The NFL at Week 6

Now that every NFL team has played at least four games, I thought it would be a good idea to revisit my original AFC Preview and the state of the NFC as well. The Simool System has been axed due to gross incompetence.

AFC North: A surprisingly poor start from the Steelers has opened the door for the Baltimore to squeeze into the playoffs. They’re a good team, but they’ll be left in the dust for the division title. While they’re 4-1 now, they’re not the untouchable defense they were before last week’s showing against the Broncos. The Bengals, on the other hand, have started a little slowly, and they’ve seen some personnel problems, but they’re going to get better as the season evolves. My 12-4 prediction will still be close to accurate. Cleveland is exactly where I, and everyone else, expected them to be. They’re a basement team that has a lot of work to do before they can climb out.

AFC South: The Jaguars?! The Jaguars??!! I still say you can’t support an offense with Byron Leftwich and Fred Taylor, but they’re proving me wrong. I don’t think this will continue through to the end of the season, but they’re foreshadowing a bright future based on what they’ve built so far. Indianapolis can’t run without the Edge, but they can still put the ball in the air as well as ever. They’re going to have to depend on their defense, though, to keep points off the board. If they put up performances like last week’s near-loss to the lowly Titans, they will not look too good. I’m not sure who is worse, though: the Titans or the Texans. I’d like to see Kubiak do well at Houston, and I think there’s a lot of improvement already shown, but they’re worthless right now. The Cowboys must be salivating over this Sunday’s game.

AFC East: Shockingly, the AFC East appears to be the worst division in the league. I am floored by the failure of the Dolphins. I had speculated that, if Culpepper collapses, they wouldn’t do so great, but I didn’t expect their failure to be so spectacular. The only team worth anything is the Patriots, but they only look as good as they do because of their sad competition. My suggestion to the NFL is to put the Jets, the Dolphins, and the Bills in a 3-Way wrestling match where the loser must leave the NFL and join the Arena League where their skills, or lack thereof, can be appreciated.

AFC West: If there’s one thing the Simool System was able to accurately predict, it’s the Broncos’ dominance. I’ve heard people talking about the Chargers, but I have a hard time seeing Denver losing any division games. Maybe one to SD, but they’re going all the way to the division title hands down. Huard has shown a surprising amount of competence for the Chiefs since Green has been out, but they’re not really going anywhere. Because I haven’t seen the Raiders yet this season, I’m not wholly convinced that the team is even physically showing up for the games, but I’ll see on Sunday. My prediction is that Al Davis will can Art Shell before week 10, and they will be no better and no worse as a result.

NFC North: A woeful division that is the only rival for the AFC East. This makes the Bears look like world-beaters, when they’re just above average. The Grossman-Berrian connection has been superb, but how long can it last. Put them in with some of the elite in the AFC and we’ll really see what the Bears are all about. The other three teams in the division have fewer wins combined than the Bears. That’s pathetic. Who would have guessed it: the Lions are still pathetic with all their new staff. This is news to nobody, but the Lions won’t see a stitch of success until Matt Millen leaves the front office. By the way, Favre really needs to hang it up. Pretty soon, he’ll just be another Vinnie Testeverde, forgetting where he is and lining up for the snap behind a guard a searching for his teeth after each sack.

NFC South: I still think Carolina and Atlanta will be vying for this division in the end. Fuck the Saints. They’re nothing and Reggie Bush is all sizzle and no steak. He can make a two yard run look great, but he’s still only getting two yards. Good riddance to anything decent coming from the Bucs. Gruden is an idiot and stole Tony Dungee’s team for his one look at a good team.

NFC East: This is the cream of the NFC. The worst team is the Redskins who, while not so great, could be the second team in any of the other divisions. The Eagles and the Giants are both great thus far and, when the Cowboys playing as well as they have are third, you’ve got a pretty tough division.

NFC West: Is the “Greatest Show on Turf” back? No, and I’m gagging on the thought. The Seahawks will win the West and we’ll still get to see an ass-whipping from the Broncos…Yeah!!! I’m surprised that Arizona looks as bad as they do, but I think they’ll get better if they stick with what they have, and especially keep Dennis Green as coach. He’s highly underrated. The 49ers are barely worth mentioning, so all I’ll say is fuck them too and, every time they do poorly, an angel gets its wings.

Overall, a stellar season so far. I look forward to the heart of the season where injuries start to pile up and the depth in the great teams really starts to show. Sorry Chicago, but this will be the end of your magical season. Oh, and GO BRONCOS!!!

More on the Environmental Consequences of the Border Fence

This story focuses attention on the arrival of jaguars in the US and the ways the border fence will cut them off. The loss of this US habitat may doom the jaguar to extinction in its northern range. Perhaps a greater problem for the jaguars is poaching, but the US can't enforce game laws in Mexico. We can not build a pointless fence that will both drive migrants into ever more desperate ways to cross the border and cut off threatened wildlife populations.

Brazil's Elections: What's at Stake

I've been painfully remiss in writing, primarily because, immediately after the elections, my computer's A/C adapter died (one of those instances of things you miss in the U.S. - what I could have had in 2 days for 30 dollars there has taken 10 days for 110 dollars here. Oh well. But I digress). Many people are unfamiliar with Brazilian elections at all, and those who even know there ARE elections here are not fully aware of the platforms.

That's why this op-ed piece by São Paulo native Emir Sader is vital. He hits virtually every point directly on the head. This isn't just some leftist candidate running against one more favorable to the U.S. This is a battle between two diametrically opposed visions of the future for Brazil and its more than 180 million inhabitants, with one vision full of promise and the other full of greed. You can click on the link, but I think it's worth quoting Sader in his entirety here:

"What is at stake in the second round is not only whether Petrobras will be privatized -- as Alckmin's advisor, Mendonça de Barros confirmed to the Exame magazine -- and whether, with it, the Bank of Brazil, the Caixa Econômica Federal [a bank administered by the Finance Ministry], and Eletrobrás also will be.

What is at stake in the second round is not only whether social movements will be criminalized and repressed by the federal government again.

What is at stake in the second round is not only whether Brazil will continue privileging its foreign policy based on alliances with Argentina, Bolivia, Venezuela, Uruguay, and Cuba, as well as other countries of the south in the world, instead of a policy of subordination to the United States.

What is at stake in the second round is not only whether Brazil will return to the policy of privatization of education.

What is at stake in the second round is not only whether Brazil's cultural policy will center on private financing.

What is at stake in the second round is not only whether we will have more or fewer precarious jobs, or more or fewer jobs in the "white market."

What is at stake in the second round is not only whether there will be more or less public investment in areas like energy, communications, roads, basic sanitation, education, health, and culture.

What is at stake in the second round is not only whether we will continue diminishing inequalities in Brazil by means of redistributive social policies -- micro-credit, higher real purchasing power of the minimum wage, lower prices of goods in the basic basket, the Family Allowance [Bolsa Familia], and rural electrification, among others. Or whether we will return to the PSDB-PFL policies of the government of Fernando Henrique Cardoso.

What is at stake in the second round is all of the above, which, by themselves, are very important and show a great difference between the two candidates. What is at stake in the second round is, above all, the international insertion of Brazil, which will have direct consequences on the destiny of the country.

With Lula, the policy will continue to promote regional integration and south-south alliances, against the FTAA in favor of Mercosur. With Alckmin, the policies of free trade will be promoted: the FTAA, the signing of a Free Trade Agreement with the United States, the isolation of the ALBA [Alternativa Bolivariana para las Américas, Bolivarian Alternative for the Americas], and the weakening of Mercosur, the South American Community, and the alliances with South Africa, India, and the Group of 20.

What is at stake in the second round is the resolution of whether Brazil is going to subordinate its future to policies of free trade or bet on processes of regional integration. This makes a fundamental difference for the future of Brazil and Latin America. Adopt free trade, open the country's economy definitively to great international monopolies -- American, in particular -- and renounce any form of internal regulation of the environment, currency, policies of quotas, etc., and we'll condemn Brazil to the predominance of market policies for ever, which would mean perpetuating the inequalities that make our country the most unjust place in the world.

What is at stake in the second round, then, is whether we will have an unjust or more unjust country, whether we will have a more sovereign or more subordinated country, whether we will have a more democratic or less democratic country, whether we will have a country or, once and for all, convert ourselves into a speculative market and consolidate ourselves as a conservative country directed by oligarchic elites (like a mixture of Daslu and Opus Dei). Whether we will be a country, a society, a nation -- democratic and sovereign -- or will be reduced to a stock market, to a shopping mall surrounded by misery on all sides.

All this is at stake in the second round. In this situation, nobody can be neutral, nobody can be in the middle, nobody can be indifferent."

His summary of the differences between Lula and Alckmin isn't hyperbole - it's frighteningly accurate. All that's missing here is the inclusion of Alckmin's complete and total failure in the prison system of São Paulo and his responsibility for the deaths of hundreds of inmates, police, and innocent bystanders this past spring (while he was no longer governor by that point, having just resigned to begin campaigning, the problems that led to all the bloodshed in São Paulo did not suddenly spring up in the days after he resigned, but had their roots in his policies in terms of allowing police brutality and allowing the already-awful prison conditions to worsen).

Americans may not care about the Brazilian elections. I suspect most don't even know. But when we move beyond our bubble of American politics, and better understand how politics and issues work elsewhere, we not only gain a sense of the horrible policies we've inflicted on the world (just look at how Sader openly and correctly describes the PSDB's servitude to U.S. policies that have drastically retarded social justice and devlopment in Brazil) but we get a better sense of how other countries work, an understanding that hopefully will lead to better international cooperation not just between the U.S. and Brazil (or other countries), but multiple geopolitical models that different countries can use without having to look to the U.S.

Classy Tourists: Tourism in Thailand after the Coup

This story is great. Tourism to Thailand hasn't suffered much at all since the coup. That's not too surprising--while I imagine things were a little tense for the first few days, it's hardly been dangerous for foreigners, or even Thais, on the streets.

