Good point

From the Washington Times:

"[Christopher] Reeve, who died last October, vowed gamely that he would walk again. Shortly after the accident — after beating back thoughts of suicide — he said, 'There'll be a lot of nice years ahead. The only limits you have are those you put on yourself.'

"There were nine years ahead. Nine years of dogged usefulness.

"Mr. Reeve's against-the-odds spirit is decidedly absent in a pair of movies that coincidentally deal with spinal cord injuries."

There were many things on which I disagreed with Christopher Reeve, but the Times is right -- you have to give him credit for that much. Especially in light of the movies that the article goes on to discuss.

WARNING: Major spoilers ahead, for one well-known recent movie and one obscure recent movie, for those who want to read the full article.

'The Right One to be in the Foxhole With'

I'm getting to this rather late, but my colleague Roberto has a very good article on the movie In Good Company posted at Boundless -- not so much a review as some thoughts inspired by what sounds like quite a thought-provoking film. (I haven't seen it myself yet, but I hope to one of these days.)

And Frederica Mathewes-Green has an excellent review of the movie here.

'Skin to Win'

Isn't it a comfort to know that these are a representative sample of the minds that play a huge part in shaping teenage attitudes about acceptable behavior? (Free registration required.)

No, I'm not surprised. Just disgusted. Again.

R.I.P.

My mom's most enduring memory of Johnny Carson is how watching him helped her get through a lot of long nights while my dad was in Vietnam.

Multiply that by several million viewers with several million sets of problems. I'd call that a pretty good legacy.

'You saw, and you know'

A sobering thought on the anniversary of Roe.

(Link courtesy of The Corner).

The Post isn't all bad, part two

Here's a thoroughly enjoyable profile of my favorite blogger, James Lileks, and his new book. Enjoy the profile and then go buy the book; it was definitely one of the best Christmas presents I got this year. I sat there on my grandmother's sofa and howled over it. (And don't worry about the "blasphemous" part; that's more reporterly exaggeration than anything.)

Along the same lines, I just found out that the inimitable Mike Nelson, of Mystery Science Theater 3000 fame, also has a book of mockery coming out soon. Oh joy!

A lovely Inauguration Day

Now, why didn't I go to that inauguration instead of the last one? This one actually had sun -- not much warmth, but sun. Four years ago on Inauguration Day, my best friend, Laura, and I, despite wearing enough hats, socks, pants, shirts, and sweaters to clothe half of D.C., nearly froze to death out on the Mall, in the intervals of nearly drowning in mud and sleet.

But then, that year marked the end of eight years of Clinton. It was worth celebrating in a special way, even if we had to get half-killed to do it.

Anyway, this one was still good to see -- on TV this time. Congratulations, Mr. President!

Of course, the Post isn't all bad!

Michael Monbeck strikes a blow against literary snobbery. Good to see.

The curse of young, hip, and sexy

This is not a review of the film version of Phantom of the Opera. A review requires that you actually see the movie you're writing about. I haven't done so and have no plans to. This despite the fact that I do much of my home decorating with Michael Crawford posters and have every CD he ever made, including the almost-impossible-to-find ones.

Oh, wait -- maybe that should be because, not despite.

I'm not bitter about this travesty of a film simply because Michael got slapped in the face after a performance that can justly be described as legendary. (Though I find it intensely amusing that the composer and director keep using his name to promote it -- in an interview that I unfortunately can't find right now, they couldn't seem to shut up about how wonderful he was.) I'm upset because it's a complete sellout of everything the show's supposed to be about -- and I don't use the word sellout lightly, not wanting to sound like a hippie. You don't take a show based on a book in which the main character's voice is practically a character in its own right ("so delicate in strength, so strong in delicacy, so irresistibly triumphant") and then cast your movie lead by saying, "I think you'd be great for this part -- can you sing?" And on that note (no pun intended), if he answers, "Well, I used to be in a rock band a long time ago," you show him the door. Furthermore, you don't make up your horrifically disfigured character so lightly that the critics -- not to mention swooning hordes on the Internet -- make it a point to mention how handsome he is.

Yes, I realize Phantom is one of those shows nobody likes but the public. Lord knows most reviews of the stage version, which I saw three times, make me feel like trailer trash for loving it. No matter. Phantom for me was a magical experience the first time I saw it. It's been so every time I've seen it, as well as every time I've listened to the cast album. (And I'd like to point out that it's been so for some people I know who are much better educated musically than I am.) But as far as I can tell, almost everything that made it what it was -- the heart of it -- was utterly disregarded in making the film. The curse of "young, hip, and sexy" that ruins so many Hollywood products -- which is supposed to appeal to me as a viewer in my twenties -- ruined any chance it had for greatness.

I'll be writing more about that curse before too long; I have more reasons than Phantom to feel bitter about it. But that's a pretty big reason in itself.

Gee, you think the Post is unhappy?

Gotta love the tone of some of this Washington Post pre-inauguration coverage.

Courtland Milloy: "For instance, during Bush's first inaugural speech, it sounded to me as if he said: 'Our unity, our union, is the serious work of leaders and citizens in every generation. And this is my solemn pledge: I will work to build a single nation of justice and opportunity.'
Take a look at the 2004 election map of red and blue states and tell me: Do I need a hearing aid, or what?"

