these things have made me sigh in tones ranging from annoyance to despair

1. today when i went out to my car, there was a piece of very moldy bread on the roof over the driver's seat. i don't know how it came to be there, but it left a fairly unattractive spot on the paint.

2. on tuesday morning i slammed on my brakes--and i mean slammed--to avoid hitting a squirrel who had chosen to pause in the middle of an off-ramp to wash his (or her) face. my fluffy mammalian friend made it safely across the road, no one crashed into my rear end (because no one was behind me; i try just as hard to avoid killing people as i do squirrels), and i got to start the day hopped up on the brilliant combo of adrenaline and cheer at having done a good deed.

on wednesday morning i noticed the not-so-fluffy remains of a squirrel about ten yards from the tire tracks i'd left the previous morning and spent the entire day in a murky fog of hopeless disappointment.

3. brenda lifsey, a woman i'm happy to not know, is suing kraft because she doesn't like their guacamole. she's seeking unspecified damages for the dip's lack of avocado. if brenda ever finds out about velveeta, the cheese-free cheese, the whole corporation is going to go under.

4. i am the lone editor at a publishing company that is attempting to start up not one but three new periodicals in the next three months, and the people at the top are pretty sure that now that they've given me that dollar-an-hour raise (which still does not put me at even the low end of the salary range for my position), i ought to be thrilled to work sixty-five hours a week instead of forty. and maybe i would be, but i've tried everything i can think of to explain to them that i wouldn't have to work all those extra hours if the production manager didn't run to me wringing her hands and furrowing her brow every time an author asked her to make a change on a set proof. it isn't my fault that i don't have quark on my computer; if they've decided she's the one to be doing that work, she should be doing it, damn it.

5. last night i went to bed at 9:30 because i had gotten under six hours of sleep every day since sunday, and i was exhausted and determined to catch up. it took me fifteen minutes to fall asleep, which was a pretty strong start for me, but i woke up at 11:30 and could not fall asleep again until 4 AM. that's the least sleep yet, and i can't figure out what i've done to make my body so determined to destroy me.

6. i'm so fucking whiny.

oh me of little faith . . .

my twenty-seventh year, which, if you'll recall, i feared and half believed would be my last, has wound to a tidy and shockingly satisfactory close. it brought me a boffo job that exceeded all my craziest, most fevered, most tequila-soaked hopes; it brought me a new and improved home that i don't have to share with anyone or anyone's evil parrot; it even brought me a smaller dress size and an unsuspected gift for making excellent vegan desserts, two things i would never have expected to receive simultaneously. and now i'm twenty-eight, and nothing's ever perfect, but some things are a lot better than you think they'll be.

earlier this month i passive-aggressively scolded my very best beloved secret boyfriend malcolm gladwell for forgetting my birthday, partly out of hurt and partly because it seemed so unlike him to do such a thing—and, of course, it would have been unlike him, if it had happened. but it was all me jumping to conclusions, which is only a little bit unlike me and usually works out o.k. in the end.

i am, as ever, about three and a half months behind on the new yorker. the blasted things just keep coming and coming, and i keep picking them up out of the mail pile and stashing them at the bottom of the magazine pile because i'm determined to fight my way through the whole wretched mess without cheating or skimping or missing anything, and because my mother pays to renew that subscription every october and four months' worth of issues is equal to close to half of a year's renewal fee and i'm sure as hell not tossing my mother's hard-earned money out with the recycling without at least leafing through it on a sunday morning . . . and so i didn't notice that malcolm had written a perfectly lovely article for the media issue, which just happened to come out the week of my birthday. shame on me. and even though malcolm would have been well within his rights to point out that he hadn't received any special packages from me back in the beginning of september, he took the high, phlegmatic road and instead brought the article up—very gently—on his blog.

i don't know if it's me becoming increasingly smitten or an objective editorial observation, and odds are there's no way for me to be sure, but malcolm's writing, from a purely stylistic standpoint, seems to have improved exponentially over the past few years. (i still lose my breath over "parlor pinks," but that's neither here nor there.) he's much better about not talking to us as though he isn't sure we'll understand him, and while his reporting has always been straight, his wrap-ups have become tighter and cleaner—unreporterly enough to make you sure of where he stands, but not so swayed that you feel as if he's trying to convince you of something. his emotional saturation has found the just-right spot typically reserved for the third bowl of porridge. and he makes jokes now, and they're good, subtle, quirky jokes . . . the work's gone all sparkly, and i'm just over the moon about the whole situation. and then, of course, there are the things he actually chooses to write about, which are all fat and yummy and made so sad by the fact that he isn't pitching them to me from my sofa.

but he is sending them to me for my birthday, and my present went like this: some men have come up with an algorithm that allows them to predict, far more accurately than anyone else has ever been able to predict, which screenplays are likely to be made into hugely successful movies and which can expect to grow up into movies that will meet with moderate to meager, to zero, success. here's the comment i made at his blog prior to reading the article:

i suppose once i read the piece i'll have a better understanding of how the network monitors public opinion in order to assess a movie's likely turnout. i have a feeling, though, that it would be similar to . . . looking at movies that have been box-office hits and seeking similar aspects. how long could a system like that really be successful at pitching films to a single generation?

