The Sheila Variations

Tribeca Film Festival

I'm going to be part of a team of critics covering the Tribeca Film Festival for House Next Door - one of the best culture blogs out there. Be sure to check in over there over the next week to see all the reviews as they come pouring in as quickly as we can write the damn things. I saw two movies today, and will see 7 movies in the next 3 days. Because I'm going to the press screenings, and not the regular public screenings - the movies are not shown at prime time. I'm seeing a movie tomorrow morning at 9 a.m., for example. And then racing downtown to see another one. Sunday will be truly insane. Movie in morning. Race to New York Public Library for the tribute to Ryzsard Kapuscinski. Hopefully meet Salman Rushdie and Philip Gourevitch. Race back downtown for second movie. And I will write my reviews ... when?

Here are some photos I took today as I tramped through the fog from movie to movie.

Ye Olde Media Kit and press pass.

I felt like Rosalind Russell in this moment.

Mural I fell in love with, as will soon become obvious.

Mural love.

Staff setting up the memorabilia and information table.

Poster on the wall in the lobby. I couldn't resist.

In between movies. A breather.

Madison Square Garden.

Back to work.

Mural love, yet again.

A black flat behind an information booth.

Hypnotized by the mural. Who wouldn't be?

Preparing ...

What can I say. The mural called .... and I answered.

Descending down to the lobby after the second movie - where audience members were gathering for the public screenings. You could feel the buzz in the air.

People holding tickets, yearning for tickets ... corralled up into queues outside.

The marquee.

Happy Birthday Google!!

I would like to list a couple of reasons why I am thankful for Google (thanks for the reminder, Annika!), and it gets quite specific, and I have found that most of it is quite personal. There may be more to add to this list. I am thinking more upon it.

I am thankful for Google because:

-- it brought Andrew back into my life through his sister Googling his name ... and coming across this post I wrote about him, about a Valentine he gave me when we were in the 6th grade. And suddenly ... suddenly ... after writing that post ... I get an email from Andrew ... and I have literally not spoken to him or seen him for ... 20 years? Amazing.

-- Very significantly, it brought Keith M. back into my life. He Googled himself (I'm amazed by people who DON'T Google themselves. I am also baffled at those who judge the self-Googlers. "Wow. What does THAT say about her ... she was Googling HERSELF." Uhm yeah? And the problem with that would be? I Google myself every other minute, practically) ... So anyway, Keith M. Googled his own name and eventually somehow came across this post. He knew immediately it was his old friend (my URL gives me away). He emailed me, saying, "I remember that kiss." Causing my heart to do freakin' backflips. I'm not kidding. It took me a good 24 hours to come down from that one. Keith!!! The high school quarterback! Star of our high school! I then saw him at my high school reunion and got to hang out with him - ("Sheila and I had some serious heat when we were 9" said Keith to Beth) - and then wrote this huge post of acknowledgement about him, one of my most favorite things I've ever written. And now that Keith is back in my life - he read it. I mean ... can you imagine? Reading something like that written about you by someone who was in love with you when you were 9? I don't know. I was so emotional and so ALL ABOUT KEITH for a good 2 weeks ... and it's all because of Google. I was able to reconnect with and acknowledge an old and dear friend. Sniff.

-- I was able to track down, through Googling a key search term, one of my most favorite childhood books ever.

-- Along that same line ... someone Googled "bimulous night" herself, months later - ... and came across my post. Which then led her to be able to find the actual title of the book. The goofily ecstatic and bubbly excited email she sent me - a total stranger - brought tears to my eyes on a blue blue day.

-- There's so much more. Seriously. But so far - what comes up for me - is the human element. I know a lot of that is because the URL of my site is my name ... I am not anonymous ... and that has been a blessing and a curse. But when people like Keith M. emerge from the mists of time, through Google ... and I am then able to tell him, as an adult, who he was to me, and the impression he made, and how special he truly was ... and that Keith M. is able to take that with him ... and know that ... know that someone out there, his 9 year old friend, somehow saw him, saw the best in him ... and carried that with her all these years ...

Life-changing. When I look at it like that, Google has changed my life.

Re-cut

Okay. This is a minute observation - and I have no idea what it means - but I have a guess - and it's something I noticed, so here goes.

About 2 weeks ago, I noticed ads on television for a new film called Stay. It is obviously a thriller of some kind - the ads showed an increasingly desperate Ryan Gosling (he also probably should be on my list of future Oscar winners - I should do a post about him some day - that kid can ACT) - but there's Ryan Gosling trying to convince people that his father is dead, but he's alive, and yadda yadda. At one point, in the ad, there's a close-up on Ryan Gosling's eyes - and slowly - the screen image changes - to a close-up of another man's eyes. They looked vaguely familiar. I thought that maybe they were Peter Sarsgaard's eyes.