And that's all Bush's doings, of course. Because before Bush, we were a happy, united land where everyone agreed that the liberals were always right about everything, and Bush was supposed to make us even more so. (For a refreshingly alternative take on this tired little tirade and about five million others like it, check out P. J. O'Rourke's fantasy inaugural address.)

Oh, and then we have this from Linton Weeks: "You may want to get close to the pageantry, to join in the exquisite ritual that defines our nation, but unless you are a close friend or follower of this president, chances are you will have to watch it from afar. He may seem looser, more relaxed this second time around, but no closer to us really." And in what universe is this new? Did I just forget all the people that were allowed to swarm all over Clinton while he was being inaugurated, or something?

But wait: There IS a difference. You see, "Roger Wilkins, a history professor at George Mason University and civil rights champion, was on Johnson's inaugural committee. 'Ever since the start of the Cold War,' Wilkins says, 'presidents have become more and more layered in security. But the Bush administration, Wilkins says, is different in tone from earlier administrations "because there is such a certainty that emanates from them about the rightness of what they do.'" Oh, okay. There's that extra layer of righteousness for added protection from us commoners. And to think all Clinton had to do to achieve the same result was close a section of Pennsylvania Avenue.

And then there's this:

"'Welcome to the greatest [bleepin'] country in the world!' Fuel frontman Brett Scallions unwisely hollered during his rock band's set yesterday at 'America's Future Rocks Today,' the for-the-kids inaugural concert at the D.C. Armory.

"'Oops,' the rocker said after realizing his no-no. 'I wasn't supposed to say that.' . . .

"Seeing as how President and Mrs. Bush were in the house [editor's note: Actually, they weren't there at the time], Scallions might get a bit of a scolding for his slip of the tongue. (Someone should also say something about his ill-fitting American flag pants. Ick.) But truth be told, the shaggy singer's 'ooh'-inducing profanity was the rare exhilarating, unscripted moment during a two-hour show that at best felt like a lame-o prom night and at worst felt like a cable-access telethon.

"The refreshing blast of profanity also reminded you how much more fun -- or at least edgy -- this staid musical event would have been had Southern-fried rapper Kid Rock, initially rumored to be on the bill, been invited instead of goody-goody pop stars like Hilary Duff, JoJo and 'American Idol' Ruben Studdard."

Now just pause and imagine the tone of that piece if Tipper had planned the shindig for someone else's inauguration. But it was almost worth it to read Sean Daly's little diatribe, just for this line: "And Brian Coleman, 17, from Houma, La., isn't too sure about being 'moderate,' but he is darn sure that he would rather have seen rap-metal bands Korn, Linkin Park and Slipknot last night instead of Mississippi roots-rockers 3 Doors Down."

Darn sure? Why, Mr. Daly, how very un-edgy of you.

Oh, phooey

Coronation again. Rats. I wouldn't mind Sasha's not winning if she could just pull off a clean long program.

Well, there's always Worlds in two months! Hope springs eternal . . .

Go Sasha!!

Well, I did promise an "anything goes" blog, didn't I? So first P. G. Wodehouse, now ladies' figure skating. I'll have to think of something profound to write about pretty soon. But tonight all my energy goes to rooting for my girl Sasha Cohen to stop the Kwan juggernaut and win her first national title. (Not that I don't like Michelle -- I do, very much -- it's just that, as one Internet fan put it, nationals has gone from a competition to a coronation the last few years, and it's getting a wee bit old.)

Ah, yes, it's time once again for the shakes, the nervous stomach, and all the rest. Remind me again why I watch this sport?

While we're on the subject of skating, if anyone's reading this, please say a prayer for a young woman who just lost her mother in a tragic accident. God bless you, Angela.

The great escapist

I've written once or twice that the best kind of escapism is the kind that's grounded in reality, that teaches you something about the world even as you're escaping. The exception that proves the rule would be P. G. Wodehouse -- nothing of reality to be found there, just sheer fun -- and it deserves to be ranked right up there with the very best escapism. Go here for a good review of what looks like a very good book. And then go read Right Ho, Jeeves as recommended. (C. S. Lewis confessed to laughing out loud in public over the prize-giving passage, which is just one more reason to love Lewis!)

New year, new blog

Now that my class is over, I'm going to try to expand this from a "politics and media" blog to an "anything goes" blog, and see if I can keep it going for a while.

So, first up: Interesting stuff in The Corner today concerning Intelligent Design theory. John Derbyshire: "ID theory posits that certain features of the natural world CAN ONLY be explained by the active intervention of a designing intelligence." (Emphasis mine.) Um, no, it doesn't. I sent him an e-mail to that effect, but apparently mine was one of about a billion, so it got lost in the shuffle. He did print a few, and sounded a bit miffed that anyone would question his judgment on this subject. No big deal -- miffedness is his stock in trade, and serves him quite well on other topics that he's more familiar with.

All the same, I think I'll adapt my response and reprint it here. Because, as I said, "No, it doesn't."

***

This is the definition provided by the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture (the ID organization with which Michael Behe is affiliated):


"1. What is the theory of intelligent design?

The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection."

As you can see, there's no "can only be explained" there, only an "are best explained," which sounds reasonable to me.