on a more selfish note, my personal movie preferences are different enough from most people's that i might dread a tool like this being put into widespread use. i understand that most movies are already, and always will be, made based on the likelihood of a substantial return; but if production studios start selecting screenplays based on algorithms, won't that only increase the odds of films that may not appeal to the sensibilities of the vast majority but that are still quite good and deserve to be made, well, not getting made? the blockbusters are rarely the works that stand the test of time. a system like this would probably benefit the executives, it's true, but the rest of us might miss out on a lot of strong works of art.

i felt fine saying that, because malcolm and i have that kind of open, trusting, imaginary relationship where we can disagree with each other without fear of excessive defensiveness or retaliation. it's a very warm feeling. besides, he knows i live on the fringes. and he also knew that i would race right home and read my present start to finish and form a far more balanced and informed opinion, because that's the kind of girl i am. and that's exactly what i've done.

here are the ten top-grossing movies of 2006 (thus far):

1. pirates of the caribbean: dead man's chest

2. cars

3. x-men: the last stand

4. the da vinci code

5. superman returns

6. ice age: the meltdown

7. over the hedge

8. talladega nights: the ballad of ricky bobby

9. click

10. mission: impossible III (or miiii, as i shall refer to it until the end of days)

here are the movies out of those ten that i saw:









i did want to see x-men, because i am weak for all things comic-booky (and am FREAKING OUT about the new spider-man, oh, hurry up, hurry up, hurry up!), but none of the others, and i'm pretty sure i've never even heard of click. am i a movie snob? perhaps, but i don't believe so. what i am, according to "mr. brown," a primary source for the article and one of the neural network's developers, is an intelligent niche viewer drawn to movies that are more european in style than american. not snobby, my darlings, just misplaced, and i've known that for ages. my favorite movies are typically french, lynchian, or just plain odd, and while some people seem to think that i feel that makes me better than them, the only thing i do feel it makes me is isolated. i have to scroll down to number 41 on that list just to find a movie i actually went all the way to a theater to see, and i had to see it alone. do i think the epagogix—the neural network under discussion—would have deemed little miss sunshine worthy of production? well, there is a female in occasional distress, and that female is a young child who encourages the adults around her to break free of society's chains and find joy in their lives, and there were some drugs and the faintest whiff of pornographic material, and there was some comedy, and some bonding and redemption—but the redemption was intensely personal and required mass public humiliation, and the comedy was dark and involved a family member's corpse, and the porn and drugs were nowhere near explicit, and nothing exploded, and while i'm pretty sure someone wore a hat, it was hardly a memorable hat.

no algorithm would have fully endorsed this screenplay, or that of the princess and the warrior, which has, by this point in my endless chain of viewings, practically taught me german. i doubt epagogix would have great things to say about rushmore or the purple rose of cairo or the big kahuna or farewell, my concubine, or any other movie on my shelf. but i love these movies and feel i owe them a great debt. i would like to buy all of the actors and writers and directors and editors involved in the making of these movies fuzzy blankets and delicious treats. and honestly, does anyone want another da vinci code? ever?

so i became rather glum, listening to malcolm tell me in his straight, reporterly fashion how no studio would ever have to make another movie that would gross under $50 million because math is fantastic, and listening to mr. brown and mr. pink tell me that my european attitudes are ill suited to my parochial american environs, and listening to the snide ghosts of moviegoers coast to coast telling me that car chases and costly effects and weak women will always triumph over understated dialogue and carefully lit stills and flawed characters who struggle and strive and sometimes still fail. i mean, brokeback mountain came in 22nd in 2005, and everyone was talking about that movie. it came in four behind fun with dick and jane. who saw fun with dick and jane? who the hell saw that movie? why did any of you go to see that movie?

all right, maybe i'm a teensy bit, just the ittiest bit, of a movie snob. but i won't apologize for loving beautiful stories and impressive craftsmanship—i won't apologize for demanding art, instead of settling for distraction, even engaging distraction. and i became glummer and glummer, thinking maybe i was right to argue off the bat, and maybe i wouldn't be able to go back at the end and say, i'm sorry, muffin, i really should have read that article before i did that thing i do with the jumping and the assuming and whatnot,

and then i came to the conclusion:

the neural network had one master, the market, and anwered one question: how do you get to bigger box-office? but once a movie had made you vulnerable—once you couldn't even retell the damn story without getting emotional—you couldn't be content with just one master anymore.

that was the thing about the formula: it didn't make the task of filmmaking easier. it made it harder. . . . the epagogix team . . . were technicians with tools: computer programs and analytical systems and proprietary software that calculated mathematical relationships among a laundry list of structural variables. . . . a kamesian had only to read lord kames to appreciate the distinction. the most arrogant man in the world was a terrible writer: clunky, dense, prolix. he knew the rules of art. but that didn't make him an artist.