Whatever. No biggie.

A new thriller starring Ryan Gosling. Cool!

Then - about a week ago - the ads changed. Suddenly - we see that it is Ewan feckin' McGregor's eyes - and suddenly - in the new ads - Ryan Gosling does NOT appear to be the star - but Ewan McGregor appears to be the star. It wasn't Peter Sarsgaard's eyes (however you spell his name - sorry) - it was McGregor's. I should have known! You could see that little mole that McGregor has on his forehead ... Now it is obvious whose eyes it is in that close-up.

ANYHOO. Suddenly, my interest level in this film ratcheted up 100%. Nothing against Ryan Gosling - even though I have thought he was fantastic in pretty much anything he's in (anyone see Murder by Numbers? Honestly. His performance in that - as a cocky disaffected Columbine-esque high school student - is star-making. Truly. That was my first moment of awareness of Ruan Gosling, and I was blown away) - however: he is not enough of a draw yet to get me to go see a film. He's still building his career, he's still a newbie in many ways. Maybe not to the Tiger Beat crowd ... perhaps that's his main demographic at this point? Not sure.

But I just found it interesting how they completely re-cut the ads - after a week of saturating the landscape with the Ryan Gosling version - to make it now seem like a Ewan McGregor vehicle - which is FAR more compelling to me (and probably to many others like me).

I always wonder about that - they are obviously testing the waters - seeing who their audience is, who will be interested in this movie. Okay, so let's float out the Ryan Gosling version ...

I wonder if "support" or "buzz" or "excitement" for that version was tepid ... I know it was for me. It looked like a standard thriller to me, starring an up-and-coming Hollywood star - nothing to write home about. But Ewan McGregor? I'll go see him in anything. I would sit in an ugly flourescent-lit office and watch him read the telephone book outloud. He's a HUGE star.

But ... and here's my theory ... Hollywood doesn't quiiiiiiite know what it has in Ewan McGregor. This has always been the case - and the fact that "Hollywood" would float out a version of the ad NOT featuring Ewan McGregor is proof of that, to me. I'm trying to imagine the same thing happening to another star of his caliber and visibility - and having a hard time picturing it. Would they ever create a version of an ad for a Johnny Depp movie and NOT feature Johnny Depp? In my view, Ewan McGregor is one of the best actors working today ... but "Hollywood", or the money-making people in Hollywood - don't trust his level of stardom - don't quiiiiite trust his appeal. They don't "get it". They don't "get" that there are those of us out here (and I am so not alone) who will go to see Ewan McGregor do anything - in the same way that others will go see Johnny Depp do anything. McGregor has that kind of loyal fan base. But ... he's not easy to pin down, or control ... Gosling obviously has a team of people working for him - he's everywhere - he's got publicists, a marketing team, a powerful agent ... but sorry - you cannot force stardom. It must be developed. It will happen for Gosling, I am sure of it - he's on that path - but he's not there yet.

The ads just were not compelling when it looked like a "Gosling vehicle".

But now - and I've read a couple of reviews where it is obvious that the main thrust of the film is actually the journey of the McGregor character - they have switched ploys, and have finally caved in to the obvious fact that McGregor is a ginormous star, and there are those of us out there - NOT the Tiger Beat crowd - who love him, and will go see him do anything.

I still don't think that McGregor really gets the props he deserves (to quote Eminem there). Yes, he gets millions of dollars per film. Go Ewan! He's in the Star Wars movies. Blah blah blah

But really? Hollywood is a bit baffled by him. They cannot control him. He became a star without their help ... he became a star with Trainspotting ... and Hollywood always finds that kind of stardom a weeeeeeee bit baffling - not to mention unforgivable.

Sheesh

Finally. I was thoroughly sick of hearing about it.

For months it's been a constant whispering chorus: Will she forgive him??? Will she take him back???? Will he change his ways? Oh my God, they're back together! Oh wow, Sienna is really making him WORK for it ... Oh my God, they broke up again ... will she forgive him???

What is she - 22? This is a typical beginner's mistake, in dating. Swept away by the charm of a man who - obviously - has problems being faithful. In normal life, Sienna might not KNOW that the guy is a "cheater" - because he's not famous - but Jude Law is a KNOWN cheater. Sadie Frost kicked him to the curb because of it. But Sienna, a young waifish girl of indeterminate talent with a hell of a publicist, believed that this was real love. She's young. It's all right. But it just so happens she has to go through it with the tabloids snapping photos of the whole thing. (I wrote a bit about my thoughts on this - during the Bennifer Debacle that took up so much of my life.)