But at the same time, tourists are so stupid sometimes. People think this of Americans. In a lot of ways, they are right. But let's not underestimate the cultural ignorance and stupidity of the rest of the world please. The picture accompaning this story says so much. A smiling white tourist posing between a 2 soldiers while holding up a newspaper declaring the coup. Very culturally sensitive there.

Now I'm glad that the Thai coup has proven non-violent. And it's good for the Thai economy that they are continuing pushing tourism (though not so good for the Thai environment). But I have known enough tourists on my travels in Thailand to know that they are laughing it up, thinking that living through the coup is a big adventure to tell their friends about at home, and not thinking about the quality of life, freedom, or democracy for the Thai people one bit.

St. Louis

I'm in St. Louis until Saturday for the Western History Association conference where I will yet again subject the general public to my work. Apologies to all attendees. I do look forward to writing about this city over the coming days.

John McCain, Worthless Hack

Shorter John McCain, "Like everything else in the world, North Korea is Bill Clinton's fault."

McCain is such a hack. Does he really believe that Clinton's more tolerant policy toward North Korea is the reason they tested a nuclear bomb almost six years after he left office? Could it possibly have more to do with George W. Bush isolating North Korea from the very beginning and undermining the talks between the nations in 2001? Could it have something to do with Bush deciding to play at war in Iraq and ignoring the real problems of the world? Could it have something to do with the fact that Kim Jong Il is a lunatic and just felt like doing this? The answer to all of these questions is yes.

But the easiest answered question is this--Could it be that John McCain is a self-serving fake who would sacrifice whatever is dearest to him to advance his unpricipled political career? The answer to this is overwhelmingly yes.

Film Review--5x2

Francois Ozon’s films have gotten more and more mature as he has aged, and 5x2, released in 2004, shows an artist fully-grown. Seemingly away from some of the more base sex comedy of his younger films, this is his most serious and, often, most heart wrenching of all his films.

5x2 begins in an attorney’s office where a couple is signing divorce papers. They don’t appear to hate one another, but there isn’t enough information to say one way or the other. This is the first of five vignettes that show the degradation of this once loving couple’s relationship. The trick is that the scenes are told in reverse. It doesn’t come off as a senseless gimmick as in Christopher Nolan’s Memento. In Memento, if one tries to watch the scenes in chronological order, the viewer finds a vague and muddled noir that isn’t worth a lot. Because 5x2 is given in five distinct and self-standing scenes that, watched chronologically, give the same story, it takes on a dimension that is more the inverse of a traditional lost love story. Knowing that the finality is not what the couple had initially intended, it allows viewers to get the “surprise” out of the way. There is no twist; the story ends in divorce. However, given the kinds of awful things these two people do to each other, having the ending be just a divorce would not be dramatically satisfactory; there would have to be a murder somewhere. But Gilles (Stephane Freis) doesn’t know that Marion (Valeria Bruni-Tedeschi), on their wedding night when Gilles was a little too drunk to perform, had sex with some Italian guy at the resort only to come back to get in bed with her husband before he wakes in the morning. Marion doesn’t know that Gilles, when there were complications in Marion’s pregnancy such that they had to induce labor very early, decided that it was better to sit down to a nice steak and a glass of wine than to be with his wife when it’s uncertain whether his wife and/or his baby will survive. Because of this, to see the last (first) scene in the film is a complete subversion of how we normally view romance in film. To see the couple, just falling in love and swimming off together before credits roll (sorry for spoiling the ending, but it’s all pretty obvious, considering that you see what happens afterward, that they’re getting together) is chilly instead of heart warming. There is no hope for this love and, given these people, it’s very unlikely that they can love at all.

I was stunned by the amount of feeling that Ozon was able to stuff into 90 minutes (yes, Ozon understands the idea of keeping things short; as an American movie, this would be 150 minutes instead). It is difficult, when people are treating each other so badly, to keep from dismissing the characters as simply awful, much like what is done in a Neil LaBute film. But they really do, when they’re in one another’s presence, seem to have feelings and care about the other, but their personalities and circumstances prevent them from being whole. It becomes, on the whole, a heartbreaking experience, and one that seems likely all too common in everyday life. Ozon, typically, uses song heavily, although they are French pop songs here and, while I can only spuriously understand what the lyrics say, I have a feeling that there is inherent meaning that I’m not getting. The film is dark in its way, but I think that it is, truly, about the tribulation of love. Highly recommended, but maybe not so much to those having relationship trouble; it may open a line of questioning that neither party may be ready for.

The Depressing Nature of History

From a midterm I just gave:

"Everytime I leave this class I feel like drinking. Not because I find it boring but because the content is so depressing."

I suppose there is a way to teach American history that is all happy and fun. But that would be ignoring the intersection of race and violence that I believe is necessary for understanding of American history.

Let's face it, history is depressing. If you want to go talk about how cool Billy the Kid is, well, whatever. But who cares? What would some glorification of Billy the Kid or George Washington or Thomas Edison or whoever really tell us about American history. It is depressing. History is the chronicle of human follies. It's not as if we couldn't make better decisions. But we consistently don't. We didn't have to invade Iraq, but we did. We could have allowed the ship of Jewish children escaping Nazi Germany into the country, but we didn't. We could have enacted real racial equality during the 1960s, but instead we elected Richard Nixon. No one on the blogosphere understands this as well as Axis of Evel Knievel. If you don't read his daily excoriations of human history, you should.

Of course, it is not just about the United States. Let's face it, history is a bummer. On the other hand, there are valuable lessons we can learn. I hate it (and I mean freaking hate it) when my students say that history repeats itself. This is, of course, absurd. But their is real value for modern society in studying history. For me, that comes from figuring out the antecedents for our current problems. Why is this country so racist? Why is it so violent? Why can't we accept abortion as a basic right for women? Why have we worked over the environment like Larry Holmes fighting Gerry Cooney? There are answers and that is what I stress to my students.

Also, it's really nice when students get it. It makes me feel very happy. Even if they want to drink every time they deal with me.

Tuesday Forgotten American Blogging: Minori Yasui

While the basic story of Japanese internment is pretty well-known to many Americans at this point, the details remain hazy. Perhaps the best exhibit in the Smithsonian Museum of American History concerns internment and it is increasingly taught in schools. Even in the 1980s, I was taught about this tragedy in my Oregon school, something no doubt helped by a fairly sizable Japanese population ready to come speak about these things.

But internment is only a small, if extraordinarily important, part of the story of Japanese-Americans. Beginning in the 1880s, Japanese began flooding to the United States. Of course, this date is no coincidence. In 1882, Congress passed the Chinese Exclusion Act, a key strike in the West Coast’s long history of promoting themselves as white country. But western business interests opposed the Chinese Exclusion Act as they lost their supply of cheap labor. So beginning in 1882, they began recruiting in Japan for a new labor supply. The high point of this migration occurred between 1901 and 1907, when almost 110,000 Japanese ventured to the United States to make their fortune and help support their families back home.

<>Part of this group was Masuo Yasui, a young Japanese man following other family members to the United States. In 1908, after four years of working around the Pacific Northwest, Masuo found his way to the small town of Hood River, Oregon, about 60 miles east of Portland. Hood River was a town of about 700 in 1900 but it was growing, particularly because of the excellent fruit orchards reaching toward Mt. Hood from the town.

Masuo Yasui became a leader of the Japanese community in Hood River, serving as a cultural broker between the mostly poor migrants who came to work in the fruit orchards and the whites who didn’t understand these strange new immigrants but needed their labor. He ran a successful store and thought he was accepted by the white community. They came to him at the slightest problem with a member of the Japanese community and he served in many volunteer positions in the town. By 1941, Masuo owned, co-owned, or had interest in close to one thousand acres of orchard land in the valley and was a respected local leader.

He also had a large family. Among Masuo Yasui’s children was Minoru Yasui. Min was determined to take advantage of what the United States offered its brightest and most hard-working people. In 1933, he left Hood River for Eugene where he enrolled at the University of Oregon, one of only 6 nisei among the student body of 6000. He was only 16 at the time and he excelled in Eugene. In 1937, he became only the second Nisei to enroll at the University of Oregon’s law school. There he fought against racism among the faculty to get his degree and pass the bar.

<>On December 7, 1941, Masuo Yasui thought he was a respected citizen of Hood River and Min was working for the Japanese Consulate in Chicago. Within a few days, Masuo Yasui had been taken away by the FBI and sent to its special camp in Santa Fe, New Mexico for people it thought particularly risky. Since Masuo had a lot of money, he was suspected of being a spy. Like the rest of the Japanese-Americans, Masuo and his large family were taken away to concentration camps, despite the fact that the United States had not one shred of evidence that any Japanese living on the West Coast were spies for the Japanese government and despite the fact that Germans and Italians living in the United States received almost no official harassment. Masuo lost his business empire; while he had a few long-standing allies in Hood River, most locals wanted to take the land of someone they ultimately thought didn’t deserve land and prosperity over whites.

Like the rest of the Japanese, Min Yasui was covered by Executive Order 9066, signed by President Franklin Roosevelt on February 19, 1942. Executive Order 9066 empowered the Secretary of War to designate sensitive “military areas” in four western states, including Oregon, and remove and exclude “any and all” Japanese persons from them.

Min could have surrendered. But he was the only practicing Japanese-American attorney in the state of Oregon and he felt he must stand up for his people. So he refused. Min told friends, “It is my belief that no military authority has the right to subject any United States citizen to any requirement that does not equally apply to all other U.S. citizens. If the government curtails the rights of any person, the damage is done not only to that individual but to the whole social structure.”