mr. brown spoke last. "i don't think it needs to be a big-budget picture," he said. "i think we do what we can with the original script to make it a strong story, with an ending that is memorable, and then do a slow release. a low-budget picture. one that builds through word of mouth—something like that."

well, what do you know. everyone was on my side the whole time. and that way of being wrong, my lovelies, is always the best gift ever—always; but malcolm sent it with a "prolix," and while it was a grand and profoundly moving gesture, i have no idea how he expects to top it next year. as i've seen, though, as i'm sure we've all seen at one time or another, a year can knock the socks right off you. so whatever presents are coming my way, i'll take them.




postscript, 12/3/06: the plain fact is, the world will never need epagogix--because it has jerry.

monday punch-in-the-face blogging: the thanksgiving issue

what i'm giving thanks for this year, darlings, is the strong evidence proffered by my own personal nature-versus-nurture drama that one can easily triumph over one's genetics when it comes to character development and intellectual curiosity. here are five things spoken by my paternal relatives last thursday that made me want to throttle them to within an inch of their lives:

1. "muslims need to be wiped off the face of the planet." (said by my aunt)

2. "i pray for the muslims to accept jesus. i believe that if they could just learn to love christ, they wouldn't be such bad people." (courtesy of my grandfather)

3. "no talking about religion or politics." (spoken by my father approximately seven seconds after i began to attempt to explain the difference between muslims and islamic extremists)

4. "why can't these people just get the hell over themselves?" (dad again, after a brief news report about a group of native americans who staged a small, peaceful protest on thanksgiving)

5. "that wasn't murder, that was just mankind making progress like it's been doing for centuries and centuries. they weren't using all the land." (dad again, making the third time the charm, after i pointed out somewhat sharply that this was, after all, a holiday celebrating the day europeans began their steady invasion and elimination of an entire race of people, and that the remainder of that race had very little to celebrate and a whole lot to be upset about)

when i objected after comment five and tried to wrench some explanation out of dear old dad for how it's o.k. to kill innocent people under any circumstances, he reverted back to his favorite standby: weak pacifists like me would have handed the entire planet over to hitler. this, tragically, is the end of the majority of my conversations with my father, but not necessarily the end of the evening; that comes very shortly after the conclusion of this conversation, when i march out into the kitchen, tell my mother that her husband is the reason i will never believe this world is a decent place to raise a child in, grab my coat, and run out. but perhaps we really should allow it to come to blows just once, and see if that helps any. christmas is right around the corner, after all.

and the hits just keep on comin'

remember a few hours ago when i said i thought maybe i'd never feel good again? well, that was before i read this:

On Monday, the federal office that oversees the nation's family-planning program got a new boss who doesn't believe in birth control. Eric Keroack is a Massachusetts obstetrician-gynecologist who argues that abstinence until marriage is the only healthy choice for women. Until recently, he served as medical director of a pregnancy-counseling organization that runs down contraception and gives out scientifically false health information—for instance, that condoms "offer virtually no protection" against herpes or HPV. Keroack also promotes a wacky piece of pseudoscience: the claim that premarital sex disrupts brain chemistry so as to create a physiological barrier to happy marriage.

In his new role, Keroack will have extensive power to shape the kinds of information disseminated to millions of women. He will be able to develop new guidelines for clinics, set priorities, and determine how scarce dollars get spent, says Marilyn Keefe of the National Family Planning and Reproductive Health Association. "We've seen that people in these political slots have a tremendous influence over how programs get implemented," she said.

and now i don't think it, i know.

NARAL pro-choice america has set up a petition that will be sent to mike leavitt, secretary of health and human services, urging him to reject keroack's appointment. sign it. seriously, like, right this second. sign it. that is, of course, unless you, too, believe "that the crass commercialization and distribution of birth control is demeaning to women, degrading of human sexuality and adverse to human health and happiness," in which case you may take this time to do something else, like grow a lollipop tree or levitate.

i suppose this is how bushco's fighting back. but come on, ladies, even dead-set chastity-belt-clad conservative ladies--do you want this man to be involved with your lower bits?


he's crazy! he's got the crazy eyes! i'd chase him away from my reproductive system with a flaming torch. the last time the bushmen tried to plant a psycho ("dr." w. david hager) in a role like this, they were shot down. this time, though, it appears to have been carried out in stealth, and i am sore afraid. two more years, though, right?

right?

tuesday impatience blogging

i know i promised you that punch-in-the-face blogging would be a monday feature, but this was burning a hole in my pocket and, well, i just couldn't wait.

glenn beck, my bottomless well, offered me this gleaming treasure during yesterday's show, on which he discussed democratic congressman charlie rangel's desire to reintroduce a military draft:

"It's not like the stalled progress in Iraq has anything to do with the quality or the quantity of those currently in uniform."

unbelievable. i think i'll make my point through contrast; here are some other things that were said on monday. these things were said in the washington post:

House Armed Services Committee Chairman Duncan Hunter said Monday that the U.S. needs to push more Iraqi security forces to the front lines. Other Americans, including some military officials, have suggested boosting U.S. troop levels to help train the Iraqis.