It's not a good sign (for her career I mean) that I am already experiencing Sienna fatigue when I have never seen her in a movie, I don't even know who the hell she is, and the only thing that seems notable about her is that people seem to feel she's a good dresser. Uhm ooookay. Whatever you say, folks!

Sienna, here's a tip: when a man cheats on his wife WITH YOU - odds are he will cheat on you. Even if you do have retro stringy hair and wear flowy genie pants to movie premieres.

Oh whatever. I found the whole thing very tiresome. Perhaps not for the reasons that many of you out there find such things tiresome. I found it tiresome because they aren't big enough stars yet for me to care about their problems.

I found the Brad - Angelina - Jennifer Aniston thing quite fascinating to watch, actually. Why? Because I am a trivial person and I don't have a life of my own. AND - all three of them are HUGE STARS. Interesting!!! It makes it INTERESTING! Wow - how is Jen doing? Did you see the pictures of her in Vanity Fair? How 'bout the spread Brad and Angelina did in W? Wow - wonder what is REALLY going on there?

I find it fascinating. I am not ashamed of it.

But this? Isn't the interest just a bit over the top? Is Jude Law a bigger star than I realize? I don't think so. I know he's very respected, his talent is quite apparent ... but ... this sort of frenzy? It seems a bit much.

And - as of right now - Sienna Miller is a nobody. Despite appearing on the coveted "Young Hollywood" Vanith Fair cover. She's one of those people who appear to be anointed as "the next thing" by the industry. I should do a post on those one day as well. Gretchen Mol is the poster child for this phenomenon. It rarely works out for such people. The public is like: "Uhm ... so ... who is this person??" Anyway, back to Sienna: She's got a lot of projects in the pipeline, including the Edie Sedgwick project (that bitch stole the part I've been gunning for since college!!) - which, as we all know, Katie Holmes famously backed out of after becoming engaged to Chimp-jumping Cult-Boy. No, she can't play edie Sedgwick because Edie was a drug addict and Scientology doesn't approve of drugs. So - that might be Sienna's "big break" - but as of now? What has she done besides wear flowy pants, Annie Hall hats, and show up in grainy photographs looking weepy and stressed out? WHY DO WE CARE?

I care when it's Nicole Kidman staggering on the beach in tears. I care when it's Julia Roberts running through the airport wearing dark glasses. I eat it up when I see paparazzi photos of Jen Aniston having a heart-to-heart on her patio with Courtney Cox. I love all that. Because they are huge stars and I enjoy watching their lives unfold.

I feel like Sienna and Jude are being thrust upon me by tabloid editors and both of their teams of publicists ... and frankly, I'm not ready for it. They're not big enough yet. Come back to me when the two of them are ginormous stars ... and maybe THEN I'll want to stare greedily at grainy photographs of the two of them walking through some random London park - she with huge sunglasses on, he looking like HELL ...

But now?

Fatigue.

Fatigue.

Thank God it's over at last.

(Oh, and please, if you feel like saying, "I don't know why people are interested in celebrities at all" or "I've never read People magazine and I'm damn proud of it" - spare me. This is for people who GET what I'm talking about here.)

The election of 1800 ... and newspapers ... and media bias ...

This morning, I was reading Jefferson's Second Revolution - a book I started a while ago, lost interest in (not because of the topic ... but because of the writing ) - and have now picked up again.

It's about the election of 1800 - the "second Revolution", the "Jeffersonian" revolution, the "triumph of Republicanism" - the death of the Federalist party. It also is, in my opinion, one of the most incredible stories of the beginning of this nation - because it was, in the end, a peaceful transfer of power. It blows my mind ... when you look at, first of all historical precedent (peaceful transfer of power between two groups THAT HATE EACH OTHER??? When the hell does THAT ever happen?) and second of all how much the Federalists and Republicans demonized each other, each thought that the country would literally be destroyed by the other.

It was the birth of party politics in this country. And, like many births, it was painful, messy, long.

And yet when the Republicans won - the Federalists weren't lined up against the wall. The transfer happened peacefully. I mean, granted, the Federalists were destroyed, completely - they had been relics of the landed aristocracy anyway, and their time had come and gone ... it was time for them to go ... but still. The party was destroyed, but the people who had made up the party were not murdered and thrown in mass graves. They stayed involved in the system, they adjusted ... During the election of 1800 friendships fell apart, relationships shattered and never recovered ... but the NATION survived.