On March 28, 1942, Yasui told his secretary that he was walking up and down the streets, violating the curfew enforced on the Japanese and that the FBI should pick him up. He was arrested and then upon his release violated every restriction against his people that he could. On June 12, 1942, Minori Yasui went to court. The federal government saw his case as a way to validate its policies toward the Japanese. He was found guilty because the judge declared him not a citizen and sentenced to a year in prison. This despite the fact that he was born in the United States. He then spent 9 months in solitary confinement before being sent to the Minidoka camp in Idaho. Yasui appealed to the Supreme Court. Like the more famous Fred Korematsu, he lost his case. He didn’t spend a real long time at Minidoka. He was given an early release and settled in Denver.

Min Yasui could have stopped his fight there. But outraged at the treatment of his people, he spent the rest of his life lobbying for an official apology from the United States government to the Japanese-Americans. Much of his family returned to Oregon, where the American Legion and other racist elements tried to force the Japanese out. But Min stayed in Denver, becoming a leader of the Japanese-American community there. He spent many years working for the Japanese American Citizenship League (JACL) but worked to overturn the 1943 Supreme Court decision denying him his freedom. On January 16, 1984, the case of United States v. Minoru Yasui reopened in Portland. He told Judge Robert C. Belloni, “It is true that I am but an insignificant individual. But this case does not involve just me as a person, nor does it involve just Japanese Americans. It involves Americans, all Americans, who believe in the dream of equality and freedom and justice.” While Belloni vacated Min’s conviction, he refused to consider allegations of government misconduct. Soon after this, Minoru Yasui died of cancer at the age of 70. He did not live long enough to see Ronald Reagan sign into law the Civil Liberties Act of 1988 which called for the government to issue individual apologies for all violation of civil liberties and constitutional rights, and providing $20,000 to each survivor of the concentration camps. Typically, Reagan refused to condemn the actions of the government during the war.

As for Masuo Yasui, he never recovered from the humiliation he received during the war. His land and investments were gone. By the 1950s, he became increasingly despondent and on May 11, 1957 committed suicide in the basement of his home. For this traditional Japanese man, taking his own life vindicated his shame. Chalk another death up to the policies of the United States government.

While Masuo Yasui is an excellent example of what happened to the Japanese of the United States after 1941, Minoru Yasui is a true American hero. He stood up for what was right, not just for his people but for the principles of all Americans. He believed in freedom and justice at a time, when like so often in American history, the government paid only lip service to these principles.

For further reading, see Lauren Kessler, Stubborn Twig: Three Generations in the Life of a Japanese American Family, a book I was fortunate enough to review recently for Journal of the West.

It's 2006. Why Are We Having This Conversation?

One of the top stories on CNN--Scarlett Johansson says she's not promiscious.

Who cares? Why does it matter? Because of course it matters to a lot of people. As a society, we seem completely uncomfortable with female sexuality. Even male sexuality is something that remains behind the locker room door. We've supposedly had a sexual revolution and maybe that's true. But mentally, the nation is still deeply affected by its puritanical past. It's like the nation is salivating over Johansson sleeping around, but it has to put up a front like it is horrified she would do so.

Regardless, her saying she doesn't means nothing. It's like the classic Edward R. Murrow interview with Liberace when he asks when there will be a Mrs. Liberace. It's all a game. But why should she have to play that game? Why can't she just say, "I like sex and I explore my sexuality with different people." The answer is obvious--the nation would turn on her and her box office appeal would suffer.

But we are such a mentally and emotionally immature nation. I can't believe it is 2006 and we are having this conversation.

Viva Nuevo Mexico (IX)

It's been a long time since a Viva Nuevo Mexico post. Well over a year in fact. But this is so classic New Mexico that the short newspaper story must be cited in full.

7:05am -- Police Say Cops Were Served Pot

Written by Bruce Daniels - ABQnewsSeeker

Monday, 09 October 2006

Three Los Lunas fast-food workers arrested late Sunday. Two Isleta Pueblo police officers got more than they bargained for at a Burger King restaurant in Los Lunas late Sunday when they were allegedly served marijuana cooked with their hamburgers, KOAT-TV is reporting. "They consumed about half the hamburgers each before they found that there was something in the food," Los Lunas police Lt. Joe Sanchez told Action 7 News. The officers ran a field test on the uneaten part of the hamburgers and it came back positive for marijuana, the station reported. Los Lunas police were called, and three restaurant employees were arrested and charged with aggravated battery on a police officer as well as marijuana possession.

God bless New Mexico.

Screw Duncan Hunter: Deer and the Channel Islands

Duncan Hunter is among the worst members of Congress. This story of how he managed to derail National Park Service plans to eliminate non-native deer from the Channel Islands is classic.

Hunter has no say over the Park Service--his purview is defense. He managed to get an amendment in the military budget to ban the extermination of these deer. Why? It's hard to say exactly. My guess is that he wants to keep them open for his hunter friends who are also big campaign contributors. He's come up with some really loony excuses--his idea to make the park's deer hunting accessible for wounded veterans seems particularly nutty.

This has always been the problem with the way Congress operates. Hunter is so powerful that he can drive important policy without any knowing. Had the Times not covered this, it probably would have disappeared into the white noise without anyone noticing.

Why does it matter? The deer are non-native. Native ecosystems in California are almost completely gone. The Channel Islands are particularly sensitive. So long as the deer are on the land, the native oaks won't grow back. It's that simple. Now as a nation, I'm not sure that enough people care about these issues. Perhaps environmentalists have not made the argument that these things matter strongly enough. But flat out, these deer do not belong here. It's not as if deer are rare in the United States. But these deer are particularly sizable and rich hunters, more than a few of whom happen to be large contributors to the Republican Party, want to hunt them.

Particularly infuriating to this environmental historian is the argument made by one pro-hunting person who says, “The reality is, any kind of ecosystem evolves.” Funny, isn't it. The Republican Party will use Darwinism and evolution when it is convienent for them. They'll use Social Darwinism to justify their social and economic policies. They'll make something up about how nature works when it fits their anti-environmental purposes. But God forbid, people actually teach Darwinism in the schools so that people know what in the hell it is.

Plus, this argument is such a cop-out. Yes, ecosystems evolve. But with this logic, humans can do whatever they want to the Earth since it is just part of the natural evolution of things. This reminds me of the argument anti-environmentalists right-wingers often use out of the Book of Genesis, where God gives mankind free reign to dominate the Earth. This is a hopeless misunderstanding of this text, but it serves present right-wing political purposes. So does this kind of horrible mangling of evolution.

So I'd like to thank Duncan Hunter personally for such fine leadership on this issue. A real shining light of this wonderful Congress.

Waste

Steve gets the link of the day award for his discussion of waste. Now Steve is a lot smarter than I am. I don't dare claim to be able to write in such a philosophical way about these things. I will only say that on principle, I think waste is a terrible thing.

I find one of his examples particularly interesting. He asks if a vegetarian is served meat, should they eat it? I am a vegetarian. I say that yes, if the meat is already in front of you and nothing else can be done with it, that I would eat it. In fact, I have done so many times. I prefer not to of course. But the animal is dead. It seems like more of a tragedy to throw it away than to consume it. Either way, the animal has been slaughtered. Of course, there are many reasons to not eat meat. If I did so strictly for health reasons about how the meat is processed, then I guess I wouldn't eat it.

In any case, it is an interesting question. And if I am not really a vegetarian because of this, I can live with it.

Morocco Blogging; or, The World Does Seem to Slowly Get Better

Since I haven't had a Morocco post in awhile, or in fact, never, I thought I'd link to this post about the first female to ever get nominated as a governor there.

Although it's hard to remain optimistic about the world if you pay attention to the news, I have to believe that very, very slowly, the world is getting better. For all the negative, little events and milestones like this are actually huge. I'm sure there are some outraged fundamentalists in Morocco but the fact that she has been nominated really is a pretty big deal.

Via Global Voices Online

Of course, you could also say that the world is getting worse with North Korea testing a nuclear bomb but I prefer to remain blindly optimistic.

NCAA Top 25, Week 7

If Oregon had to lay an egg, I'm glad it was the same day the Yankees lost. At least the day was still good. But Cal kicked the living hell out of them.

On a brighter note, it is nice to have a Top 25 with neither Florida St. or Miami.

1. Ohio St.

2. West Virginia

3. Florida--really took LSU to the woodshed. Very good team.

4. Michigan

5. USC--They keep pulling them out against the poorer Pac-10 teams. They are lucky they don't have Oregon or Cal until November.

6. Louisville--I don't know that this team is really the 6th best team in the country but they keep winning and winning nicely.

7. Texas--moving back into national championship contention. I wouldn't be too surprised to see them drop one at some point but they hammered Oklahoma.

8. Tennessee--What they did to Georgia was extremely impressive. Too bad they can never beat Florida when it counts.

9. California--Stupid Tedford and his stupid Bears.

10. Notre Dame--Everyone always says, oooh, what a tough schedule. Give me a break. They have one halfway challenging team on the rest of the schedule.

11. Georgia Tech--Nice comeback against Maryland. The kind of win really good teams get.

12. Auburn--This is still a good team but they played a very bad game.

13. Virginia Tech

14. Boise St.--I don't see how this team doesn't rise very high by the end of the year.

15. Missouri--I really like this team a lot. A very impressive win.

16. Clemson--Nice comeback win over Wake Forest

17. Oregon

18. Iowa

19. LSU

20. Arkansas. Beautiful win over Auburn

21. Oklahoma--Normally I would always root for Oklahoma against Texas. But if Oklahoma had gone undefeated after the Oregon loss, we never would have heard the end of the referee thing.

22. Georgia

23. Nebraska

24. Boston College

25. Rutgers. I can't believe I am putting Rutgers in my Top 25. I keep trying to resist but what can I do? They keep winning.

Close--UCLA, Wisconsin, Florida St., Washington, Pittsburgh

A Letter to Bill O'Reilly

Dear Bill,

I know that you are a jerk. In fact, I know you have always been a jerk. I know someone you went to high school with. He told me that you were a big bully--the type of guy who would steal a weak kid's lunch money just for the hell of it.