President Bush said Monday he wasn't ready to decide between the rival calls for more or fewer U.S. troops on the ground.

Referring to the Iraqi security forces, Hunter told The Associated Press, "We need to saddle those up and deploy them to the fight" in dangerous areas, primarily in Baghdad. Hunter, a California Republican who is interested in his party's 2008 presidential nomination, took a different tack from Sen. John McCain, a front-running 2008 hopeful who has urged that additional U.S. troops be sent.

these things were said on bbc news:

The review panel's study, commissioned by Gen Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has all but rejected a massive scale-up of operations in Iraq, the unnamed officials told the Post. More troops would be required to do this than the US military and fledgling Iraqi security forces could provide, they said.

But the Pentagon group had also concluded that a swift withdrawal of US troops would be likely to push the country into full-blown civil war, the sources said.

The officials said the panel was likely to favour a hybrid plan that cut the number of troops in combat roles while expanding US efforts to train and advise Iraqi security forces, the officials said.

Under the plan, an initial boost of 20,000 - 30,000 soldiers to the 140,000 already on the ground would be followed by longer term cuts, to as few as 60,000 troops, the newspaper reported.

no mention of how much longer that term might be was made, and i think that's a pretty weighty thing to leave out. will we be down to 60,000 troops by the end of next year, or the end of the decade? enquiring minds want to know.

the next piece is an excerpt from an article written by frederick kagan that was published yesterday on the web site of the american enterprise institute for public policy research. it's good, smart work, and i recommend that anyone interested in the topic take a look at it and that glenn beck be locked in a room and forced to listen to an audio rendition of it for the next 72 straight hours.

The Iraqi military, unfortunately, is still a work in progress. Although there are growing numbers of trained Iraqi soldiers formed into increasingly competent tactical units, those units remain highly dependent on American logistical support for food, shelter, ammunition, and transportation. This situation is not entirely the U.S. military’s fault. It stems also from the failure of the Iraqi government to establish ministries capable of performing their assigned tasks--a failure abetted by woefully inadequate assistance from the nonmilitary agencies of the U.S. government.

Wherever the blame for this failure lies, there is no denying that it has occurred. The Iraqi military cannot function without a significant American logistical presence. It cannot continue to improve in quality without a significant American training presence, which includes a partnership between Iraqi combat units and coalition combat units conducting counterinsurgency operations. These facts make nonsense of any idea of significantly reducing the American presence as a way to “incentivize” the Iraqi military. Redeployment on any significant scale will not incentivize the Iraqi military. It will lead to its collapse.

Consider the current deployment. There are now about 150,000 U.S. service members in Iraq, including perhaps 65,000 in sixteen brigade or regimental combat teams (the troops who regularly conduct raids, patrols, cordons and searches, and so on). There are also about 5,000 soldiers permanently engaged in training Iraqi units. Most of the remaining soldiers are primarily engaged in supporting these efforts and the survival of the Iraqi army. They maintain supply depots and supply lines. They transport essential goods around the country and distribute them at forward operating bases (FOBs). They keep both the U.S. and the Iraqi armies alive and moving. They are assisted by numerous civilian contractors and even local Iraqis, but the military personnel provide the glue that holds the entire effort together.

enough? all of these examples underscore the limitations of both the quality and quantity of the troops currently on the ground in iraq. the quality issues are primarily the result of inadequate training of iraqi forces, but we'll never be able to devote enough troops to that training effort if we don't increase the number of military personnel in iraq, because right now there are just enough bodies to keep everyone (or so we hope) in food and water. if we don't send more troops, the best-case scenario would be things staying exactly the way they are; the realistic scenario would be a none-too-slow descent into unmitigable chaos, and you'd think that beck, whose terror and hatred of islamist extremism surpasses all known boundaries, would understand that this is the absolute worst thing that could happen right now in this part of the world. beck likes to say that people like rangel are badmouthing the caliber of the u.s. military when they say we need more soldiers, but beck, as we've established, is about as sharp as a marble. our troops are heroes, but they aren't supernatural, and 150,000 of the greatest human beings on the planet will never be able to cover 300,000 positions. so many of these troops, some of them just out of their teens, some of them in their teens, are on their third deployments, and every time they go back the odds of them never coming home increase. even lt. col. robert maginnis, whom beck interviewed on the monday show, had this (extremely restrained) comment to make:

Well, Glenn, we have 520,000 in the Army. At least, that`s what we`re authorized to sustain; 141,000 in Iraq. As General Schoomaker, chief of staff, says, it really does strain the Army, especially given that we`re in 125 nations around the world.

