the giddiness is crying out for a reality check. There’s a reason why so many Republicans [That explains David Brooks!] are saying nice things about Mr. Obama, and urging him to run. They would like nothing more than for the Democrats to nominate a candidate in 2008 who has a very slender résumé, very little experience in national politics, hardly any in foreign policy — and who also happens to be black. The Republicans may be in deep trouble, but they believe they could pretty easily put together a ticket that would chew up Barack Obama in 2008.

In the end, Herbert advises Obama "not to move too fast." And I agree. I like Barack Obama a whole lot. He's everything everyone says he is, and probably even more. He would make a great President one day. But I don't think that day is now or even within the next two years. I was worried that when Cocktober Surprise (TM Wonkette) happened, the Dems were peaking too soon. And that was four weeks before the election. All this Barack talk is WAY too soon. It's got nowhere to go but down. Thank you, Bob Herbert, for saying what I've been thinking.

Who does that leave for the Dems? I'm not sure. I think Senator Clinton would be a great President but I recognize the difficulties there. I know that a lot of people -- even Democrats -- have a sudden, negative reaction to her, but I think that smacks of sexism. (If you disagree, come up with a politician who evokes the same ire. Maybe W? I would suggest that he's done significantly more to deserve it than Clinton.) But that's a conversation for another time. For now, let's just all shut up about Barack Obama and the 2008 elections and instead concentrate on not "yanking defeat from the jaws of victory," as Frank Rich so eloquently put it.

Don't forget to vote on November 7th, either in person or by absentee ballot! (Unless you're a Republican from Missouri, NJ, Tennessee, Ohio, or Virginia.)

[I just realized that you won't be able to read any of these columns if you don't have TimesSelect. Contact me if you'd really like to read any of them in their entirety and I'll see what I can do.]

Simply sleep!

I think I'm developing some variation of a social anxiety disorder. It's not that I'm scared of being among people. It's more that I find myself really annoyed around people on the street and, whenever I venture out, I'm strangely uneasy and always want to return home as soon as possible. Tonight was no different. Instead of braving the crazy streets of north Dupont, I opted to call Pane Bella for a falafel sandwich and some hummus and spend the evening watching a movie. I've had Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf? for a few months now -- I love what a waste of money my Netflix subscription has become -- so it seemed like the perfect thing to keep me busy on a lazy Friday night. Until I fell asleep at 8:30pm.

I choose to blame Pane Bella (and not only because their name is grammatically incorrect in Italian*). I called at 5:30pm and placed my order: one falafel sandwich no tomato, one order of roasted red pepper hummus, two extra pitas, and a coke. Not too shabby. The dude said 45 minutes but my phone rang in only 30. I was so super-psyched to recreate the good ol' days of eating PB while watching TV that I did a half skip back into my apartment after paying the delivery man. It wasn't until I was perched on my bed and tearing through the white plastic bag that I noticed something was missing. Pain in my ass. I called the restaurant and, in as genteel a manner as I could muster, informed the gentleman on the other end that the falafel sandwich wasn't in my order. Dude apologized and assured me that he'd send my sandwich immediately. That was 6pm.

I was finally able to sit down to some tzatziki goodness at 7:30pm. What's worse, when I called to bitch (at around 7:15pm) dude, while apologetic, didn't even offer to comp me some mozzarella sticks or something. Do I stand alone in thinking that stores and restaurants should do something to appease customers they've wronged? I'm not asking for a free meal, but chuck a friggin' coupon [pronounced koo-pohn, not q-pohn] or some tabouli in there. I've always liked Pane Bella, but they have to go on the shit list for a bit. Crap. Delivery dining is such a big part of my world these days. Removing Pane Bella from rotation will be hard. Pizza Movers is about to have a very strong fourth quarter.

After the stress of dinner, I guess my body was just too tuckered out to do anything else. Even as I was falling asleep, I remember thinking that it was a really stupid idea to hit the sack before 9pm. I can't remember the last time I went to bed before 11pm and slept through the night but I think I was two at the time. Now it's 2:30am and I'm wide awake. I took two Simply Sleep about an hour ago in an effort to knock myself out but, sadly, they don't seem to be working. What's worse is that my corner seems to be THE place for fighting tonight. I just spent 10 minutes listening to two people, one male and one female:

Him: You're a bitch.
Her: No, you're a bitch.
Him: Fuck no! You're the bitch.
Her: I hate you! You're such a bitch.
And so on . . . .