There's a new book out now - I've seen it - that also has the election of 1800 as its focus - and I think I need to pick up that book, since i'm not wild about this woman's writing. It almost sounds like a first draft. But whatever. I'm making my way through it, concentrating on the STORY.

It's awesome stuff. Stuff I know already, but still ... You think the election we just went through was nasty? The nastiest ever? If you think that, then I suggest you look into the election of 1800. It'll give a nice perspective, a little historical distance from our own present day. The rhetoric NOW is sooooo much more restrained than what was common-day vitriol back then. You can't even believe it. You think NOW we have a loud fringe on both sides? Go back and read about the election of 1800. History. Always good to realize that there is nothing really new under the sun, and that no generation invents the wheel. (Well. Except for the actual generation who actually DID invent the wheel, of course.)

I also thought it was really funny (in light of what's going on nowadays) to learn, again, how people expected newspapers to be biased back then. That was the whole DEAL with newspapers. An unbiased newspaper? A newspaper not connected to a political party? What? Why on earth would one read a newspaper like THAT? One paper presented one side, other papers presented the OTHER side.

The same thing is true today, obviously. You watch Fox for one "side", you listen to NPR for the other "side" - it's up to you. But you KNOW they're biased. I don't expect The New York Times to be unbiased. But I certainly don't ONLY read The New York Times. I surf around, checking multiple sources, for stories that interest me ... hoping I can piece together what I think that way. I guess what I'm saying is is that I try not to have fits of apoplexy if I run into bias. I try to get at the NEWS and if that takes a bit more work? If that means I read 3 newspapers? 4 or 5? Then okay. I'm fine with that.

When John Adams signed the Sedition Act (Oh, John ... John ... why ...) - Republican newspapers were shut down, editors jailed, etc. Jefferson, hanging out at Monticello, was instrumental in getting some of these papers started up again, so that he could have a place to put HIS views into the public realm. (Only, of course, he never signed his name. He let Madison be his front-man, while he pretended to only care about sweet peas, the constellations, and his grandkids. "Interested in politics? Me? Oh, never. I wouldn't have anything to do with the nasty business ... Let me count the flowers in my garden ... I need to harvest the hay tomorrow ..." Meanwhile, he was completely pulling the strings. Turns out, this guy was a ruthless party politician - he just didn't want to appear like he was in the fray.)

Regardless. I just thought it was so funny to remember again the long long history of bias in the media in this country ... and probably, if blogging had existed at the time of the election of 1800, a bunch of people on the sidelines would have had a FIELD DAY. Sure! I suppose the frenzied pamphleteers throughout the colonies (it seems, at times, like every private citizen in America was pumping out pamphlets on political issues) could be the equivalent of bloggers today.

But to hear actual newspaper editors, in the late 1700s, say stuff like, "A newspaper that is not biased towards one side is no good at all." hahahaha

Can you imagine?? An open acceptance of bias - from editors, writers, audience alike: if you read THIS paper, you'd get THIS side. If you wanted the other side, you'd read THIS paper (and pray to God that the editor hadn't been thrown in jail). It was a dirty fight, a battle of the newspapers, a war of words. And bias was ASSUMED.

Finally!!

After keeping us waiting for over a week, leaving tantalizing hints left and right, Steve Silver has finally posted his thoughts on the self-congratulatory hubris (yes, I love that word!!) of many bloggers at this point in time in regards to the mainstream media (no, I won't call it the MSM), something that has always kind of bugged me, and over the past couple of weeks has REALLY bugged me.

Steve's post is well worth the wait!

It's not that I don't see the value of blogging, in terms of political debate, and in terms of keeping journalists honest. Blogging is an enormous development. It really is. It has the possibility of tremendous power (and I think that power has gone to some people's heads, frankly.) But the Trent Lott thing is a perfect example of the power of this new medium. I don't want to discount that. But there are certain blogs I can't even read anymore because, frankly, they are starting to sound paranoid and insane. Also, like they are having an extended manic episode, mixed in with grandiose fantasies. Not to mention it's boring writing, too, because it's all the same. You know what these people are gonna say before they even say it. Lemme guess: the "MSM" is biased?

The dust-up over the last couple of weeks between Matt Margolis (grrrr) and his willing henchman going after the 13 year old boy is a perfect example of how the "power" of being a blogger can completely go to someone's head. I lost all respect for those guys in that episode. Zip. Nada. Buh-bye. You lose! There's a way to use blogging for good - I've seen it happen, we've all seen it happen. But perspective has been lost. And many of the bloggers who rail, non-stop, about the mainstream media, continuously LINK to the mainstream media ... because ... er... that's where they get their news. The hypocrisy of this remains unexamined by many of these bloggers.