So do we need more troops? Perhaps, if we`re going to sustain the current level of activity. Or, you know, God forgive us, if we continue to increase the number of engagements. Then we`re going to need more people, and you can`t grow them overnight.

now, i'm not in favor of a draft, but the problem boils down to math: we can't accomplish more than we've accomplished with the current number of troops. can't. can not. and it makes me want to throw up all over my own shoes when i think about the game of russian roulette we're playing with the soldiers we've got right now, especially when i remember--and i haven't forgotten yet--that they were sent to iraq for NOTHING. NOT A BLOODY THING, AND DAMN STRAIGHT I'M YELLING ABOUT IT. i'm furious that any of this ever happened, i've never supported the war, i never will support the war--but the sooner we get the iraqi forces trained to the point of self-sufficiency, the sooner we can start thinking about bringing america's role in the war to an end. rangel's argument, which may or may not involve some subtle psychological tactics, is, "I don`t see how anyone can support the war and not support the draft. I think to do so is hypocritical."

beck's response?

"[F]or Charlie Rangel to say it`s hypocritical to support the war and not support the war--bull fricking crap, Charlie Rangel."

bull fricking crap, indeed. the rest of the program, which includes a rant about how hollywood is poisoning our youth by sneaking environmental themes into animated films about wildlife, shall be dealt with another time. i feel better to have spoken up, but i fear i may never again feel good.

new feature!

as any of the (two) regulars know, i am prone to starting new features and then growing more and more inconsistent in my delivery of them, until eventually they disappear and i start up something new, hoping no one will care and knowing that, really, it's unlikely anyone will notice. it isn't a malicious or even deliberate action on my part, it's simply that my infinite capacity for distraction is occasionally the dominant force in my day-to-day activities. in one sense i suppose you readers pay the price, but in another you are blessed with the excitement of never knowing exactly what manner of pretentious hackery i'll bestow upon you at any given moment. so, in the spirit of that beautiful tradition, i offer you my newest weekly column: monday "things someone said that made me want to punch him or her in the face" blogging. given my temperament and inability to forget or forgive comments that i perceive as especially hateful or stupid or both, this one may be easier for me to maintain than the others seem to be. but one never knows with bloggers; we are a vague and elusive species, and some of us are a little lazy, and some of us just can't remember what day it is. the parking ticket on the windshield of my car this morning reminding me that yesterday was sunday and i should have moved so as not to obstruct the street sweeper is tangible evidence that i am most definitely of this latter ilk; you may draw your own conclusions about the former two descriptions.

this inaugural installment will be dedicated entirely to glenn beck, whom i've only recently had the misfortune to discover and have become pathologically obsessed with. from the looks of things, he may be all i need to keep this column going--though i'm sure he won't be all i have to work with. so, without further delay:

ten things glenn beck said last week that made me want to punch him in the face

1. "[A]s a typical American before 9/11, I was like, 'Oh, you know what? Just cut it out--you [Middle Eastern citizens] can all just fall into the middle of the sea and it doesn`t matter to me, because you`re always fighting.' Now 9/11 happened. I thought, 'Gee, maybe I should pay attention to this.'"

2. "Why is it that it seems as though conservatives are the ones that are the most strong on the protection of Israel, we are the most--that we`re the strongest in defense, and yet so many Jews here in America are so on-fire liberal and they side with the people, the politicians who are ready to just give away the candy store? I don`t understand it, and so many Americans don`t." (aside: right now many of the liberals are angry that we have squandered all of our military resources on an unfounded, unnecessary war in iraq, making it impossible to take any action where it is truly needed, such as, for example, against iran in defense of israel. but i'm one-eighth jewish, so i probably would say that.)

3. "[I]f we follow the strategies suggested by Tony Blair and Robert Gates and the Iraq Study Group of banding together and making friends with--with Iran, the situation will be 100 times deadlier than if Saddam Hussein were still in power and had a massive stash of chemical weapons." which he didn't have, and please see above aside.

4. BECK: Back with Benjamin Netanyahu. In the last break, you said that Islam is the most primitive religion.

NETANYAHU: I didn`t say that.

BECK: You didn`t say that?

NETANYAHU: No. I said that militant Islam is a primitive religion.

BECK: How much of . . .

NETANYAHU: Most Muslims are not part of this crazy creed.

BECK: O.K.

5. "You know, one of the great things about somebody like me, a radio talk show host, getting his own show is that I can cover issues that I want to with my own prism, my own bias. I`m going to tell you flat-out I`m not a journalist . . . ." and if that show happens to be aired on the cable news network, well, it's nobody's fault but the viewers' if they make a mistake about that. facts are for newspapers; airwaves are standard-free. that's the beauty of america. like how the history channel has the right to air documentaries about vampires and werewolves--not legends about vampires and werewolves, actual historical accounts of their lives and times. because they're not historians, they're just the history channel.

6. "A couple of months ago, the leader of Al Qaeda in Iraq urged his supporters to each kill at least one American in the next 15 days. It was a shocking statement, but hardly surprising. Then, just a few days later, I came across a response to that message of hate that was surprising. It said, 'You hid in your caves and behind the faces of civilians in Afghanistan and Iraq. You have abandoned God and have started worshipping your own Satanic egos that rejoice at the killing of innocent people.'

Why do I say that statement, something that many of us agree with, is surprising? Because the man who wrote it is a Muslim."

7. "And K-Fed? You dope, when you`re going to marry an international pop star worth a couple hundred million dollars, don`t sign a pre-nup, you putz."