Meh. I guess it's better than the time those two middle-aged, British gay dudes beat each other down outside my window. One of them had a bit of a mohawk. I think he would've won the fight if the police hadn't shown up.

I should go to bed before I try to eat something.


-------
* Pane = bread; bella = pretty. But "pane" is masculine, so it should be Pane BellO. Then again, the name "Pretty Bread" is fairly stupid to begin with, so let's not quibble.

First Lance Bass . . .

. . . and now this. What's next?

I just want it to be known that I knew YESTERDAY. And not thanks to People.

Ugly Betty

It's on at 8pm on Thursdays on ABC (channel 27 for those of you with DC Comcast). Watch it.

It's the best thing on television. There. I've said it. I know, I know. I love Lost and Grey's and a host of other shows, too, but nothing buoys my spirits like an episode of Ugly Betty.

I might have come off as unenthusiastic during my TV post a week ago but tonight's episode was FANTASTIC. Honestly, the comedic timing on this show is brilliant. The writing is outstanding. The attention to detail is something that other shows should worship. Every part -- unlike my other new love, Heroes, where Milo Ventimiglia is horribly miscast as Peter (sorry, Milo, it's true) -- is so perfectly well cast that it's almost staggering.

Some people -- people who don't understand -- won't dig the fashion magazine setting or the campy plots. I know that. But the enlightened among us should tune in and fall in lust with this outstanding show. If you're interested, I have every episode (save episode 3, which I mistakenly deleted) saved on DVR and would be more than happy to have you come over to get caught up.

(Grey's was pretty good, too. Miranda Bailey is one of my favorite characters on TV at the moment and the woman who plays her, Chandra Wilson, has been turning in some truly exceptional performances so far this season.)

I love TV. And I'm not ashamed to say so. Now excuse me while I go watch the end of Ugly Betty for the second time tonight.

1-800-BUL-SHIT

When I got back from my trip, my answering machine (yes, I have one of those on my land line) was full. I knew before I listened that it would be mostly hangups. What I wasn't expecting was a series of recordings that went something like this (pardon my paraphrasing):

"Hey guys! This is Jim from Bladdy-blah Satellite Systems. I've got GREAT news for you guys, you've been selected for a free home satellite system. If you could call me back, that'd be great. My number is 800-BUL-SHIT. I'll be here all day. Talk to you later!"

Another variation I recall off the top of my head is nearly the same except that instead of Jim, it was Sally (or something similar) and instead satellite TV, I've won a trip to Mexico or Florida or some other place that I don't really feel like visiting. As I listened to at least 8 of these, I couldn't help wondering if people really call these things. Do they think that their buddy "Jim" is calling because of the overly friendly tone the dude takes? Or are they so psyched to win something that they decide to check on that Florida vacation? I mean, if I had a nickel for every one of my usually bright friends who have forwarded those "For every e-mail you send, The Red Cross/Bill Gates/God will give Leukemia Libby/Cancer Cathy/Elephantitis Eli $20!" messages, I wouldn't have any problems making rent next month. People want to believe.

Fine. I'll allow that it's possible that some poor sap calls back after receiving one of these messages on their machine. But today I received another phone call, which didn't go to the machine. I answered. You'd think that there must be some system where, if a human being answers, another human being talks to them. Oh no. I got the recording.

Does someone out there really think that I'm going to stand there, on the phone, listening to a message that was clearly made to sound relatively authentic on a machine -- it's particularly glaring since "Jim" told me, "Sorry I missed you!" uhm . . . you didn't . . . I picked up the phone -- and, not only not hang up, but actually call the number?!?!?

Sorry. I'm just blown away by the stupidity of this marketing scheme. It's insulting.

Ok. Here's what I'm going to do. The next time I get one of those messages (or direct calls) I'm calling back. I'm going to pretend to be interested in my free prize and then ask to speak with a supervisor or manager. Then I'm going to ask that manager to put me in touch with whoever makes the marketing decisions. Even if I can't get past the first person, I'm going to ask the highest-ranked employee I get on the phone to tell me how well this scheme is actually doing. I better not be shocked by a surprisingly high return rate.

I'm so going to be shocked by a surprisingly high return rate, aren't I?

Stay tuned. (Oh, and click here to receive your free prize!)

Je pense, donc je blog.