So I shouldn't be surprised at your duplictious actions on your show when you showed a graphic labeling Mark Foley as a Democrat. You and your ilk can try to taint the Democrats with this scandal all you want, but you know damn well that Foley and the Republicans in Congress are the ones who are at fault here. However, I do wonder how you can sleep at night? I would ask the classic question about you having any decency at all, but we all know that you do not.

You truly are a despicable person. You have no morals at all. All you have is a Father Coughlin fantasy to bully people into a proto-fascist state. Please go away.

Love,
Erik

Film Review: Solo Dios Sabe

During the recent Rio film festival, I had the chance to see theMexican production "Solo Dios Sabe" ("Só Deus Sabe" in Portuguese), just released. It focuses on Brazilian Dolores, a non-religious teacher in the U.S. who loses her passport on a weekend trip to Tijuana who, through chance occurrences, meets and falls in love with fiercely-Catholic and "superstitious" (to Dolores) Damián (Diego Luna of "Y tu Mama Tambien"). The film then follows these two through Mexico while Dolores tries to get a new passport to return to the States. However, the proverbial "fate" intervenes, leading Dolores to return to Brazil and leading Dolores and Diego down a path of religious exploration and love.

The film was a good yet extremely frustrating work, whose problems can be boiled down to its inability to focus on a narrative. For the first 45 minutes of the movie, we are treated to a road-trip film, while Dolores and Damián travel from Tijuana to Mexico City, seeing the desert, the religious ceremonies of small villages, and numerous other things in Northern and Central Mexico. As a road-trip genre, they get to know more about each other and life, and as far as road-trip movies go, it's well written. Even once they arrive in Mexico City, we are still interested, as their relationship develops.

However, after the first hour, in which we focused on their relationship, it's as if we are watching another movie. Dolores returns to Brazil upon the death of her beloved-grandmother, furious at Damián (for reasons that I prefer not to give away). Damiãn goes after her, while she embarks upon a religious journey into the world of Candomblé (a syncretic relgigion in Brazil that combines elements of Catholicism, African religious practices and beliefs, and indigenous worldviews). We watch Dolores and Damián build a life together as Dolores explores this new religious change that has come over her, leading to a fate that neither enjoys but the reasons behind which "Only God Knows" (hence the name of the film).

While the film was shot well, it is too hodgepodge. It is clear that the writer of the screenplay were trying to parallel the road trip of the first part of the film with Dolores's spiritual journey of the second part of the film, but there's never a seemless transition. Rather, it is like watching two one-hour movies about people who happen to be in the same film. Particularly egregious is the writing of the film. While there isn't any particular dialogue (which, indeed, is often quite witty), it is clear writer-director Carlos Bolado and his co-writer, Diane Weipert, lost sight of who the characters were. While in the first part Dolores is a strong, fiery woman who is open to learning about the world, she suddenly becomes passive, acquiescent, and quite simply, boring, in the second half. It is as if Bolardo stopped directing star Alice Bragga in the second half and said, "just act like you're at peace with the world". Certainly, the performance is not Bragga's fault - she does what she can with such a role. The roles and performances of Luna and Dolores's mother, Renata (played excellently by Renata Zhaneta) are far better, and we get a far better glimpse into Luna's character development than Bragga's. It is as if Bolado simply did not know what to do with Bragga overall.

The movie is still interesting, for providing an excellent (and accurate) portrayal of tha practices of candomblé, which are unique and will seem quite exotic to many North Americans. Likewise, the scenery of the Mexican countryside contrasted with the Brazilian metropoli (specifically São Paulo, but also Rio de Janeiro) provide remarkable contrasts and the opportunity for analysis of space and place. However, the plot is weak, and one wishes that Bolado had allowed Dolores to continue to be a strong woman, and had worked harder to make the parallels between the physical journey through Mexico and the spiritual journey in Brazil work better.

A Safer, Gentler World

The Yankees lost, again. So simple. So delightful. Like the world is a brighter place. (and the "fire Torre" rumors have begun again, as we all wait, hopeful). And in the midst of losing the series 3-1, the Yankees were shut out for 20 straight innings. That's right folks. 20 straight innings, no runs. Which leads me to the following parting shot to a particularYankee...

...way to come up with the "big hit", Giambi - you sure came through for your teammates like you demand they come through for you.

And to the rest of the Yankees.....

ENJOY THE REST OF YOUR OCTOBER!!!!!

(and while I route for the Tigers, doesnt the thought of New York City celebrating a World Series where the Yankees fans can't brag sound a little nice? But still...go tigers!)

Evil Vanquished

Yankees lose! Yankees lose! The world is great! What a wonderful day!

Scott Kleeb: My Kind of Democrat

I love this story about Nebraska Democratic House candidate Scott Kleeb. Kleeb is actually making a run at winning the race. Kleeb has a PhD from Yale. So you might be wondering how a Ph.D. from Yale could be threatening to win a Nebraska house race.

Part of it is that he is a bullrider. This is another way to say that he is crazier than hell. Seriously, is there anyone crazier than bullriders? I don't think so. Bull riding is defying death at every turn.

We need more very smart, very committed, and very intense Democrats who are just crazy enough to think they can win in rural Nebraska. Go Scott Kleeb!

Sex and Violence in the Movies

Scott points us to this useful article by Amanda on sex and violence in the movies as it relates to the new documentary about the MPAA, This Film Has Not Been Rated. Basically it comes down to this:

You can do whatever you want to a woman in a movie so long as sex is not involved. You can cut her up. You can run a chainsaw through her. You can shoot her in the head and we can watch her brains ooze onto the floor. You can run her through a garbage disposal. You can bury her alive.

But you can't watch her have an orgasm.

There are a lot of things about American culture that offend me. But is anything as offensive as this? Why do we value violence over sex. Sex does not necessarily always equal joy but it sure is a lot more positive than violence of just about any kind. Why can't a movie where people have sex on screen have the same rating as one where people get killed? In fact, why shouldn't get a less restrictive rating.

On this note, I am looking forward to seeing John Cameron Mitchell's new film Shortbus. This seems to be a film where graphic sex on film is something portrayed as positive and good. What non-pornographic films that have used graphic sex over the past several years have mostly been depressing or pointless. The films of Lars Von Trier, Vincent Gallo, and Catherine Breillat rarely if ever show sex as fun. It's either masochistic or traumatic. Even in Breillat's films, you never get the feeling that people are having fun. Anatomy of Hell may show a woman fucking a gay man while having her period, but no one is having fun. There's a hell of a lot more crying in the film than laughing. Of course, Shortbus is being released without a rating. If only he would show a woman being split from head to toe by a sword, he might get a PG-13.

Lyrad's Random 10

1. Ludwig van Beethoven--Bagatelle in a for Piano ("Fur Elise")
2. Stevie Wonder--Summer Soft
3. The Pixies--Something Against You
4. Ed Reavy--The Letterkenny Blacksmith
5. Franz Liszt--Gloria (Messe Choralis)
6. State Street Ramblers--Tell Me, Cutie
7. Nassima--B'Taihi (Arabo-Andalusian Traditional)
8. Tirana Folk Ensemble--Instrumentale Me Motive Tirane (Albanian Traditional)
9. Ween--I Saw Gener Cryin' in His Sleep
10. Bill Frisell--That Was Then

Let's Play Poor Migrant!

Perhaps some of you have already heard about this, but I was shocked to find out about the Mexican nature park that is offering tourists mock-border crossing experiences. To me, this feels about the same as white Americans going on a tour pretending to be slaves. It's a bunch of rich urban Mexicans playing at being poor migrants. Using such slogans as "Cross the Border as an Extreme Sport!", the rich get to understand what it's like to be poor and desperate. Or at least they think they do. Some of the people quoted in this story claim it helped them emphatize with immigrants, others just said it was fun. I find it more than a little disturbing.

Mister Trend's Random 10

One of my favorite song titles (the Hives), one of the longest, and blues this week.

1. John Lee Hooker - "John L's House Rent Boogie"
2. White Stripes - "We're Going to Be Friends"
3. The Beatles - "Here, There, and Everywhere"
4. Blind Willie McTell - "Murderer's Home Blues"
5. Gal Costa - "Relance"
6. Sufjan Stevens - "The Black Hawk War, or, How to Demolish an Entire Cvilization and Still Feel Good about Yourself in the Morning, or, We Apologize for the Inconvenience but You're Going to Have to Leave Now, Or..."
7. Coldplay - "Yellow (live)"
8. Primus - "The Pressman"
9. Shonen Knife - "Parallel Woman"
10. The Hives - "Abra Cadaver"

A Message to Democrats: Run on Soldiers' Rights

Democracy Arsenal points us to this story on Congress slashing funding for brain-damaged veterans.

The Republican Party runs on a pro-soldier platform all the time, but they don't actually care about soldiers. They wrap themselves in the flag and think that is all they have to do. But that's not right.

I have thought for several years now, probably since at least 2003, that Democrats should run campaigns based around soldiers' rights. Why is it that soldiers have to buy their own uniforms? Why do they have to pay for their own meals when they are wounded? Why does Congress routinely slash the budget for Veterans' Affairs? Why is the nation completely unprepared for soldiers returning home while dealing with Post-Traumatic Stress Syndrome? And now, why does Congres slash funding for brain-damaged veterans?

Why doesn't every Democrat who votes against these cuts go on the attack against Republicans (or anyone) who votes for them? Is it because as a nation, we don't actually want to think about the casualties of war? We don't want to sacrifice our tax cuts to treat soldiers right? Maybe. But I have to think that any attack on politicians who vote to cut soldiers and veteran benefits is likely to be effective. And I just cannot understand why Democrats don't make this a central part of their campaigns.

Meanwhile, the US has only had 23 soldiers killed in Iraq since the first of the month.