Go read Steve's essay. Even if you don't agree with him in the particulars (and I happen to agree with him in all the particulars), hopefully it will spark a nice debate.

Commercial thoughts

-- I hated the commercial with the frozen man. I DIDN'T GET IT, I didn't understand it - the plot, the product, the point - and whoah, nelly, I hate a commercial that makes me feel stupid.
-- I LOVED the one of the guy with the cat and the tomato sauce. Very funny.
-- The GoDaddy commercial was hilarious. "So what will you be doing, miss?" She stands up and gyrates around, all boobs, and says in a high voice, "I'd probably go like this ... and then like this ..." We laughed about it throughout the night.
-- I was sick of the P. Diddy commercial the FIRST time I saw it.
-- I very much liked the Thank You to our troops commercial - it was very well done. Soft, and very human, I thought. The slow-mo, the different faces ... it was underplayed, and I liked it a lot.
-- Uhm ... can someone please explain the stupid frozen man commercial to me?? DUMB.

-- Best commercial of the night? See below. No contest. See below.

Dear CNN:

I wanted to let you know that I sincerely appreciate the "Breaking News" email I received about Julia Roberts' safe and healthy delivery of twins. Thank you so much.

It was nice to NOT get a Breaking News email about outgoing Ukrainian President Leonid Kuchma okaying a new election in order to stave off the crisis in the Ukraine.

It was nice to NOT get a Breaking News email about the nomination of Carlos Gutierrez as the new Secretary of Commerce.

I am very very glad to see that you have your priorities in place.

The Ukrainian presidential crisis? Bah, humbug, whatEVer.

But I have been barely able to sleep or wash myself since Julia Roberts was confined to bed rest.

Here is how the sickness works

-- I could not care less about Scott Peterson. I think it was decided at a Court TV company meeting: "We need a huge case ... our ratings are sinking ..." and that one came along, and boom. Now we have to hear about it every single day. I don't care about it. I am sorry for Laci, I'm sorry for the unborn child, I'm sorry for her parents, but I don't care about the trial.

-- If and when I DO think about the trial, I am sure that Scott Peterson killed her. Er ... I don't know, when a guy dyes his hair and tries to flee to Mexico carrying $10,000 in cash in his pocket ... it's a bit of a clue that he might not be on the level.

-- HOWEVER - here is the sickness:

I mean it when I say I do not care about that man. I do not care about the juror dismissed because of such and such and so and so. I do not care about the talking-legal-heads on the television, yammering on and on and on, so PSYCHED that this poor woman was murdered, because it means their jobs are secure. I do not care about Amber Frey. I do not care, Sam I am.

-- But: the media bombardment has been so out of control, so IN MY F***ING FACE (for example: I did not receive a "CNN Breaking News" email about the death of Arafat, but I DID receive a CNN Breaking News email about the juror being dismissed from the Peterson case - I think I need to discontinue that service, what do you think??) Anyway - I have been unable (despite all of my efforts) to tune out Scott Peterson's sorry life. It doesn't matter that I have apathy towards him, it doesn't matter that I have interest in SO MANY OTHER THINGS HAPPENING RIGHT NOW ... Against my will, I have been informed about Scott Peterson.

-- And so when I just saw the news that the jury had reached a verdict, and it would be announced at 4 pm today, I felt an involuntary jolt of excitement and anticipation.

-- This is a sickness.

-- I did not ask to be involved in Scott Peterson's life. I have RESISTED the pull of the case. I do not follow it. And yet - all along - information has still somehow filtered through. This is what is extraordinary to me. Even more extraordinary because I don't have a television. And STILL - I am aware of the bare bones of what is going on in that case.

-- I resent it.

-- And yet still. I am excited to hear the verdict at 4 p.m.

-- I wish I wasn't excited. By being excited, I feel like the media has won.

-- Only 40 more minutes ...

If Martha Stewart were a man ...

... would the press be so overwhelmingly fascinated by the fact that she was going to be subjected to a strip search? It's mentioned in every article I've read. It was being discussed on the radio this morning.

"Will she have to go through a strip search?" The strip search procedure was then discussed in great detail. Would this be the case if her name were Martin Stewart? I'm serious.

This gleeful fascination with the humiliation of Martha baffles me. I'm not saying she shouldn't be punished, and she doesn't seem all that eager to protest ... She says she's innocent, but she wanted to start her sentence, get it over with ... I admire that.