So, when I'm not thinking a whole lot, I don't tend to blog. And when I don't blog people get upset and tell me not to "advertise" on my Gtalk until I've updated it.

I've been trying to come up with something remotely interesting all day. I've taken suggestions, read a variety of news stories, and watched the latest episode of Heroes (still great and getting better), but nothing has inspired me. I thought about posting something I've already written -- like an old short story or even my law school personal statement -- but that seems like a cop out. Then again, back when I had my arts column in the Tufts Daily, the week I was too busy to write and ran my Survivor application was the week I received my best, most excited feedback. But I decided against it. Maybe in the future, but not yet. I rather save things like that for when I'm actually busy, as opposed to just blocked.

But the writer's block got me thinking a bit about the blogging. I know that people are reading and, apparently, enjoying it. Then again, I'm brilliant and quite funny, so why wouldn't they? My question, I suppose, is what do people want to read about? Does my public -- now reading from 17 states (including the District) and 7 foreign countries -- want more public affairs or more "A Public Affair." Or neither? Do they want to read about the strange, unrelenting hunger (literal, not figurative) that I've been experiencing lately or the fact that I can't stop watching the "Trapped in the Closet" episode of South Park? I worry that writing only about myself might make me come off as a bit self-involved. And, me? Self-involved? NEVER.

Gosh, I'm hungry.

I should eat something. Last night, we went to Fogo de Chao for Josh's birthday and I think I irreparably expanded my stomach. The restaurant is set up as a sort of all-you-can-eat (without the tackiness usually involved) with "gauchos" (or unemployed wannabe Hill staffers) who bring skewers with huge cuts of meat, which they slice right into your plate. Each diner is outfitted with a coaster, green on one side and red on the other, which signals whether the gauchos should approach. It was a bit out of hand. And today I've only eaten a grilled cheese and a Starbucks muffin. (And I didn't even enjoy the muffin because it was too sweet. I've always been more savory than sweet.)

So, yeah, I'm hungry. Like, really hungry.

[Are you happy now? See what happens when you pressure me to blog when I'm not ready?]

Bring back the Eighteenth Amendment!

I have figured out the solution to all the Republican Party's problems: Ban the bottle. The latest victim is Bob Ney (R-OH), who today pled guilty to a series of corruption charges related to the Jack Abramoff scandal. Was it greed that led him to essentially take bribes from the disgraced lobbyist? Absolutely not:

Mr. Ney, 52, has said that a dependence on alcohol was a factor in his loss of a moral compass. In response to Judge Huvelle’s questions on what problems he is being treated for, Mr. Ney replied, “Right now, alcohol, last 30 days.” He said he had not had a drink in that time. (From the NY Times.)

And, of course, we all remember how Mark Foley's page-loving problems stemmed from his alcoholism (and a little priestly molestation). So the solution is clear: Bring back Prohibition. Without liquor, Republican congressmen can return to being soldiers in God's army standing up for truth, justice, tax cuts for the wealthy, and the continued marginalization of gays, minorities, (hang on a sec...just spilled scotch on my keyboard) women, and the poor.

In related news, does anyone else think it's totally absurd that Ney is still officially a Congressman? From the same article:

Despite his disgrace, Mr. Ney is still a member of Congress, drawing his $165,000-a-year salary, although his lawyer, Mark Tuohey, told the judge that Mr. Ney will resign his seat “in the next few weeks.” Mr. Ney has said he wants to help his employees find new jobs before he quits.

Seriously? HE'S AN AVOWED CRIMINAL. Nothing's alleged anymore. He's actually a criminal. And no one thinks he should be thrown out of Congress immediately?!? Are we all insane?!

I'm moving to North Korea.

There are worse things to wake up next to than your remote control.

Over the last few years, I've been dependent on my friends in order to catch TV episodes I missed. Thanks to the busy schedules of my wonderful Amazing Race viewing group (Vijay, Dave, Anne, and, until recently, Ryan Smith), I've embraced the concept of watching an entire series purely on Tivo or DVR. Last year, I rarely watched Lost or Grey's Anatomy at their regularly scheduled times, preferring to catch them at Josh and Adam's at a more convenient moment (for instance, after the first day of Bar/Bri). I was intending to switch over to DVR myself, but I never got around to it between finals and studying for the bar. Then, when my sublessee fell through right before I left town, I decided that I'd save some money by canceling my cable and starting over when I returned. Now, only 3 weeks into having my very own Digital Video Recorder, I feel like a changed man.