Erik's Random 10

1. Radiohead, You And Whose Army?
2. Tony Rice, Old Train
3. The Gourds, Turd in My Pocket
4. Crazy Backwards Alphabet, Secret of the Telegian
5. Tim Souster, Sonata (for cello, piano, seven wind instruments, and percussion)
6. Dry Branch Fire Squad, We Believe in Happy Endings
7. Hank Williams, Lovesick Blues
8. Bill Frisell, The End of the World
9. Tom Russell, Bacon Rind, Chief Seattle, The Ballad of Ira Hayes
10. Frank Zappa, Wait A Minute

Rhetoric, Sophistry and Bad Argument; or, Confederate Yankee in a Nutshell

I've found the aftermath of Erik's illustrious award ceremony outrageously amusing if, sometimes, a little frustrating. With the bannings, the trolling, and all the harsh words, what I've found from those supporting Confederate Yankee, as well as the man himself, is a group of fools wrapped in intellectual clothing, doing their best to sound bright through bland, banal sophistry and half-assed arguments. You can't blame any of them; those they disciple have taught them how to prove their points. For me, ignorance is an unfaultable offense, but those who argue through their ignorance deserve the services of correction and understanding. So, to CY and all your buddies, this is for you.

I have little interest in baiting people into arguments that will undoubtedly go nowhere, so I'm going to stick with what is presented on this nice man's blog. Let's briefly look at the site itself.

First, the name. CY attempts to diffuse accusations of what his name implies. Does this name imply that he supports slavery? It can, but I have a hard time believing that CY actually does support such a policy (at least insofar as it's not at all socially acceptable to speak of this). That said, if I started a blog called "Concentration Camp Lover," I could well mean that I fully support summer programs to help ADD kids find ways to cope with their learning issues. I could say it's a play on words (as Bri defended CY's name on 10/3/06 in the comments of a post from Erik) even though the site banner shows a Nazi flag (similarly to CY's banner which is a barely hidden Dixie flag). If CY doesn't believe in the tacits of the Confederacy, he would do well to rethink his presentation.

Now, let's look at how he presents himself. Here you can find exactly what CY thinks about himself and his blog. Firstly, he addresses the name. The first two arguments come down to the conglomeration of the circumstances that have brought him to where he is today. Perfectly reasonable, although neither explains the Stars and Bars in the banner. The third is the play on words argument in which he states that he is a Twain fan and "is a subconscious nod to one of my favorite Twain stories, A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court." I love Twain myself, and he was one of the first people I ever read that taught me the principles of irony and satire. Given that you're such a fan, you've undoubtedly read The Man that Corrupted Hadleyburg, one of my own personal Twain favorites. In it (in the event you haven't read the story, it is online here), a man comes to the sleepy, poor town of Hadleyburg with the promise of a huge cash sum for the protection of a treasure. This promise awakens the fear and greed of the townspeople and turns them against one another. It seems unfortunate that you don't see the same thing happening to you by the party policies you support and, more unfortunate that your disciples don't realize that you are doing it to them. Finally, on this note, CY proceeds to bolster his intellectual ego by 1) stating that "...people who can't compete with me in intellectual arguments often resort to ad hominem assaults against my character...." which implies both that he has intellectual (as opposed to emotional) arguments and character, 2) lists the jobs he has had, which are of varying kind and show him as a man of all seasons, and 3) brags that he was interviewed by the Washington Post and subsequently guest-blogged for them over four consecutive days. Congratulations go out to you, my friend; you have succeeded in what many of us have experienced here and there; that is, having an opportunity fall into your lap and taking advantage of it. No doubt this fact has increased your readership ten-fold.

All of this is circumstantial, however, as I don't know CY, nor can I know how intelligent he really is. All I can base my opinions on is the actual words he writes. So, let's have a little looky, shall we? In his post "...Not As They Do", CY appears to condemn "two conservative bloggers" for outing the reprehensible situation with Mark Foley (I will only mention in passing that he later in the afternoon wrote that this was all an elaborate prank, sourcing Matt Drudge who credits nothing or nobody to substantiate his claims), but then goes on to confuse the issue with two examples of Liberals doing their best to keep Democratic perverts in office. He uses two examples.

The first is the case of Mel Reynolds who, after serving Illinois in Congress from 1992 to 1995, was indicted in 1994 of having sex with a 16 year old campaign volunteer. Instead of bowing out in light of the accusations, which he tried to fight, he went on to, unfortunately, win the election and, later that year, was convicted on counts of sexual assault, child pornography and obstruction of justice. He was sentenced to five years in prison but, near the eve of his release, he (along with his wife) was indicted on counts of bank fraud. He was subsequently sentenced to an additional 6 1/2 years in prison. When criminals are sentenced for multiple crimes at different times, the sentences are served consecutively. Reynolds served the entirety of the sexual assault sentence, as well as almost four years of the fraud charges, when Clinton commuted the remainder of the fraud sentence. He never was, nor will he ever be, exonerated for the sex charges.

The second is the case of Gerry Studds, representative of Massachusetts from 1973-1997. In 1983, it was revealed that Studds had a consensual sexual relationship with a male intern, who was 17 at the time which was, technically, the age of consent and so, in no way, illegal (though, don't get me wrong, there is nothing ethical or right about this situation). He was censured by Congress but voters decided that he belonged in office, despite the scandal, and served out an additional 14 years before retiring, but only after making great strides in gay rights. CY's contention is that Stubbs "refused to apologize" for his actions. I have no interest in justifying what Studds did, except to say that he admitted his actions. However, if he broke no law and didn't believe what he did was wrong, what point is there in an apology. Would a heartwarming "Sorry..." have kept conservatives from bringing the issue up when it was convenient? I have a hard time believing that.

CY, you finish your post by saying "Perhaps I could find Judd's outrage just a little more sincere if his party didn't have a track record of electing and re-electing the known sexual predators in their midst." My friend, it is sad that you don't see the contradiction in your statements. When Clinton accepts a bj from Lewinsky; when Reynolds has sex with a 16 year old; when Studds has a sexual relationship with an intern, it is an ethical issue. But, when Foley acts similarly (and no less reprehensibly), it is a political issue. You do not condone Foley's actions. For that, you deserve respect. You do, however, undermine your own point by bringing the past actions of certain select Democrats into the fray. This has nothing to do with the party Foley belongs to (although Fox News will say differently, trying to diffuse the heat against Republicans by changing Foley to a Democrat on their broadcast), it has to do with the reprehensibility of people, regardless of party, who use their powers to manipulate those weaker than them.

Sadly, your readers are less interested in clicking your links and following the trains of thought to the base arguments, and more interested in expounding the "truthiness" (thank you, Stephen Colbert, for the brilliant term) of your statements. I don't defame or challenge your intellectual rigor, CY, the facts do. I'm sorry I have to be the one to point this out to you after all this time.

Kauffmann on Franken

I think Stanley Kauffmann gets it right in his review of the new Al Franken movie:

"Franken's facile assumptions are not much help to the liberal cause, and, second, that he preaches to the choir.... no one but an already convinced liberal could want to hear Franken."

I used to like Franken a lot. His attacks on Bill O'Reilly were fresh at the time; or more specifically, O'Reilly's threats to sue Franken yet again exposed what an asshole O'Reilly is. His books are all right too, sometimes funny, sometimes pedantic. But I think he peaked in about 2002. I find his radio show on Air America pretty intolerable. I don't like being part of the choir being reached to. He's not really funny anymore and for a guy as smart as he is, he doesn't really think very deeply about political problems.

I have a theory that when certain people leave the liberal movement and become wingnuts, it's like losing weight--we are more healthy and feel better. The Neocons are a good example of this, as is Christopher Hitchens. Al Franken is not like this. But he's hardly the most nutritious political food we can eat either.

The Border Fence: An Environmental Disaster

Sadly, the Congress has passed and President Bush has signed the bill providing the worthless 700 mile border fence between the United States and Mexico. Mexican President Vicente Fox, hardly a man I agree with very often, has compared it to the Berlin Wall, which it is. From a political perspective, this is probably a good thing--it's a very visceral reminder to Latinos what the Republican Party thinks of them.

My own concern is for the environmental disaster the fence will entail. Much of the US-Mexico border region is made up of environmentally sensitive areas. Many animals have been persecuted to near extinction in Mexico but a few have crossed the border into the far southern US--the jaguar is one important example. Obviously, this won't affect birds, but it will effect mammals. Cutting off already isolated population pockets is a real good way to drive more species into extinction. South Texas conservationists are concerned about what it will do to restoration projects on the Rio Grande.

The fence will also get wrapped up in international treaties over water issues. Frankly, if push comes to shove I think the US will continue their 160 year old tradition of stealing Rio Grande water from Mexico, but this is far from settled. The fence will slice apart the last wild areas south of San Diego and make animal migration virtually impossible in southeast Texas. Plus, there's a lot of evidence that locals, including Republicans don't want the fence. As one Texas Republican activist put it, ""A wall is just going to stand between farmers and ranchers and others who need legitimate access to water."

Of course Our Lady of Waterboarding Michelle Malkin finds the environmentalist outrage over this laughable.

Music Review: "The Crane Wife" by the Decemberists

Music Review: “The Crane Wife,” the Decemberists

Despite my inability to actually buy the CD itself here in Brazil, I’ve still managed to get it thanks to the modern wonders of the world we live in. Many others will make a big deal of how it’s loosely based around some Japanese folk tale that’s lame enough I don’t know it. I will not.