What I find disgusting is this dwelling on the strip search. Maybe it just seems like "dwelling" to me - but I don't think so. When male celebrities have gone to prison, has the press ALSO obsessed on the image of the famous person having a strip search done? I don't know the answer to that - so I'm willing to be proven wrong. If anyone can remember a famous GUY going to jail and having "strip search" being in every article, then I will eat my hat. Only I'm not wearing a hat.

Regardless, in the case of Martha Stewart, it strikes me as hostile. Hostility towards this hoity-toity woman, and let's revel in her humiliation.

"Ooooh, how exciting that that cool blonde bitch is going to brought down so low ... Let's imagine her squatting and coughing and being searched internally .. HAHAHAHA - isn't that so great???"

That's the vibe I'm getting.

I don't get it. She's a business woman. She made herself into a millionaire. You can't tell me she's any more ruthless than a Bill Gates. It's people's interpretations of how women should act, then. Otherwise why such gleeful hostility? I don't remember gleeful discussions of strip searches when Robert Downey Jr. went to jail. Again, I could be wrong. I'm just observing that it seems to have a different feeling, with this particular celebrity. The word "gleeful" keeps coming up for me. It's just an interpretation, but I'm sticking to it. Would there be such gleeful hostility at the image of OJ Simpson (if he had gone to jail) being subjected to a strip search? Maybe there would have been. But I doubt it.

Message to CNN

I have a request.

On a day such as today when we have:

-- 35 dead children in Baghdad
-- the continuing horror in Darfur
-- a volcano about to blow
-- a war going on
-- and various and sundry other big news items ...

I do not need a "CNN BREAKING NEWS" email that Tony Blair has a heart flutter and is getting surgery. I am concerned, yes, and I hope everything is fine, yes, and thank you very much for letting me know ...

but PLEASE. Just so you know where a little small citizen like myself is coming from?? I feel like the world is on the edge of complete and utter disaster. At any moment, the apocalypse could shriek down upon us. We've got floods, earthquakes, hurricanes, Vioxx, suicide bombs, we've got huge scary puppets in Times Square as we speak ...

PLEASE save the emails for emergencies.

There is a history to my annoyance. The last "CNN Breaking News" email I got was to inform me that Rick James had passed away.

I don't need an emergency email to tell me that. I will get the news in my own way, reading the headlines, etc. But if Mt. St. Helens blows?? (Knock wood) THEN you can feel free to shoot me an alarming email.

Thank you very much.

Here's my opinion - what's yours

Repeatedly, we are assured that the trial of OJ Simpson was "the trial of the century".

My opinion is that the only reason for this is because it happened NOW and it seemed tremendously important at the time.

In my humble opinion, the "trial of the century" was the trial of Bruno Hauptmann - accused of kidnapping and murdering the Lindbergh baby in 1935.

I don't think the media swarm of the OJ trial could TOUCH the frenzy of that trial - but of course I didn't live through the Lindbergh baby trial.

Just came across this piece by Dahlia Lathwick - and in it is something which struck me:

And it's said that more reporters covered the Bruno Hauptmann trial for the kidnapping and murder of the Lindbergh baby in 1935 than covered all of World War I.

Picture that.

I've read all of Anne Lindbergh's journals - they're one of my many obsessions - and I find it very hard to comprehend what exactly the two of them went through. They ended up having to move to Europe, when other children were born, for fear of what would happen to them. Also, apparently, so that Lindbergh could be closer to his beloved Fascists.

But that's neither here nor there.

So my question is to all of you smarty-pants out there (and I recognize that there is no right answer):

What do you think is the "trial of the century"?

Everyone's gonna have different criteria, obviously. So it will be a good discussion.

My vote is the trial of Bruno Hauptmann.

A gentle meditative moment

When I reflect upon the fact that Jayson Blair, that lying whining lazy opportunistic conniving son-of-a-bitch, has named his memoir Burning Down My Master's House...

I want to put my fist through a wall.

/end of gentle meditative moment

A Rambling Discourse on Stereotypes: Jayson Blair, "The Bachelor", OJ, Bitches, Male Bashing

This post should be subtitled: All Over the Map. Follow me. If you dare:

There should be no need for every black person to hang his head in shame because of Jayson Blair's behavior. If you see everything through the filter of race, then you cannot see anything clearly.

I remember the pictures of black people jumping up and down for joy when OJ was declared "not guilty"... It seemed to me that the revelers were not gleeful because OJ was acquitted. Not really. They jumped up and down because they themselves had probably received unfair treatment from the LAPD (or wherever they lived) and felt vindicated. A wrong had been righted. That logic seems completely insane to me, but whatever: that was what was operating, because everything had been turned into a racial issue, as opposed to a criminal question: "did he or did he not" kill his wife?