Except for Lost, Grey's, and The Amazing Race, I found it really hard to watch TV on a regular basis. Even though I had a VCR, I always forgot to set a tape before I left my apartment in the morning. DVR has changed my world. All I have to do now is set a season-long recording and I have access to all my favorite shows at the touch of a button. With this new power, I dove into the Fall television season with a dedication heretofore impossible. Now that the first new show of the Fall has, well, fallen -- Smith starring Ray Liotta -- I thought it was time to sound off on the new crop of potential obsessions. But there were so many to choose from . . . .

So I DVR-ed them all. Well not all, just the serial dramas that seemed remotely promising. I can't get into sitcoms and reality shows (except the Race) and one-off episodic dramas -- like the 14 Law & Orders and 73 CSIs -- don't really hold my interest, so I was hoping to find another Lost or Grey's to get jazzed about. I decided to give the following shows a try: Ugly Betty, 6 Degrees, Heroes, Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip, The Nine, and Kidnapped. I figured that somewhere in there I'd find something worth watching.

It took me about 3 minutes to fall in love with Ugly Betty. Based on a Colombian telenovela -- NOT The Devil Wears Prada as many believe -- the show follows a gal who gets a job at a fashion magazine purely on her looks. The twist is that the Editor-in-Chief's dad runs the publishing company and hired the titular character because she's so unattractive that she wouldn't be a temptation for his playboy son. One of the opening scenes of the pilot episode -- airing in the family-friendly 8pm hour -- featured dad walking in on his son leaning back at his desk with his eyes closed. Moments later viewers discovered that his assistant was under his desk "taking dictation." That's the show's joke, not mine. And it's pretty funny, in my opinion. But while Betty does have an on-going plot about the machinations of Vanessa Williams's Wilhelmina who was passed over for the job in favor of the aforementioned fellatio-receiving publishing scion, it isn't exactly a serialized drama. So, while it's definitely a show that I'm going to keep watching, I was still yearning for something with plotlines and cliffhangers that would drive me nuts with anticipation each week.

6 Degrees seemed perfect. It was on right after Grey's (and anyone with Tivo and DVR knows how lifesaving it can be to record the show right after yours on a regular basis) and was created by J.J. Abrams, creator of Lost. On top of that, it had dreamy Jay Hernandez in a lead role. What could go wrong? Well, I watched the first the episode for about 30 minutes before I got so effing bored that I wanted to cry. It's about these six randoms who all somehow meet up in the first episode. That's the gimmick: they don't know each other and then they do. But by having them all know each other by the end of the first episode, the gimmick was sort of DOA. They tried to lure the viewer in with some mystery about one of the characters who has a weird box that she's guarding . . . yeah, I didn't care either.

I was a bit skeptical about Heroes because the plot sounded entirely too much like X-Men. Normal people discover superpowers due to some evolutionary/mutation-type phenomena, drama ensues. Meh? Still, I watched the first episode and was hooked almost immediately. While the dialogue isn't fantastic (see Studio 60 below), the show is intensely plotted -- very little annoying lag time a la Lost -- and features some great actors playing intriguing characters. I've been waiting for Ali Larter to do something interesting ever since I saw her in Final Destination, I LOVE that Weiss (from Alias) is back on TV, and Sendhil Ramamurthy could give Jay Hernandez a run for his money (plus he's a Jumbo!). Three episodes in, I'm completely obsessed with the show and so excited to see how the heroes eventually come together to stop the nuclear annihilation of New York City (timely plot, too). (Take note 6 Degrees, most of the heroes didn't know each other by the end of the first episode.)

If I was a bit skeptical about Heroes, I was extremely skeptical of Studio 60. It was created by Aaron Sorkin and while I liked The West Wing (at least at the beginning) I never really LOVED it. Also, I worry when sitcom stars try to do drama. So I held off for weeks, recording episodes but never actually watching them, until I finally broke down one afternoon and pressed play. I remember that while stumping for the show, Bradley Whitford said something about how he had better lines than Meryl Streep and that's why he was committing to another TV show so soon after West Wing. Darn tootin'. This is, in my humble opinion, the best written show on TV at the moment. Even if you don't find yourself particularly fascinated by what goes on backstage at a SNL-type show (which I do), you can't help but appreciate some of the best dialogue anywhere. Aaron Sorkin is ok by me.