Instead, I’ll make a big deal out of how outstanding this album is. While some in the “Indie” (whatever that is) community may lament the effects of the Decembrists jumping to a major label, such a jump has not killed their sound, or even remotely altered it. All it has done is taught them to be more restrained. Earlier albums occasionally had the sense that their intention was to show how unique and “indie” the Decemberists were. Not here, though. The accordion, Hurdygurdy, Wurlitzer (which is far too under-employed in the music world), Dulcimer, and Bouzouki (yes, Bouzouki) remain, but the song structures and the melodies and countermelodies and harmonies are outstanding. The lilting opening of opening track "Crane Wife 3" provides a sweetness few albums have, and even though the lyrics don’t make much sense on their own (being part of the broader meta-narrative of the Crane Wife story), they have a sincerity few artists ever achieve. "The Perfect Crime" marks another masterful example of how to be catchy and melodic without being simple or boring. The music is at the same time simple and complex, weaving in and out with frontman Colin Melloy’s and Jenny Conlee's and Laura Viers's voices. The epic 11-minute "The Island-Come & See/The Landlord's Daughter/You'll Not Feel the Drowning," despite the lengthy title, never has a sense of pretentiousness, as though Melloy and company know exactly the story they are telling, and are expressly interested in telling it, never wasting time with unnecessary musical or vocal interludes. By the time the somewhat-bombastic (by the album’s standards) “When the War Came” arrives, it’s a bit of a shock, with its cacophonous (again, by the Decemberists’ standards) clanging, but with the story guiding the music, it works perfectly. The final four tracks of the album provide a perfect melodic, beautiful comedown, and by the time we reach the end of the album, we’ve musically been subjected to some of the finest-crafted and finely-tuned songs on any album, “indie” or otherwise, this year.

Additionally, Melloy’s mastery of his voice shows a marked growth. I don’t know if this was the producer’s decision, or Melloy’s, but it adds greatly to the album. While generally I’ve enjoyed the Decemberists previous three albums, it’s always been with some qualms. Most notably, Melloy can overdo it a bit on his nasally, baritone style of singing (particularly, but not strictly, on “The Chimbley Sweep” on 2004’s “Her Majesty, The Decemberists”). Not on this album, however. He masterfully uses the vocal cords God gave him to craft fine melodious tunes, countered perfectly by fellow bandmember Conlee's and Viers's lilting harmonics. He no longer seems interested in showing the world how interesting his voice is in and of itself, and instead is interested in showing the world how well he can use it.

Rating: 5.5 [out of 6] Square Glasses.

Mister Trend's Music Ratings System

As we all know, any music reviewer of any worth (and many worthless reviewers) has some system of evaluating music compared beyond mere words). Generally, they run the range of X out of 10, or X stars out of five, or a letter grade. Some are more innovative (an anonymous reviewer masterfully employs the “NUGE” system, named after Ted Nugent, in which, from best to worst, there’s N [buy it New], U [buy it Used], G [take it as a Gift], and E [Evil]). I’ve been debating whether or not to proceed with this for awhile, and so I figure, what the heck.

So Mister Trend is proud to introduce his new music ratings system: the square glasses.

As any music lover knows, those who are truly hip and cool wear square glasses to show how ironic and casually cool they are. These people, generally known as “hipsters” do not exist only in the U.S. At a killer dance club last week that actually plays GOOD music, Mister Trend saw many a set of square glasses, taking pride knowing that his mere presence had invoked new levels of coolness in these folks. While I myself do not wear square glasses (being Mister Trend, I’ve already anticipated the next wave of “cool”), it seems only fair to grade music based on square glasses. Thus, from now on, I will grade on a scale of 6 pairs of square glasses, with the following equivalents:

1 pair of square glasses: so bad it hurts
2 pairs of square glasses: totally lame and not worth talking about at all
3 pairs of square glasses: not to bad, and if others criticize you, you can claim to like it “ironically”
4 pairs of square glasses: pretty good
5 pairs of square glasses: outstanding cool and well done
6 pairs of square glasses: those who don’t “get it” hate music – it will still sound edgy 25 years from now

So there it is, hipsters and hipsterettes. Stay tuned for the Square Glasses system.

Downsides of being out of the country (I): Buying music

Since I’ve been doing a series of posts on nice things about not being in the states, it only seems fair to write about some of the things I miss here and there. And one of the most important things in my life that I miss is buying music. It’s not to say Brazil doesn’t have a booming music industry of its own, and they certainly get a lot of major (and even a suprising number of minor) titles. However, as some of you may have noticed, I’m Mister Trend – my music tastes generally exceed what would be and is shipped abroad. Thus, there are some CDs I’d hoped to grab that may not arrive here for awhile, such as the new Beck album, and there are others that I doubt will ever get here, such as the new Decemberists album (see above post). Certainly, I have digital means of getting these and the numerous albums I’d hoped to have that are released while I’m out of the U.S., but the sensation of downloading isn’t the same as buying a CD, and I can’t support the artists who are deserving of my oh-so-trendy money. So for those of you in the U.S. who can go out and by the new album by some band nobody’s ever heard of….I envy you.

Confederate Yankee, Blogging Coward

My good friend Confederate Yankee has developed a new strategy for dealing with D and myself attacking him and his Attilaesque ideas. He's just deleting comments. That's fine if he wants to prove himself a coward. I mean it's fitting after all--his KKK friends cover themselves in robes and hoods to avoid any kind of challenge too. I guess I'll just have to resort to ridiculing him on my own blog.

Unlike CY though, I am not hiding under the cover of white hoods and the darkness of night, I mean deleting comments. The fascists can attack me all they want on my blog. I won't delete you (spammers not included).

Confederate Yankee--as cowardly as a bunch of men in hoods lynching a black man to protect their beloved white womanhood.

Meanwhile, he continues to blame Mark Foley on the "gay-baiting left." Yeah, nothing says gay-baiting like the left. Also, black is now white and the Tampa Bay Devil Rays are in the baseball playoffs.

R.W. Apple, R.I.P.

I am saddened by the passing of the New York Times writer R.W. Apple. I know Apple made differences in journalism and American political life but I don't know him for this. I know him for his superb food columns he wrote over the last several years for the Times. A couple of years ago he made a giant trip around Asia, eating and writing and eating some more. He even went to places like Laos, certainly out of the way for a food snob, which he was not. Apple represented the very best of food writing--a total love for eating without being snobbish about it. The man simply loved food and loved writing about it. He was such a good writer that by the end of his Asian columns I could tell who was writing within the first two sentences. Here's his last column. Perhaps not his best but it does convey the love of world food he had. Hell, he even loved Swedish food and that is not for the faint of heart.

R.W. Apple, let's hope that you're eating at the big world buffet in the sky.

Benefits of being out of the country (III): Magazines

While wandering through Rio’s metro this week, I noticed a Newsweek (in English) talking about Afghanistan. While I didn’t have a chance to actually read it, it was clear from the phrasing and the photo that this was basically a story showing how we’ve failed to do anything productive in Afghanistan in terms of the Taliban (some of you might remember them – they, and not Iraq, were the government that sponsored bin Laden and killed women as the “halftime show” at soccer games). At any rate, I was quite pleased to see the mainstream media actually offering the chance (though again, I couldn’t confirm it) to really criticize the horrible decisions of the Bush administration.

Then, thanks to my friends at M-Pyre, I learned that America apparently doesn’t get to hear from mainstream media how potentially disastrous the unnecessary focus on and presence in Iraq may be in terms of the Taliban. Why not? Because, as Maggie excellently points out, Annie Liebovitz is far more interesting than geopolitics.

Remarkable in all this is the fact that the rest of the world knows how bad America’s screwed up things in the Middle East – it’s Americans who voted for Bush in 2004 (and maybe 2000) who need to see just what the impacts of their votes in 2004 will have on America for a long time…

…unfortunately, as is almost always the case, I guess they’ll remain unedcated.

But that Annie Liebovitz…..what an artiste!

Chinese Rose Production

It's a little over a week old now, but I found this story of the rapid expansion of the rose industry in China quite interesting.

Most of us have bought flowers before for someone we care about. But like most everything else we buy, we don't think about where it comes from. Roses are an industrial product like plastics, chemicals, and machines. They go through an industrial process to be made, they create intense environmental changes, and they burn up fossil fuels to get here.

Right now, world flower production is centered in South America, East Africa, and Southeast Asia. The superb film Maria Full of Grace has its main character work in a flower production plant in Colombia. But perhaps the labor costs in Colombia, Ecuador, and Kenya are too high for American consumers, who want cheap flowers in large quantities and don't care about the consequences.

China is poised to become the next rose power. From China's perspective, I guess I can see why they are interested. Right now, the massive expansion of China's economy is centered on the coast and the amazing income inequality has caused instability within the regime. By centering rose production in Yunnan and other inland provinces, China gives those people a reason to continue buying into the regime. They are also targeting areas with large Muslim populations as a way to forestall the rise of fundamentalism. I actually agree with this last point--giving people a reason not to turn to fanatics is the first step in defeating them. Sadly, the US would prefer just bombing them. And we have all seen how effective that strategy has been.

Workers get a whole $25 a month for this, often less than the cost of buying a dozen roses, though no doubt the Chinese flooding the market will lower these prices for us.

The Dangers of Teaching, Part 6: Conniving Students

Last night, I handed back papers. This student who I had rarely saw asked where her paper was. What students don't realize is that this is a red flag. While theoretically, a professor might lose a paper, this has never happened to me or anyone else that I know of. I could see losing a whole stack of papers but not one. Chances are remote that will ever happen.

I, wanting to get rid of her until I could check my gradebook and office, told her to e-mail me later. She does and wonders "what we can do about this." Of course, she hadn't turned in her first paper either. Obviously, she is lying.

What I should do is make a check mark the evening that I get the papers so I don't have to deal with this. But I don't. So I guess I have to let her turn in another copy. I told her she could turn it in on Thursday but I also gave her a stern message that since she didn't turn in the first paper, she should drop the class.

What do you think the chances are that she actually has the paper to turn into me on Thursday? 50%?

I Hate The Yankees

Is there any way to start the baseball playoffs in a more disgusting way than the Yankees winning and Derek Jeter going 5-5 with a HR?

The answer is no.

Bad Stuff in El Salvador

I know the phrases "El Salvador" and "very bad" are redundant, but I thought I'd mention the recent killing of Father Ricardo Antonio Romero outside of San Salvador on September 25. There are two plausible reasons. The first is that he was killed by gangs. The second, and I believe more likely, is that Romero was killed for his work with the poor. Evidentally, death squads are on the rise in that unfortunate country.

Sadly, Romero is hardly the first priest by that name to die in El Salvador while fighting injustice.

