Academy Award Loser of the Zeros

I was looking over the winners of the Academy Awards over the last 5 years and was surprised by their run-of-the millness

2000: Gladiator
2001: Beautiful Mind
2002: Chicago
2003: Lord of The Rings #3
2004: Million Dollar Baby

I didn't think they all were bad movies (and quite liked all of the Lord of The Rings), but they all seem to be either upbeat or basic dramas. And this is after art house flicks like The English Patient, Shakespeare in Love, and American Beauty were stealing the prize. So I guess there is 2 things I'm wondering. (1) Why was their turn to voting for the more mainstream and (2) which one is the worst?

I really am not sure what happened. I want to blame it on George W, but my thesis is kind of incomplete. I think it may have been a bit of a backlash against the darkness of American Beauty, but was their a reason we as a country liked these more? I do find it interesting that we seem to be slipping back with this year's candidates being all pretty dark

In terms of which one is the worst, it is hard for me to say. Million Dollar Baby, sticks out in my head right now because I'm still smarting over how that run-of-the-mill movie pulled it off by playing the euthanasia card. But that movie wasn't so bad. Gladiator was so overwhelming that I got bored, but I seem to be the only person ever with that reaction. I want to pick Beautiful Mind, because I hated it and it's always recommended to me b/c I'm a math teacher. But I haven't actually seen it, so that's probably not a legit vote. Therfore, I guess I'll cast my vote for Chicago, which not only starred the creepy gerbil-infested Richard Gere, but was a musical for christ sakes.

Jim Jarmusch Is Kind of Lame

Just saw Broken Flowers. Unimpressed... It's about Bill Murray going back to talk to 4 women he was together with 20 years before. Interesting premise, but Jarmusch totally drops the ball. Basically, Murray just sits around at their houses and they have stilted uncomfortable conversation while something eccentric is happening in the background. It feels interesting, but unfortunately there is no content. I wanted to know what their relationship had been like, how they had changed, how his presence might change things. But it appears Jarmusch is much too indie to lower himself to coherent plots, character development, or interesting dialogue.

So I was disappointed. And when I though about it, every movie I've seen of his I didn't like that much. Stranger Than Paradise? Fell asleep. Ghost Dog? All I remember is Forest Whitaker on a balcony with pigeons listening to the Wu Tang Clan. Maybe I just haven't seen the right movies (I've had Dead Man recommended to me a million times), but at this point I'm writing him off.

Stool Pigeons

John Adams biography? When did I become such a fucking dork? Even worse, the last 2 movies I saw were documentaries...

So I'm trying to balance out my reading more by getting back into some fiction. It seems that between magazines and intenet basketball checkings I end up reading a lot, but very few books. Well, anyway, I set as my New Years resolution numero tres, READ MORE FICTION BOOKS, and it was about time to start (I've already given up with my perpetual #1 (eat more fruit)). And I started last weekend with Dashiell Hammett's "The Thin Man". Hammett is famous for "the Maltese Falcon and this is a good solid detective novel as well. Kind of a Raymand Chandler mystery that make a bit more sense but the dialogue isn't as great. Here's my favorite quote...

"She stared at him dully and said: 'I don't like crooks, and even if I did, I wouldn't like crooks that are stool pigeons, and if I liked crooks that are stool pigeons, I still wouldn't like you.'"

John Adams

In the spirit of President's Day, I thought I would blog about a President whom we will never miss a day of work for, Senor Johno Adams.

As of last weekend I finished the David McCullough biography. Here are some things I learned.

1. Dad was a farmer, shoemaker, and deacon in Braintree Massachusetts
2. Could be a long winded hot head.
3. Defended the British soldiers who were part of the Boston Massacre
4. Played a, if not the, leading role in deciding to declare independence. Although Jefferson wrote the DOI, in most of the proceedings he was quiet while Adams fervently argued the American case.
5. Sent to France to negotiate an alliance with Franklin and Arthur Lee, who were already there. Adams was surprised to find that Franklin was incredibly lazy and spent most of his time hanging with the French and flirting with the ladies. Although Adams and Franklin got along much better than Franklin and Lee, Frankling eventually sent a a very critical assessment of Adams to Congress.
6. Gossip! A congressman, Lovell, wrote flirtatious letters to Abigail Adams while John was gone where he hinted that John might be getting a little on the side. A crude double entendrer, at one point Lovell "expressed relief that her husband's 'rigid patriotism' had not left her pregnant again." Hot Sizzle!
7. Had an insane work ethic. At one point in France he had little to do, and reacted by continuing his daily miles walks, writing tons of letters to Congress, and writing to newspapers. Eventually, he went to the Netherlands without any connections and secured a loan for America's war effort
8. Humiliated himself in his first month as Vice-President by arguing vehemently that George Washington should be called "His Majesty the President." Washington distanced himself from Adams after that.
9. In some ways was a decent president. We were much closer to war with France during that time than I ever realized. Adams did build up the navy in case of a battle (angering Democratic-Republican) but avoided war (angering Federalists).
10. Restarted a friendship with Jefferson (they were at each other's throats during Adams' presidency), and wrote many letters to each other, mostly about academic subjects.
11. Adams and Jefferson died on the same day: July 4th, exactly 50 years after the Declaration of Independence.