8. "O.K. No offense, and I know Muslims. I like Muslims. I`ve been to mosques. I really don`t believe that Islam is a religion of evil. I--you know, I think it`s being hijacked, quite frankly.

"With that being said, you [Keith Ellison (D), Congressman-elect of Minnesota and practicing Muslim] are a Democrat. You are saying, 'Let`s cut and run.' And I have to tell you, I have been nervous about this interview with you, because what I feel like saying is, 'Sir, prove to me that you are not working with our enemies.' And I know you`re not. I`m not accusing you of being an enemy, but that`s the way I feel, and I think a lot of Americans will feel that way."

9. "[M]y doctor that helped with the health care of my daughter when she was first born said, 'You know, hey, we don`t know, but she may not feed herself or walk again.' She`s in college tonight. Doctors are wrong; I certainly do not want them making these kinds of decisions on the quality of life." the doctor said "we don't know" and "may not" in an effort to express the worst-case scenario to you, beck, which is something all doctors are obligated to do. your doctor was indeed wrong, though, in prefacing these statements with "you know," as, clearly, you do not.

10. bonus "flip out like a ninja" round! the entire following segment from the november 14 show made me want to pummel not only the two speakers but every member of the production crew who believed it deserved time on the air.

BECK: All right. Every day you can hear my radio program on stations all across the country including 570 KRNS in Salt Lake City. Now if you can`t find an affiliate in your area, sign up and listen online at my web site, GlennBeck.com.

Michael Graham is a host at 96.9 FM talk in Boston. [in boston! oh, the shame! -jp]

Hello.

MICHAEL GRAHAM, RADIO TALK SHOW HOST: Good to see you again, Glenn.

BECK: Good to see you, sir. There is a citizenship test that is now being given, and it`s multiple choice, and it`s kind of trivia.

GRAHAM: It stinks. I mean, really, who cares about the, you know, trivia questions like what do the stars in the flag--is it really important for immigrants to know that the stars . . .

BECK: If you don`t know what the stars stand for.

GRAHAM: Do we really care that the stars stand for the first 50 people who were, you know, voted off the island in American Idol? I don`t think we care about that.

BECK: I don`t think that`s what they mean.

GRAHAM: In all seriousness, ten cities including Boston were experimenting with the new citizenship test that is purportedly designed to teach immigrants what we in American society truly value.

BECK: O.K.

GRAHAM: And so I`m hoping--they have not revealed the test yet. I don`t know if this is like "Do You Want to Be a Millionaire?"

BECK: Do you have any idea? Do you have any . . .

GRAHAM: Question one, my question one on 96.9. Here`s question one. Do you speak English? Question No. 2, no kidding, really? Do you speak English like you understand it? Question No. 3--I want to buy a hamburger. It`s $1.97. I gave you a $5 bill. What are you going to give me back in American money? . . . [M]achine. This is what we want. These are the values that Americans care about.

BECK: You`re a hate monger. (grinning)

GRAHAM: No.

BECK: You are a hate monger. (laughing)

GRAHAM: Here`s my test for everyone who wants to be an American.

BECK: O.K.

GRAHAM: I`m going to give you a piece of paper. Draw me a football. If it`s round, you don`t get in.

BECK: Right.

GRAHAM: It`s supposed to be oblong. That`s what we want. So I`m hoping that they--in all seriousness, I want these people--as you know, America is the only country in the world that people get to make. Every single day we`re making America. It didn`t exist, you know, five years ago like Germany, France, et cetera. And so I want to make the best America and I want people of immigrant [sic] here to make a good America.

BECK: To be--to be serious for a second, the things that are important to me is do you believe that this is the land of opportunity?

GRAHAM: Right.

BECK: Do you believe--this kind of goes into what you were saying, we make America every day. We make it fresh every day.

GRAHAM: We do. If you choose to be a lazy dirt ball, you`re going to make America a little less good.

BECK: Here`s the thing, Michael. I think--I don`t know if you saw this recent poll that shows that many Americans, in fact, 50 percent of Americans believe that the American dream is done.

GRAHAM: Right.

BECK: You know, I think--honestly, I thought of this during the election. With Vermont--is it Vermont? Which is the one that just elected the first socialist . . .

GRAHAM: Vermont. Vermont. Right up the road here, yes.

BECK: I believe we should take the ice cream factory--without the two fat guys--and we should vote them out of the union. I think you should have a renewal period on every state. I think the rest of the country should vote whether you`re a state or not anymore.

GRAHAM: There are plenty--they are plenty of Americans who, I think, don`t qualify as citizens from the standpoint of knowledge, et cetera.