The same post discusses the nation's environmental problems as well, focusing on the destruction of one of El Salvador's last remaining forest tracts to make way for a highway, shopping centers, and a golf course. Nice. The response to this has forced the government to agree to save some of the forest but given the record of environmental enforcement in Central America, I remain skeptical.

And in classic El Salvador mode, this blog, entitled 100 días en la República de la Muerte (100 Days in the Republic of Death), is going over every murder committed in the small nation. Sadly, it is hardly a few. I suppose that people develop dark senses of humor to deal with living in El Salvador.

Sigh.

Tuesday Forgotten American (Bastard) Blogging: James H. Carleton

This post starts a new era in Tuesday Forgotten American Blogging. The first Tuesday of the month will now be reserved for one of America's forgotten bastards. There are two reasons for this. There are lots of American bastards worth remembering for their bastardry. Also, there are certain stories that I want to tell that I can't without focusing on the bastard as opposed to the good guys.

Today's subject fits both of these categories. James H. Carleton was a Civil War colonel who led a group of California volunteers west to drive the Confederates out of Arizona and New Mexico. He did this successfully in 1862, linking up with the forces under General Edward R.S. Canby in New Mexico. OK, whatever.

James H. Carleton is the first topic of Bastard Blogging because of his actions in New Mexico after 1862. Carleton was placed in command of Union forces in New Mexico in August 1862, once anyone important to army was sent to battles farther east. Carleton had a mission--subdue the Indians. To some extent, the US Army had reason to be concerned about Indians in the Southwest. For 200 years, the Navajo, Apache, Comanche, and Ute peoples had raided the small Hispano towns and Indian pueblos of New Mexico. The US didn't feel that it could incorporate the area into the nation with these raids continuing. As the Navajos began feeling the brunt of American power in the 1850s, they had to engage in more desperate raiding and by 1862 were actually stealing army cattle from Socorro County, New Mexico.

This is where Carleton comes into the picture. In 1862, Carleton ordered Kit Carson to round up the Mescalero Apaches and move them to a new reservation he founded in eastern New Mexico, the Bosque Redondo. The Mescaleros were only a small group of Apaches--the major raiding groups were in Arizona. But they were an easy target for Carleton.

As for the Bosque Redondo--it is located near Fort Sumner, New Mexico. Incidentally, this is the same town where Billy the Kid was killed, thus giving this god-forsaken place two interesting historical references. And god-forsaken it was. Bosque Redondo was located on the banks of the Pecos River, about 100 miles west of the Texas line. Along the Pecos were cottonwood trees and some water. But that is all the place had going for it. Beyond that slight sliver of green was nothingness. Just nada. Even today, there is nothing out there at all. But Carleton, perhaps driven by ego, probably driven by malice, most certainly driven by a dislike of Indians, saw this spot as the solution to New Mexico's Indian problems. He wrote, "The Bosque was the best pastoral region between the two oceans. Within ten years, the Navajos would be the happiest and most delightfully located pueblo of Indians in New Mexico, perhaps in the United States." Hmmm...the best pastoral region between the two oceans? In eastern New Mexico? Yeah, I don't think so.

By early 1863, the Mescalero Apaches were rounded up and struggling to survive on the Bosque Redondo. At that point, Carleton turned his attention to the Navajos. Carleton sent Carson out to defeat the Navajos and send them from their homeland in eastern Arizona and western New Mexico to the Bosque Redondo. Following a brutal campaign that included the burning of Navajo homes, fields, and orchards, most of them had surrendered. Thus began the Navajo Long Walk. In the middle of the winter of 1864, they started walking to Bosque Redondo, which was approximately 400 miles away. This happened in several different parties. However, the largest party, about 2500 Navajos, left on March 4, 1864. Soon thereafter a large winter storm raced through the area. Carleton wrote, "The weather was very inclement, with terrible gales of wind and heavy snow. The Indians were nearly naked; and, besides, many died of dysentery occasioned from eating too heartily of half cooked bread made from our flour, to which they were not accustomed." Not that Carleton cared about any of this. When the Navajos couldn't keep up they were either left to die or shot, including a pregnant woman who was killed when she went into labor on the trail. Approximately 10% of the 2500 on this march died on the trail, which one could follow by looking for the frozen bodies lining the way.

After they reached the Bosque Redondo, things weren't any better. The place was overcrowded--over 8000 Navajos were living there by 1865. Food supplies were terrible. People were literally living in holes they dug in the ground at first. Eventually they managed to build shelters with sticks and other things they found on the ground. Firewood was scarce as the few cottonwoods lining the banks of the Pecos were by no means sufficient to support over 8000 people. The soil at the Bosque Redondo was not made for intensive farming. Indians suffered, starved, and died.

Carleton thought he was doing the right thing. He was a vanguard of the new reservation movement that would either assimilate the Indians or kill them off. He wrote that the Army, "will be kind to them; there teach their children to read and write; teach them the arts of peace. Soon they would acquire new habits, new ideas, new modes of life; the old Indians...would die off, and carry with them all the latent longings for murdering and robbing." Like much of the rhetoric surrounding Indian policy through most of American history, Carleton was full of lies and half-truths. The Army--not exactly kind to the Indians. If "new modes of life" including living in holes in the middle of nowhere, I guess the Army did teach the Navajos new modes of life.

Not surprisingly, the Bosque Redondo was a disaster. In a small way, the Navajo were lucky. News of their plight got to Washington just after the end of the Civil War, when the ruling Republican Party still pretended to care about minorities. 10 years later, it is unlikely anything would have been done to help them. But in 1867, Carleton was removed from his post and the Department of the Interior took over the Bosque Redondo. Carleton of course did not receive any sort of meaningful punishment for what he did to the Navajos. William Tecumseh Sherman visited the place to see what could be done. His conclusion: "I found the Bosque a mere spot of green in the midst of wild desert, and the Navajos had sunk into a condition of absolute poverty and despair."

In 1868, the Interior Department closed the Bosque Redondo, giving the Navajos a new reservation on their own land in northeastern Arizona and northwestern New Mexico. The Mescaleros had simply walked away after the Navajos arrived and Carleton was too busy dealing with the mess he had gotten himself and 8000 Navajos into to do anything about it. There they remain today, holding the largest piece of reservation land in the nation, largely because the US government at the time thought this land was so worthless that they were happy to expand the Navajo reservation. Then in the 1950s, uranium was discovered out there and a whole new happy round of exploitation began. But that's for another post.

Happy Tuesday!

Film Review--Thief of Baghdad (1924)

Both Douglas Fairbanks and director Raoul Walsh were a part of plenty of massive productions during the silent film era, but rarely was a production on a more grand scale than their 1924 adaptation of this story from “Arabian Nights.” Costing over $2 million, this was one of the most expensive movies produced in the ‘20s and still clocks in as one of the most (relatively) expensive of all time. But, as everyone knows, money does not make a quality film, and can often hinder an otherwise good idea, and this certainly falls consistently with how I feel about most large-scope productions made since.

Fairbanks plays the thief who, with his assistant, schemes to break into the palace and steal all the treasure that lies within. At this same time, the day has arrived for the princess (Julanne Johnston) to choose a husband and merge two nations. Her disgusting, vile suitors are paraded in front of her, to increasing horror, when Fairbanks comes by pretending to be an obscure prince, and steals her heart. Unfortunately, the Mongol prince (who explicitly wants to marry her to enslave the people of Baghdad) gets wind of Fairbanks’ true identity and succeeds in exposing it to the king, who banishes him. The princess, still in love and not wanting to marry one of these ogres, stalls for time and sets up a contest to find the greatest treasure in the world. He who finds the treasure, gets her. This gives Fairbanks the chance to travel across the uncharted regions of the world and space on a quest to find this treasure so he can be with his one true love (or at least the woman he most successfully scammed).

The sets that Fairbanks jumps around on are outrageous and are absolutely the best part of the movie. For all its faults, Thief of Baghdad is worth watching just to experience the scale of it all. There is nothing in modern film that compares to the vast underwater world or, especially, D.W. Griffith’s rebuilt Babylon from Intolerance (1916). Computer sets, no matter how “vast,” will never hold a candle to the lengths silent producers would go for a shot or two. The acting is pretty mediocre. Anna May Wong, one of the few non-white stars given supporting roles in early Hollywood, got her major break here and is typically good for the material she is typically given; this time, it’s the backstabbing Asian slavegirl to the princess…not the meatiest of all parts. Johnston is almost non-existent as the princess. The only performance of any note at all is from Fairbanks, who was an amazing stuntman by any standards. Always charismatic, he was great in any role so long as it was swashbuckling and he swashbuckles here like it’s going out of style.

Big sets, charismatic actors, and swashbuckling, however, can only go so far in masking what is a truly awful movie. Much like the Armageddons and Pearl Harbors of today, there is no room for character development, emotion, or any substance at all once you pack all that action and money in. By the 150th minute, knowing now that there was actually no reason for the first 45 minutes of the film, the novelty of size wore off and I was left with paper characters, stereotypical action, and a better sense of why very few people have the patience to sit and watch a silent movie.

Pantomime was a necessary skill in the silent era. With nothing more than title cards to tell a story, viewers must essentially guide themselves through what could, sometimes, be fairly complicated stories, especially in a time where knowledge of somebody’s world may well have stretched no farther than the county line. There were some amazing actors from the time who could express so much with their eyes and hands. This movie, and others of the time that forsook story and performance for scale and effects, may have been huge successes on their release, but they become almost unwatchable today. The extent that movies like Armageddon suck is a wonder that I can only this is a huge joke from some celestial being, but I would almost (but only almost) rather watch these than their silent counterparts since I, at least, have bad dialogue to make fun of. By the end, it felt like I’d been watching Thief of Baghdad for days. To boot, I made a poor choice regarding score (the DVD, of course, ha a score, but I find Carl Davis’ hack modern scores reprehensible, so I tend to choose my own, which I will get into at a later date), so the whole experience was pretty disappointing. I’m going to stick to character studies and lurid genre pictures from now on, if I have a choice.