And since I'd found THREE shows that I wanted to watch, I don't know that I have any room in my life for another show. I didn't even give Kidnapped a shot at all -- it was similarly backlogged on my DVR and has since been deleted. I'm hanging onto The Nine just in case I get bored of something or Lost does something unforgivably stupid like kill off Sun or Sayid. I didn't want this many new shows, but there's too much good television out there and I'm just not that busy these days. DVR is my friend, boss, and lover. The whole point of DVR is that it doesn't mind when I take a day off. And it definitely won't get whiny if I ignore it for a few days.

You, too, can live the dream. Call your cable provider today.

At least we saved the Iraqi people . . .

. . . or not. From the Wall Street Journal:

A new study asserts that roughly 600,000 Iraqis have died from violence since the U.S.-led invasion in March 2003, a figure many times higher than any previous estimate.

And, later from the same article, some context:

Human Rights Watch has estimated Saddam Hussein's regime killed 250,000 to 290,000 people over 20 years.

For my readers who couldn't crack 600 on the math SAT, that means that more than double the Iraqis that died during 20 years of Saddam Hussein have been killed in the 3.5 years of U.S. involvement.

So let's see . . . we all know that we didn't find weapons of mass destruction, a recent intelligence report told us that we're fueling Islamic fundamentalism and terrorism, and now we've gotten more Iraqis killed in 3.5 years than a loon like Saddam was able to pull off in 20. For the sake of the people of Iran, I really hope we're not invading right before the election like some are predicting. And not to excuse North Korea but, if I were a foreign country, I'd probably be arming myself, too.

¡Viva Pedro!

Pedro Almodóvar is one of my favorite directors. Heck, he might be my all-time favorite. His movies are often hilarious (Mujeres al Borde de un Ataque de Nervios), heartbreaking (Todo Sobre Mi Madre), or a combination of both (Hable Con Ella). Either way, they are always visually stunning with engrossing characters and plots. So you can imagine my excitement when I heard that there was going to be an Almodóvar film festival -- called VIVA PEDRO -- featuring eight of his movies back on the big screen for the first time. You can also imagine my sadness when I realized that it was opening in late summer and I'd probably miss it.

Well, I did miss it. Almost. But not because I was in SE Asia. I missed it because I'm an idiot of unfathomable proportions. Apparently it came to DC the day I came back, but I didn't know it. When I finally did notice that it was here, I inexplicably assumed that the date given on the website -- September 15 -- was the only showing of his films. What? Am I the dumbest person alive? Did all that flying give me a brain condition of some kind? Eight movies, one day? What the hell is wrong with me?!

It wasn't until today that I realized that the films were still showing. Well, not all. Sadly, I'll never realize my dream of seeing Mujeres . . . on the big screen. Also a bit sucky is that fact that, of the two films still showing, one of them is La Mala Educación. While still better than 90% of films out there, it just doesn't stack up relative to Pedro's other films and since I already saw it in theaters, I don't need to go again. (Although I highly recommend anyone who hasn't seen it to check it out if you can.) That leaves me with Matador. Luckily, it's a Pedro film that I haven't seen yet, it's playing through the weekend, and it's supposed to be marvelously effed up. I might still get an opportunity to see at least one classic Almodóvar masterpiece on the big screen.

Now I just need people to come with me. Except for Saturday evening (Happy Birthday Rickel!), I'm available. The stupid AFI website decided to leave off the showtimes of Matador, but they'll probably follow the same pattern of most of the Almodóvar films during the weekends: 1:00, 3:05, 5:10, 7:20, 9:30. (I'll obviously doublecheck beforehand.) I also promise to overenunciate every word I say in Spanish (sorry you won't be here, Ale).

So, who's with me?

Context.

I admit to being mildly concerned that many people are reading my Foley post and yet only a couple have gone to read Sarada's post, which pretty accurately captures my feelings on the issue. The last thing I want is for anyone to think that I condone Foley's behavior so I'm reprinting Sarada's post. I agree with her 100% but I didn't write what she wrote because, well, she already had. (FYI, everyone should read this woman's thoughts because she really is one of the most thoughtful and intelligent people on earth.) I hope that my attempt at originality didn't lead anyone to think I support Foley's actions in any way (the headline was a joke). Sarada's original post can be found here. Enjoy:

sex and politics

Alessandro was in town this weekend and we had an interesting conversation about the Mark Foley scandal. Undoubtedly, Alessandro himself will blog about the topic, but I feel it necessary to throw down my two cents.