Yes, the LAPD cops have a racist reputation. Black people can be unfairly targeted by racist ignorant cops. However: REALITY CHECK: I am guessing that none of the blacks complaining about racial profiling had ever experienced a white cop planting a bloody glove in their backyard.

Vincent Bugliosi, famous prosecutor of the Manson murders, commented on the miscarriage of justice that occurred in the OJ case (he actually wrote a book about it called, appropriately, Outrage), and wrote (and I'm paraphrasing): "I've spoken to all of my black friends and colleagues about this, and asked them what they thought. They have all spoken about being pulled over unnecessarily by the LAPD. I always reply: 'Yes. Perhaps you have been harassed and pulled over unfairly. But FRAMED? Have any of you been FRAMED by the cops?' Of course, the answer to THAT question has always been No." )

Many blacks (not all, but many) saw the OJ trial through a filter of race, their own filter of bad experiences from their lives, and felt that OJ's acquittal was their vindication for the pain and humiliation they themselves had suffered at the hands of the cops.

As in: "OJ could not be allowed to pay for that murder, because if he was found to be guilty... then our entire house of cards would come crumbling down. We cannot bear to have a member of our race pilloried, because it reflects on all of us."

The closer I look at that, the less sense it makes.

All black people are not OJ. OJ is not indicative of all black people. I do not look at OJ's behavior and have any opinion about black people as a whole.

Don't hang your head in shame because Jayson Blair is a bad egg!!!

It's a bit like moments I have had when I've caved and watched "The Bachelor". In the season with Andrew Firestone as The Bachelor, there was a scene at the end of the season where the absolute worst side of women (in general) was on display. They all looked like catty back-stabbing passive-aggressive bitches. Some of them would be bitchy when on camera privately - cutting each other down, mean mean mean, and then be simperingly sweet to each other in person.

The final scene was like an anthropological study. "Watch the female of the species. Notice how her bitchiness grows as each day goes on. Interesting, too: the oldest girl in this flock of females, Christina, who is 30, appears to be the least mature, and most bitchy of them all. Must make a note of that, and look into it further."

I am many things I am not proud of: I can be arrogant, and righteous, I can be way-moody, I can be scared of stupid things, I have a pretty hot temper, I have a tendency towards pessimism, but I am not a back-stabber. And I am not petty. I am also not passive-aggressive. If I have a problem with you, you will hear about it. And not 5 months later. I do not give someone the silent treatment. It is not in my nature.

I also have many great women friends. There are women who don't like other women, women who secretly do not want other women to do well, women who say "You look gorgeous, Susie" one moment and then hiss "Doesn't Susie look awful?" the second poor Susie leaves the room.

I watched that scene in "The Bachelor", cringing at times, taking it personally, feeling like the worst of my sex was on display. Bitchy catty women make us ALL look bad.

However: just because they're a bunch of back-stabbing straight-haired tank-top-and-tight-jeans-and-highheeled-boots-wearing bitches ... doesn't mean anything about ME, personally. They all look TERRIBLE in terms of their personalities, and also the general lack of self-awareness (well, except for Tina Fabulous who came out of the whole debacle smelling like a rose.)

I am sure many men watch episodes such as that one and have their worst thoughts about women confirmed. "Yup. Look at that. All women are back-stabbing money-hungry bitches." I've met guys like that, I've been on a couple of dates with guys like that: men who have terrible opinions of women, for whatever reason. Men who listen to every single thing you say, listening for cliches, listening for irrationality, waiting to be confirmed in his belief that women are irrational, and a little bit stupid. Mommy didn't love them enough, whatever. I have no interest in playing psychologist.

What I am trying to say is that black journalists and black professionals do not need to hang their heads in shame because Jayson Blair is BLACK. They should hang their heads in shame because he is a dirty JOURNALIST. Or: don't even hang the head in shame! Please, let's stop it with the shame-filled confessional stuff. Just 'fess up that he sucks, that he should never have been allowed to advance, and make sure that your own work is beyond reproach. Do what you can, in your small corner of the profession, to insure that it doesn't happen again. His race is inconsequential. Do not over-identify yourself with your race, or with your gender. It's a stupid thing to do. There are way too many exceptions to every single stereotype to take any of it seriously.