Overall, I am very glad I read the book. McCullough is a clear and informed biographer who manages to give you a lot of details without being boring. And, it was refreshing to read a book about a famous white male that does not have an anti-Wasp agenda. Still, I was concerned that McCullough might have been too referential. The general tone is like he's writing about his grandpa. Sort of a, "Yes, he had his bad moments, but all-in-all he's a great man". For example, there are about 10 quotes of various people calling Adams vain, including Franklin., Jefferson, and finally Adams himself. But McCullough throughout poo poos the criticism, and holds that Adams wasn't. Okay...

More disappointing to me was McCullough's treatment of the Alien and Sedition Acts (making it harder for foreigners to become citizens and making it illegal to criticize the government). This was the part of Adams life I was most curious about. McCullough does admit this as a low point, but paints it as the result of an out-of-control Federalist agenda that Adam just went along with. Maybe, but Adams still let it go through, did not publicly criticize it, and people did get in trouble for writing negative things about him (a few were sent to jail and one "tavern loafer" was fined for saying Adams had a big ass). At this point, I did not quite trust McCullough to assess how badly Adams had behaved. Additionally, I wanted some insight into how Adams changed from demanding independence to accepting severe limits on the freedom of speech.

But that is not the point in reading McCullough book. His strengths are not in deconstructing history, but in telling it straight. And he does this well. So I am left liking our second president more and wishing that our current president was even 1/8 as intelligent.

Lame Ass Blog

Don't have much to say. So... Does anyone have any music recommendations? Old or new is fine. After my initial excitment over my iPod, I don't think I've gotten anything new for a while now. Could use some direction from my musically superior Xpress riders.

The Chips Index

Thought I would blog before I got drunk. But, in the spirit of Superbowl 40, I would like to rank the top chips out there. Although my palette is not the most discriminating when it come to French food or wine, I know a good chip and have been know to scarf down a bag in one sitting. SO here goes, in desceding order to add suspense.

5. Dorritos:
No reason to diss on the corporate chip. Just like McDonald's makes good fries, Dorritos makes a solid chip. Firm, with a good crunch, and strong artificial flavorings.

4. Kettle Chips: Salt and Pepper
A little greasy, but hard to stop eating. Better than you would think, since salt and pepper don't seem like very intriguing for a chip. But they're good.

3. Tim's Parmesan and Garlic
Very crunchy, good flavor. Better than the Salt and Vinegar (a bit too much) and the Wasabi (I want to like, but they're bit strange).

2. Kettle Chips: Variety
Not necessary to really differentiate between New York Cheddar, Yogurt and Onion, or Dijon Mustard. They're all tasty without being overwhelming, and different moods match their plethora of different flavors. I appreciate that they keep experimenting as well and have the solid added Cheddar Beer and Thai recently.

1. Tim's Jalapeno
Best chip, hands down. Overwhelming, in the best way possible. Flavorful, spicy, addictive, and delicious. They can not be beat (like the Steeler today?)

FUCKING PIGS!!!!!!!

Alright, so maybe I was speeding, but give me a fucking break!

Here's the story. Last night coming home late and crossing the Hawthorne Bridge, I see a cop on a bike turned sideways towards the oncoming traffic. I watch him click on his stupid little gun and look at the result. "Shit," I thought to myself. But then I looked at my speed, 41 and slowing, and looked at the road sign, 35. All's cool right? But I'm watching him through the rear view mirror and he promptly gets on his bike. Minutes later he pulls me over.

After very little discussion, he gives me a ticket for going 43 in a 30. "Oh, thought it was 35," I informed him politely, but with assertion.

"Um, no it's 30, yeah 30. You can go around the loop and check though," he replied nicely but uncertainly.

"Really? Because after I saw you I looked up and I'm almost positive the sign said 35."

"No, its 30. Yeah, 30 across the whole bridge. I mean, yeah up there it's 30, it's gotta be."

"Well would my fine be different if it wasn't?"

"Well it is 30, but if you want to doublecheck, you can go back around, take a picture and come to court."

Or, you could know what the fucking speeding limit is before you hand out tickets you limp-kneed quota filling jack ass. And after he left, I did go around the bridge and I was right. So I just got a ticket for going 8 miles over the speed limit!

But here is where I need some advice. My plan is to take the pictures, bring it in, and, at worse, get the fine lowered. But My Little Basket of Eggs is arguing that I should leave it be because (a) I'd have to miss a day of work, (b) it won't get thrown out because I was speeding, and (c) I deserve it anyway for driving transgressions past. On the other hand, I think no self-respecting cop is going to show up to a court and have to admit he didn't know the speed limit. What do others think?