Mark Foley was abhorrent and what he did was abhorrent. While it wasn't exactly molesting or raping a child, playing sexual power dynamics with minors in our nation's hallowed governmental halls is pretty despicable and should be prosecuted accordingly.

But this isn't about Foley's homosexuality. I'm reminded of former Governor McGreevey who, after lying, stealing, cheating and using a minimal amount of brain functionality to complete aforementioned tasks, stood up at a press conference and began with, "I am a gay American." Sure you are! You're also a complete idiot who gave his boyfriend a public sector job he wasn't qualified for! We're getting rid of you because you're a moron, not because you're gay! But all anti-gay America heard was that gays are not fit to be governors, those deviants.

Similarly, everybody's getting their panties up in a bunch about the Foley incident, which they should. But I rarely see people call in the National Guard when a female page or intern or hell, law professor named Anita Hill, is sexually harassed or molested or cajoled into sexual relations by a male member of government. Can you imagine how many Congressmen are chasing skirts on the Hill? Falling back on classic gendered norms, we'll never get that upset about the way men play sexual power dynamics with women at the upper echelons of government because that's just the way men are and women are supposed to take it. How many women did sexual criminal and ex-Senator Bob Packwood have to harass and assault before we socked him? Naturally this situation is different because it involved minors. Believe you me, I'm as pedophile-hating as anybody. But if we're going to call the FBI out for this one (since the House Ethics Committee is the equivalent of the Sudan sitting on the UN Human Rights Commission), let's also bring them out to investigate other Congressmen and sitting Supreme Court Justices who treat women like their property.

Moreover, this comes back to the gaping hole in congressional leadership that seems to be widening with every passing hour on their Rolexes. If these people (read: Hastert and his fellow overfed windbag buddies) can cover up something this unbelievably screwed up can you imagine what other skeletons are smoking cigars and throwing back Johnnie Walker in the closet?

Speaking of which, I love Foley blaming his issues on alcohol, attempting to do whatever it takes to separate the words "sex," "boys," "IM," and "Mark Foley" in a Google search.

Cry me a river, dude.

I fully excuse Mark Foley's behavior.

Of course I don't. I just needed something to keep things fresh. Sarada went a long way to reading my mind when she posted her take on the Foley situation and Graham might have the record for longest post ever with his manifesto on it. What more is there to say? How to "advance the ball" in the discussion as my PR prof used to say?

I remember sitting at my computer when the story began to break. Before I knew what happened, Foley's alleged missives went from an request for a picture to "What are you wearing?" and "Do I make you horny?" (Austin Powers was how many years ago?) to, supposedly, an exchange that suggests that ABC's dramatization of Foley typing one-handed was dead on. I certainly don't excuse Foley's behavior. In my opinion, the dynamics of power and authority should never be mixed with sex. I remember finding it a bit distasteful back in college when Resident Assistants hooked up with their residents. Even shenanigans within a power dynamic as insignificant as that one felt wrong to me. Certainly boss-employee, professor-student, and Congressman-page are all pairs where sexual relationships are inappropriate. (If you haven't yet, go back and read Sarada's post because I really do agree with her 100% on this issue.) Still, is it ok for people to call him a pedophile and a child molester?

I'd say that it isn't.

As Sarada pointed out, there's a big difference between people who sexually abuse little kids and what Mark Foley did. According to reports, Foley's "victims" were at least 16, with some being 17 and even 18. Well, DC law defines a child as "a person who has not yet attained the age of 16 years." D.C. Code § 22-4101. The age of consent in many states, including our non-state (thank you, Mr. Colbert) of DC, is 16. Most other states put the age of consent at 17, with only 6 states (Arizona, California, North Dakota, Oregon, Virginia, and Wisconsin) with an age of consent of 18 that applies to everyone. (Some states have an age of consent of 18 but a lower age -- sometimes as young as 14 -- applies when the age gap between partners is small, or when the older partner is below a certain age.)

I hate to sound like a Republican (holy shit, I sound like a Republican) but is what Mark Foley did really that different than what Clinton did with Monica Lewinsky? Now, you might tell me that there's a huge difference between a 22-year-old and 16-year-old. And I would agree. You might also say that Clinton only did what he did with Monica (that we know of), while Foley was casting a pretty wide net. I'd continue to agree.