BECK: Exactly.

friday celebrity-letter blogging

dear rick santorum,

for a long time, i, like many people, took your comments regarding a particular 2003 supreme court case to mean that you were opposed to homosexuality. it has since been made clear to me that you are in no way offended by homosexuality; rather, you are merely troubled by homosexual acts. the difference is plain, and i apologize for my error. now that the truth has come out, i would like to atone for my misjudgment by including you in gatherings that i would previously never have thought to make open to you.

my best friend and his boyfriend of three years are planning to get married in the spring, and he's asked me to give him away (if you knew them, you'd know there was never any question as to which of them would be the bride!). they've very kindly allowed me to add some names to the guest list, and i am cordially requesting your attendance. i assume that you'll have some free time once you've been relieved of your senatorial obligations, and i think it would do your heart a world of good to witness the sanctifying of such a deep, tender romance. their devotion is truly touching, and it would mean a great deal to all of us if you would join us in our celebration and allow this special love to touch you as well. there will be games and treats for the little ones, too, so please feel free to bring your children. your companion james dobson no longer acknowledges my correspondence, for reasons unknown to me, but i would be immensely grateful if you could get in touch with him after the ceremony to let him know that you saw it take place with your own eyes and, obviously, the earth has not been destroyed.

my best to pennsylvania's voters,

juniper pearl

TRIUMPH!!!!!

hey, GOP, do you like apples?

i said, do you like apples?


well, we got the senate. how do you like them apples?

we took the house! we took the house!

and what good, obedient babies you are, ousting santorum! well played, my lovelies. pats on the head all around.

postscript, nov. 8, 12:53 PM: the senate is tied! congratulations to montana's jon tester, whom the associated press's calvin woodward, strangely, describes only as "a [sic] organic grain farmer who lost three fingers in a meat grinder." and largely unrelated (though no less sincere) congratulations to my old schoolmate rory waterman, who is now enjoying the peace of mind that accompanies citizenship in bernie sanders's maply, cow-covered socialist utopia.

post-postscript, nov. 8, 1:11 PM: while i'd love to do a little dance about rumsfeld's resignation, i know next to nothing about his successor. i mean, there's, you know, this:

The Gates leadership team [in the CIA in the 1980s] proved itself responsive to White House demands, giving serious attention to right-wing press reports from around the world. The Reagan administration, for instance, wanted evidence to support right-wing media claims that pinned European terrorism on the Soviets. The CIA analysts, however, knew the charges were bogus partly because they were based on “black” or false propaganda that the CIA's operations division had been planting in the European media.

The attempted assassination of Pope John Paul II in 1981 was viewed as another opportunity to make propaganda points against what Reagan called the “evil empire.” Though the attack had been carried out by a neo-fascist extremist from Turkey, conservative U.S. writers and journalists began to promote allegations of a secret KGB role. In this case, CIA analysts knew the charges were false because of the CIA’s penetration of East Bloc intelligence services.

But responding to White House pressure in 1985, Gates closeted a special team to push through an administration-desired paper linking the KGB to the attack. Though the analysts opposed what they believed to be a dishonest intelligence report, they couldn’t stop the paper from leaving CIA and being circulated around Washington.

doesn't bode very well. we'll have to wait and see, i guess.

rock the boat! oh, whoops, i meant vote. hey, i just got that!

	elect juniper pearl!
	the test was negative!

ahhh, the crisp, invigorating autumn scent of election day, the valentine's day of debate-club champions and smarmy, toothy salesmen. today you have a golden opportunity to make a real difference in america, by voting--for me. for anything. governor, squirrel queen, pace car, keymaster, any and all positions are acceptable, as long as you make the effort to go out and vote. for me. and if not for me, then at least for someone who is not rick santorum.

when you're done voting, please join me at my victory party at the brookline booksmith. my campaign committee will be presenting a selection from the best american essays, which were also elected democratically by (two) americans. susan orlean will be delivering my acceptance speech, and, accordingly, i will ask that you direct all your applause to her. if you can find me (and it's unlikely that this will be the case; i am stealthy like the ninja. again, do not vote for santorum, as those who do so risk subjecting themselves to my crazy nunchaku onslaught) i will happily shake your hand or other object in a celebratory fashion. i promise that my hands will be clean, and, as you can see above, the same vow applies to my bill of health. by definition, anything that's written under the stars and stripes is a verifiable national slogan, so you have nothing to fear.

except santorum. so please vote. for me. of course, i am only one girl, and as much as i would love to, i can't do everything everywhere. i understand there are some other noble citizens who will be willing to step up and serve in the many roles i will regretfully be unable to fill once i assume my position as whatever you decide i ought to be, and if this is the case, i hope you have taken the time to hear them out and make a responsible decision regarding their merits. the future is bright, people. now soldier forth and plant your ballot-shaped flag in it.

gladwell didn't give me anything.

john hodgman made me a birthday present! but he needed a little help getting it (SECRETLY) into my hands, so he enlisted freelance podcaster extraordinaire dave lifton to help him disguise it as a professional interview entirely unrelated to me. what tremendous, tender lengths he goes to for my sake! hodgman and i are the mummenschanz of long-distance love, proclaiming our devotion through a series of contortions and crabwalks and intricately propped maneuvers that only the most dedicated observer would ever completely understand. but even a casual passerby might enjoy some or all of the show, so i would like to share my present with all of you. you may partake of it here, and you may leave your belated cards and gifts on the hall table.