Men who grumble, "Women only care about money" don't know women like me. Men who grumble about women who spend hours shopping, have not met me. I race into a store, try on a pair of pants, fall in love with them, race out, in half an hour's time. The stereotype does not fit. I also am the opposite of cling-y or need-y. I'm too fierce about my own independence to ever try to put boundaries on somebody else. I don't need to be with somebody at all times. I could give a rat's ass if the man I'm interested in needs a couple nights to go out with the boys and whoop it up and revel in testosterone. I don't care if he looks at other women while he is out with his guy friends. Or actually, even if he is with me. If I ever couple up with someone, I am not suddenly NOT going to find other men attractive. I am not going to SUDDENLY not have a huge crush on Jeff Bridges. Whatever.

So yes, women can be small-minded, petty, and jealous ... but not all women are this way. So you cannot make blanket statements about them as a group.

At least if you're interested in the truth.

I was very glad that journalists went through soul-searching in the wake of the Jayson Blair debacle, and that the issue of race is being brought up, left and right, in an honest way. It's about time.

I do not make any assumptions about black people, in general, because of Jayson Blair. Jayson Blair was a smarmy conniving liar. And that's IT.

We need more common-sense applied to affirmative action.

Two possible conversations involving a hypothetical reporter:
1. Is [hypothetical reporter] good at what he does?
Yes.
Good enough to deserve promotion?
Yes.
Well, all righty- then.

2. Is [hypothetical reporter] good at what he does?
Well ... he's had some problems with accuracy ...
Really? Let me see some documentation of that ...
Here it is ...
Huh. Well, we probably shouldn't put him on the big national case, and we should keep a sharp eye on him.

The fact that the man is black doesn't matter at all. And neither should it matter to anybody. Black or white.

One other thing on stereotypes: Male-bashing in particular.

It's not just in the media. It is all around me.

10 minutes ago I received an email from a friend of mine, one of those joke emails, called "Men are like..."

Here are some of the "jokes":

Men are like ... Laxatives ....They irritate the shit out of you.
Men are like .... Blenders .... You need One, but you're not quite sure why.
Men are like ... Commercials ... You can't believe a word they say.
Men are like ... Lava Lamps ..... Fun to look at, but not very bright.

Who finds this funny? Who would find this funny?

"Fun to look at, BUT NOT VERY BRIGHT"...

I know men who are brilliant! I know men who are good-looking, sexy, AND brilliant! HOW DARE THEY??

I hate it when women are all lumped together under the "money-grubbing back-stabbing controlling" umbrella, and I hate it when men are lumped together under the "stupid doofus" umbrella.

The smugness of women sometimes is insufferable. I don't see men in that way. I just don't. I listen to the litany of complaints from women with husbands, how they treat him like a child, like a buffoon, an idiot, etc. It's incessant. I think: "Jesus, why did you want to hook up with him if you have such contempt for him, and for men in general?"

I can't participate in male-bashing, although I will not hesitate to call a spade a spade. If a guy treats me with contempt, or if I smell misogyny on him (yes, it has a scent) - I will not hesitate to call it by its name. But I will NOT participate in generalized male-bashing. I won't. I refuse. I know too many brilliant men. Brilliant sensitive stand-up guys. Who have their acts together.

I think of my nephew Cashel. I don't want him to grow up feeling shame-faced about his gender. I want him to be proud of being a man. I do not want him to be ashamed of who he is.

Larry Flynt - scumbag

Fantastic post over on Cold Fury about the Jessica Lynch "nude photos" thing. Mike is merciless on Flynt, and rightly so.

Lynch might have made a big mistake in choosing her sexual partners (obviously), but that neither reflects particularly poorly on her personally (lots of otherwise honorable women make those same mistakes) nor diminishes the historical fact of her capture and subsequent rescue. This is purely about a dishonest, hypocritical, bottom-feeding piece of subhuman garbage making money off of something he has no business even knowing about while boosting his chosen political party - and nothing else. Flynt is scum - always was, always will be.

Oh, and one additional comment:

Everyone keeps saying she "posed" for pictures.

From the description, at least in the articles out there right now, she did not "pose" - in that: she did not have a date with a professional photographer, like Coco from "Fame" - who asked her to disrobe, and then she posed about like a little model.

Obviously - I haven't seen the photos - and I'm not saying posing nude makes you immoral, or a slut, or worthy of whatever bad things happen to you - NO.

Here's how the photos are described:

A skin mag claimed yesterday it has pictures of Iraqi POW Jessica Lynch frolicking topless with male soldiers before she went off to war.

Without having seen them, I can't judge what exactly that means.

But "posing" may be incorrect - in actuality, she may have been drunk and dancing about, and someone took candid shots of the partying Jessica - There's a world of difference between the two.

But Mike pretty much says what I wanted to say.