But then I'd say, isn't there a big difference between obscene IMs and sticking a cigar in someone's vagina? The thing is, I can't help but wonder how this would be different if a male Congressman had been found doing this to female pages. According to friends on the Hill -- and I'll use the vaguest terms because I don't know this firsthand and certainly don't want to slander anyone -- there was an old and now dead gentleman who worked there who was well known for touching all the young female employees' asses. And no one ever did anything about it. You'd bet your behind (tee!) that if Barney Frank is still in Congress when he's 90 and he starts getting fresh with the male legislative assistants in the elevator, shit would go down.

So, now picture for a minute that Rep. John Doe from Anystate was found having sent lascivious IMs to former female pages. Would there be a big to-do? Certainly. Would he be expected to resign? Probably. Would he be considered sleazy? Sure. Would he be labeled a "pedophile" and a "criminal?" I don't think so. I'll take this one step further and say that if it came out that Rep. JANE Doe from Anystate was found having similar IMs with male pages, it would still be surprising and blameworthy, but no one would use the words "sexual deviant" or "pedophile." (Not to mention how Congresswoman Doe would probably have a wing of Congress named after her if she were discovered sending similar messages to a female page.)

You might disagree with me. You might say that the same exact thing that's happening to Foley now would happen to my faux Congresspeople above. Who knows? I certainly don't for sure, but I can't help but wonder. And wondering out loud, I've found, is sometimes what it takes to advance the ball.

. . .

(Ball, people. B-A-L-L. Not balls. Your anticipated immaturity shocks me.)

Jetting to Crazytown.

After all my moaning about my flight in a teeny Embraer jet, I arrived at Logan Airport much quicker than expected (thanks to the new "Silver Line" buses from South Station) and hopped on an earlier flight. It was a tough decision because, in the end, I actually didn't want to forego the Embraer experience, but it meant avoiding 2 hours of waiting. I ended up flying in a terribly boring (and rather run-down) Boeing 757. Meh.

In other news, I'm planning a Mark Foley blog soon (per Graham's request). Get excited. In the meantime, enjoy this screencap from FOX News (which I found on Wonkette, but apparently originated from BradBlog.com):

Oh FOX News, you so crazy.

The NY Times is messing with me.

I'm not a terrific flyer. I tend towards paranoia in general -- a gift from my mother, I'm sure -- and that paranoia seems to increase exponentially when I fly. Most of the time, I assume I'm a dead man.

I knew that I would have to come to terms with my displeasure with flying before the trip that is well documented in the archives of this blog. I flew 17 discreet flights in aircraft ranging from cute, little Boeing 717s to the beastly (and soon to be retired) McDonnell Douglas DC-10. Before I left and during my trip, I researched each plane in which I'd be flying. I searched for schematics of the inside, as well as pictures of the outside. One of my weird hang ups was that I wanted to see photos of the exact plane type painted as it would be when I was flying in it. So, for instance, it wasn't enough to see a photo of any Airbus A333. No, I needed to see a THAI Airbus A333. I'm not normal.

I also did a significant amount of research into plane crashes and how to survive one. I discovered that, unlike common belief, plane crashes are fairly survivable. You'll increase your chances if you sit towards the back of the plane, wear sturdy, non-flammable clothing, and choose an aisle seat. I generally do all these things. I'm also the guy who listens attentively during the safety demonstration, reads the safety information card, and counts the number of rows between me and the exit. In addition, I try to gauge how difficult it would be to elbow the people between me and exit out of the way in the event of an emergency.

My 17 plane rides went a long way toward making me a more comfortable flyer. I was very impressed when I realized that I nodded off BEFORE takeoff during my flight from Bangkok to Tokyo. (First time ever for me.) So, when it came time to come up to Boston for the weekend, I hesitated only once (during booking when faced with the prospect of flying back in an Embraer ERJ-145) and boarded the plane up here (an A320) with confidence. I didn't even sit in an aisle seat. (Ok, that wasn't exactly my choice.)

Point is, I'm feeling braver than ever when it comes to flying. I got up this morning almost a bit excited by my flight this evening in the smallest plane I've ever flown (the aforementioned Embraer). While Sarada was making me coffee, I decided to check the NY Times website. Go now to the homepage and see the main photo feature. If it doesn't mean anything in the context of this blog (since they do change it quite frequently), just follow this link to the story and photo I saw featured. Notice the invitation to "Share a frightening experience you have had on a flight."

Not cool, NY Times. Not cool. What did I ever do to you?