friday celebrity-letter blogging

dear jim jarmusch,

hey. i haven't heard from you in a while, so i thought i would write and ask what you've been up to. have you seen any cool birds lately? i know that you're into birdwatching and all that. i'm not, really, but i'm a big fan of the tufted titmouse, i think it's supercute. do you see them ever? they look like this:


the tufted titmouse is my favorite bird. and guess what? there's another bird called the juniper titmouse. isn't that funny? it's like, if your favorite bird was the white-eyed vireo, and you found out there was a jarmusch vireo, you'd think it was pretty cool, i bet. the juniper titmouse looks like this:


compared to the tufted titmouse it looks kind of wild-eyed and disheveled, and that's how i look compared to most other girls, so i think that even though everyone says its name comes from its berry preference, i think really it's named after me. i'm not named after it, because my parents hate birds. one time i found a dead robin in the back yard and i picked it up and carried it all around and showed it where the good blackberries grew, and then i sat on my swing with it and sang to it, and my mom came outside and tried to take it away from me and throw it into the woods, but i wouldn't give it to her until my dad came home so we could bury it. it was missing an eye. maybe you could make a movie about that. it would be neat if bill murray could play my dad, they look a little bit alike. only my dad was kind of young then, so maybe it wouldn't work. or you and john lurie could make a tv show like fishing with john about birding instead of fishing. i'd totally watch it all the time.

chirp chirp,

juniper

what, no intersex option? bigots.

for months i have been frequently fleetingly befuddled by sony's ad campaign for its bravia flat-screen television, the tagline of said campaign being, "the world's first television for men and women™." yes, i've typed that deliberately and correctly—this golden droplet of marketing sputum has been trademarked. it's left my brow furrowed frequently because i have been forced to take equal pause every time i've heard it and fleetingly because i dismiss it the second the ad ends, as i'm not interested in purchasing a television or in defragmenting the decision-making processes of the men and women who are interested in purchasing televisions. but tonight, for whatever reason, i cracked. what is it about this shiny box that makes it capable, at long last, after millenia of stereotyping, mutilation, glass ceilings, and saccharine self-help books, of bridging the previously boundless gap between the sexes? how has the bravia succeeded where all other projection media have failed?

well, it hasn't, unless "bridging the gap" is now a euphemism for putting little blue hats on the boy babies and little pink hats on the girls. in fact, sony's web site does this more or less literally, using distinct horizontal bands of the two colors to express to consumers how happily their respective genders can now coexist in a single space. (even on planet happy sony, however, the genders remain separate and unequal; the pink band is less than half the size of the blue and is trapped underneath it.) the site doesn't dangle any carrots; all of the appliance's secrets are revealed under two headings: Why Men Like It and Why Women Like It. in case any of you men and women out there are too crippled by your current asexual viewing experiences to know what you like and why, here are the bravia's draws:

1. amazing hd picture
2. wider viewing angles
3. broader color gamut
4. slim design

stop thinking now! these are The Reasons! you do not like anything else about this television, and no other television can offer you these things! and these are The Reasons for all of you. The Reasons are androgynous; it's your reasons for liking The Reasons that give you away on a gonadal level. the masculine appeal of wider viewing angles is as follows:

and you thought you'd only get to hog the couch. with a generous 178° viewing angle, now you can hog any piece of furniture in the whole living room and get outstanding clarity and detail no matter where you sit.

who needs a couch? climb on top of the trophy case! build a nest of empty beer cans and dirty socks in the far left corner! be the crazy frat-house animal that dumb broad—i mean, your restricted line of vision—has never allowed you to be! but don't beat your chest too hard about it, because for the ladies we offer the feng-shui-obsessed flip side:

why does the couch always have to be in the middle of the room? with the bravia lcd tv it doesn't have to be. its 178° viewing angle gives you 178° of space to design. so rearrange the living room any way you want. you'll still get an outstanding picture no matter where you sit.

the remaining 182° of space will be lost to you, as all space not penetrated by tv-generated radiation eventually collapses into a vacuum, but you'll be too exhausted from the furniture moving and hypnotized by the pretty colored lights to ever miss it. bravia is huge! it's shiny! it's outrageously expensive! and even if you go out of your way to keep it from being at the center of the room, it'll still be all you can see no matter where you look! just like the diamond that you know in your heart he'll never give you.

men and women are different. they like different things. but i'm pretty sure that when it comes to a television, we're all asking the same question: how's the picture? we want our images sharp and our pixels undetectable and our colors rich and true to life. but even the bravia can't serve up anything that comes close to the visceral impact of immediate reality, not that it appears to want to extend anything more than 1950s-era condescension and a gleeful passing out of footballs and feather dusters. tonight the commercial drove me away from my own television and toward my sofa, which i've moved not just out of the middle of the room but into a different room, a room filled with books and plants and paintings, all of which are quite vivid and utterly enthralling. after all these months, sony's marketing department has finally gotten through to me. from the bottommost recesses of my uterus, sony, thank you, for reminding me not to settle for eyesores.