Shorter Confederate Yankee: Liberals Are To Blame for the Amish Shooting

Confederate Yankee continues his stranglehold on stupidest blogger in America with his post blaming liberals for the Amish shooting. More specifically, he blames Natalie Maines from the Dixie Chicks. Yes, that's right. Natalie Maines.

But he doesn't stop there. He also blames the Amish for their "anti-individualist philosophy." That's right you buggy-driving freaks! You are to blame for your own children being killed! If you would only drive cars and become good capitalists, no one would kill you. Losers.

What an asshole.

This line is particularly great though:

"We end up with children ill-equipped for success, unable to deal with failure, and programmed to see immediate violence as an acceptable answer to their short-term problems."

So, the children of Confederates and Confederate sympathizers?

Despicable Acts of Humanity

I spent the first 22 years of my life growing up in various parts of Amish country in Northeast Ohio. I knew some Amish, my family and I worked around and with the Amish, we bought stuff from the Amish....

...so what kind of sick man decides to go in and shoot up a bunch of Amish kids? Hope you're real proud, whoever you are.

Brazilian Elections, Round One

Now that the elections in Brazil have ended the first round and will begin crusing towards a second round between PT’s Lula (who finished with 48.6 percent of the vote) and the PSDBs Geraldo Alckmin (who came in with a surprising 41.4 percent), here are some thoughts on elections and politics in Brazil.

-Lula’s failure to accomplish a first round victory is surprising, and reminds me why I don’t care for the predictive type of political science. The week before the elections, Alckmin’s PSDB began accusing Lula’s party of trying to purchase a dossiê with information against one of the PSDB’s candidates in the national elections. These charges have nothing to do with Lula, yet the (to me, remarkably convenient) appearance of corruption charges against Lula’s party right before the elections managed to drop him JUST below the 50% majority he needed.

-Along those lines, Lula has rightfully filed a complaint with the National Tribunal of Elections and a judge seeking to declare Alckmin’s presidency invalid given the timing of the charges. He suggests that the charges are baseless and were timed so that his party would suffer in the national elections. While this may sound somewhat cockamamie to many, the judge has agreed to listen to the case. While I don’t think anything will come of it, it reveals how absolutely slimy the PSDB is. This is the same party who did all kinds of (at best) wheeling and dealing to see its party members elected to office in the 1990s and 2000s, proclaiming how unfair it was when opposition parties, led by the PT, decried their corruption, and yet now they’re pulling the same shit, acting all sanctimonious.

-Although there were four major presidential candidates, the division clearly is between Lula and Alckmin. Today, while at a movie at the Rio Film Festival, right before the movie began, somebody shouted out, “Alckmin, no!”, which garnered applause from a little over half the theater. Somebody else immediately countered with “Lula, no!”, which garnered applause from the rest.

-While many in America lament the presence of only two major parties, I think some would reconsider that stance given this weekend’s elections. While I’m all for multiple parties myself, particularly at the municipal, state, and national Congressional levels, multiple parties can be a curse. The presidential candidate Cristovam Buarque of the PTB (further leftist than the PT) never stood a chance in hell, staying at 2 percent throughout all the polling. In the final numbers, he took 2.67% of the votes. Had he not run, it is likely that those who voted for him would almost have assuredly putting Lula over 50% and letting the planning begin for the next term. Instead, Brazil is faced with another month of campaigning and what could be another close election between Lula’s social programs that the middle- and upper-classes can’t stand and Alckmin’s complete and total subservience to neoliberal policies of privatization. (This was the same reason I couldn’t stand people who voted for Nader in 1996 or 2000 or the Green party or Nader in 2004 – your vote is completely useless then. I know abstractly you’re saying something, but politics isn’t abstractions – it’s real. If you really want to change the system, get into it and change it from within. A vote for Nader or Perot or George Wallace or whomever won’t do much at all).

-Campaigning in Brazil is painful. The television assaults that we are used to in the United States probably aren’t as common, but overall, it’s complete sensory overload. You have people trying to hand you little pieces of paper saying to vote for this party or that party for deputy, governor, president, etc. That would be fine if the papers told you the candidates’ positions, but they don’t. They just say, “press number XXXX” (here, voting is electronic, and remarkably simple – see below). As a result, you get poor people hired by elitist parties handing out leaflets that are immediately thrown on the ground because nobody wants them, being fed up with all the political garbage, and the urban pollution skyrockets in the weeks before the election. Not only this. There are parades up and down Copacabana on the weekends. You have people waving flags on every corner, and cars driving around with huge stereo systems blaring out messages and songs for candidates that still tell you virtually nothing about the candidates, this time because within 10-30 seconds, they’re out of earshot. Thus, baring when you sleep, the propaganda is EVERYWHERE (and oftentimes, given the stereos, it even wakes you in your sleep).

-That said, election day itself is AMAZINGLY subdued. No handouts. No flags. No cars with stereo systems. No mailings. People go to the polls, they vote, and that’s that. Apparently, Brazil, like the U.S., has laws against election-day propaganda (which is remarkably unlike Costa Rica, whose elections I witnessed in 2002. There, all 13 parties were handing out items like flags, bumper stickers, t-shirts, everything, to people going to vote, and these tables went all the way up to where the voting stations were. And people waved flags, honked their horns, did all they could to manipulate voters right by the stations.) And voting is simple. As I mentioned, they only vote for five items – state deputies, federal deputy, governor, and president. No levies. No judges. No amendments. Just the candidates. Everything else is in the hands of the state. Thus, when I went with my girlfriend while she voted, I sat down, expecting a 20-45 minute wait, so you can imagine my surprise when she walked out 2 minutes after walking in. Plus, as it was a Sunday, and nobody has to work, polls were only open 8 AM to 5 PM.

-Finally, looking ahead….Alckmin and Lula will face each other in a second round on October 29. Additionally, for those states in which the leading gubernatorial candidate did not get 50%, and those districts where the federal deputy did not get 50%, there will also be elections for a second round. In all cases, winner takes all. Apparently, Lula and Alckmin will debate (and I’m guessing Lula shows up to this debate). I don’t know about the propaganda or anything, but stay tuned for the second blog about elections in Brazil around the 30th or so.

2006 John Cangelosi Award

With baseball's regular season over, it is time for me to give out the game's most prestigious award, the John Cangelosi award. It is named after the legendary John Cangelosi, the 80s and 90s journeyman outfielder who had possibly the worst defensive instincts in the history of baseball and had only speed going for him. He was the first player who I remember thinking, "Wow, this guy actually has some talent, but he is a horrible baseball player." So in 2003, I began naming Cangelosi Award winners. The criteria is to be a Cangelosi-type player. You need to have some talent but blow it by being stupid, a thug, having terrible instincts, etc. So as much as I would like to name Willie Bloomquist as the worst player in baseball, it's not his fault that he is on a major league roster. He does what he can with his poor skills.

The previous award winners:

2003: Alex Sanchez, OF, Milwaukee
2004, Ben Davis, C, Seattle/Chicago White Sox
2005, Sir Sidney Ponson, P, Baltimore Descriptions of all three's credentials can be seen from this link.

This year's winner:

Crazy Carl Everett, DH, Seattle

Carl Everett was long for this award. Always hated by his teammates for his erratic behavior and general assholism, Everett is most known for his, um, erratic beliefs. He doesn't believe in dinosaurs or the Apollo missions for instance. He is happy to slam on homosexuals at the first chance. He's also a big fan of corporal punishment of children. He played for the 2001 Boston Red Sox where he almost single-handedly tore the team apart. But he always had skills that helped make up for this. Until this year.

In 2006, he hit .227/.297/.360 with 11 HRs in 308 ABs. He might have just taken his fading skills into a dignified retirement but instead, he walked into Seattle manager Mike Hargrove's office and began screaming at him for not being in the starting lineup. This when he was hitting .229. A few days later, he was released. Despite his still existant left-handed power off the bench, no contending team came within a mile of picking of Everett for the stretch.

Also, and I think this is very important, Carl Everett is the first African-American winner of the Cangelosi Award. A true pioneer in crapitude. Considering Jackie Robinson's widow is still alive, do you think we can have some sort of ceremony to honor this amazing player?

Also in contention, Russ Ortiz, P, Baltimore (0-8, 8.14 ERA this year while raking in a mere $7.875 million), Josh Towers, P, Toronto (2-10, 8.42 ERA).

NCAA Top 25, Week 6

1. Ohio St. I imagine we can reserve this spot for them until the Michigan game.

2. West Virginia

3. Florida

4. Michigan. Moved them up 2 spots despite the teams ahead of them not losing. They are just more deserving.

5. USC. They are lucky they are playing the weakest Pac-10 teams right now. Not looking good.

6. Auburn. Dropped 2 for their lucky victory against South Carolina. They didn't look good at all.

7. Oregon. I am very happy with my Ducks. Crushed Arizona St. Next week's game at Cal should be great.

8. Louisville

9. Texas

10. LSU

11. Oklahoma

12. California

13. Notre Dame.

14. Georgia. Another squeaker win. There are definitely some losses in the future of this team.

15. Tennessee

16. Georgia Tech. High for a team not ranked last week but they are looking very good. Only loss to Notre Dame. Crushed Virginia Tech. A legitimate threat to win the ACC

17. Boise St. Can you say undefeated season?

18. Virginia Tech. Probably should be lower after losing to Georgia Tech but I can't rank them behind Florida St.

19. Florida St.

20. Clemson

21. Missouri

22. Iowa

23. Texas Tech

24. Nebraska. Got very lucky against Kansas.

25. TCU. Probably still a good team but losing to BYU cost them any hopes of a BCS bid.

Close--Washington (I hate them but they are 4-1 with their only loss at Oklahoma), Rutgers (continues to hang just on the outside), Wake Forest (I know nothing about them except that they are 5-0), Wisconsin, Arkansas, UCLA