Donal: Is Occupy Over?
Ramona's Piece de la Resistance (Including Pics of Obama, Romney, FDR)
dagblog To Give Away Logoed Hairshirt To Most Effective Lamenter Of Left's Ineptitude
|
Donal: Is Occupy Over? Ramona's Piece de la Resistance (Including Pics of Obama, Romney, FDR) dagblog To Give Away Logoed Hairshirt To Most Effective Lamenter Of Left's Ineptitude |
Read |
I don't think 2008 was a very good year for pop culture.
The Hollywood writers' strike seemed to have lingering effects, delaying the return of some of my favorite TV shows past the point of anticipation all the way to indifference. Probably can't blame the strike, but most of the year for movies was also generally a disaster, with the summer slate being a particular disappointment (I was even let down by The Dark Knight).
It was miss after miss on the reading front for me as well, with several much-hyped books, like Chabon's The Yiddish Policemen's Union and O'Neill's Netherland leaving me cold and unsatisfied. And our most exalted Prophet has admitted that it wasn't a particularly great year for new music, either.
Maybe it had something to do with the election, but late in the year I felt a renewed sense of hope and optimism that things would turn around in pop land. 30 Rock, The Office and House returned in fine form to the small screen (Even Heroes got better). At the cinema, The Wrestler provided quality entertainment, and most of the late-season Oscar contenders all seem worthy of their accolades. My brother has supplied me with a robust stack of some fine new music, including The Fleet Foxes' excellent disc.
And most excitingly, I rekindled my love with Californication during the barren TV holiday season, watching all 12 episodes of the Showtime program's second season in rapid-fire succession (thank you, on-demand technology). The show, which stars David Duchovny as a frustrated novelist seeking inspiration in a soulless and sex-obsessed Hollywood, kicks off 2009 as the first My One Favorite Thing of the week.
Why do I love Californication so much? Well, first, let's get the bad stuff out of the way. The writing is at times too literate. Duchovny's character, Hank Moody, always spouts just the perfect line when he's trying to seduce a woman, or when he's verbally sparring with a rival. They're great lines and always make me laugh, but they also make Moody appear too smooth and somewhat contradict his otherwise very fallible human characteristics.
Even worse, some of Californication's most profound wisdom is uttered by the show's children - such as Moody's a-bit-too-precious young daughter, Rebecca - which strains the bounds of credulity (in a way that i think also detracted from the realism in the movie Juno).
Also, the show's plot developments usually manage to be at once both highly implausible and totally predictable.
Yet these flaws are really just minor complaints. Californication boasts some of the most memorable characters and situations on TV today, with some of the best, cleverest discussions about sex, and relationships, and art, and parenting, and a hundred other interesting topics, all the while navigating that fine line between comedy and pathos better than any series I can remember watching.
The show is anchored by Duchovny, in a convincing portrayal of a character who is at his core a good-hearted, moral family man, but who just can't escape his demons and completely grow up. It appears that given what we now know about the actor in real life (i.e. his sex addiction), Duchovny was born to play Hank Moody. Even if there's not a lot of acting going on there, I'm still very impressed (Duchovny has a surprisingly impeccable comedic timing).
The other main asset of the show is the mother of Moody's child, Karen Van der Beek. The terrific and stunning Natascha McElhone plays the Baby Mama as the perfect straight foil to Moody. She is brilliant, responsible, and wise, but she's not perfect either (her affair was the initial reason the two broke up) and more often than not empathizes with Moody's restlessness and forgives his various transgressions. She is also clearly the love of Moody's life (and vice versa), and you can't help but root for the two to live happily ever after, even though you know the show will not - cannot - allow that to happen.
Aside from their daughter, the two main characters are surrounded by some of the most shallow, immature, pathetic creatures, including Moody's best friend Charlie Runkel, a Hollywood agent and sexual pervert who loses his job after being taped repeatedly masturbating at his office desk; and Mia Lewis, the manipulative teenage daughter of Karen's fiancee from Season One, who after having an affair with Moody ends up stealing his novel and selling it as her own.
Season Two introduced several new characters in that same mold, with the highlights being the wildman record producer (and Moody's Doppelganger) Lew Ashby and the self-help guru/fraud Julian.
Yet despite their eccentric, juvenile behavior, almost all of the recurring characters manage to retain a modicum of dignity, earning important empathy points from the viewing audience.
Even though I was not a fan of the way the second season ended - another one of those frustrating, predictable plot developments - it did lend itself nicely to transition in a third season, which Showtime has announced will be on its way later this year.
I can't wait.
Perceptive Dagblog readers know the difference between Obama, Romney and Bush:
Obama NYT today: .how President Obama’s thinking about what he once called “a war of necessity” began to radically change less than a year after he took up residency in the White House....The aide told Mr. Obama that he believed military leaders had agreed to the tight schedule to begin withdrawing those troops just 18 months later only because they thought they could persuade an inexperienced president to grant more time if they demanded it. “Well,” Mr. Obama responded that day, “I’m not going to give them more time.”...Mr. Obama concluded in his first year that the Bush-era dream of remaking Afghanistan was a fantasy...
Mitt Romney, Feb. 2012 : LAS VEGAS -- LAS VEGAS -- Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney on Wednesday night blasted President Obama and his administration for “putting in jeopardy” the nation’s military mission by signaling it hopes to end its combat mission in Afghanistan by the middle of 2013.
Appearing at a campaign rally here shortly after landing in Nevada, Romney said Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta’s statement Wednesday that U.S. forces would transition from a combat mission in Afghanistan next year “makes absolutely no sense.”....
George W. Bush, from May, 2003: BBC - "We do not know the day of final victory, but we have seen the turning of the tide... Free nations will press on to victory,"
Bush Afghanistan strategy : Gen. Douglas E. Lute, who had spent the last two years of the Bush administration trying to manage the many trade-offs necessary as the Iraq war consumed troop and intelligence resources needed in Afghanistan, arrived with a PowerPoint presentation. The first slide that General Lute threw onto the screen caught the eye of Thomas E. Donilon, later President Obama’s national security adviser. “It said we do not have a strategy in Afghanistan that you can articulate or achieve,” Mr. Donilon recalled three years later. “We had been at war for eight years, and no one could explain the strategy.”
Mitt Romney isn’t very far into the vice presidential selection process. But according to a dedicated band of conspiracy theorists, the pick is all but a lock: Sen. Marco Rubio.
That’s the current thinking among a worldwide collection of activists who are obsessed with the secretive Bilderberg Group, an alternating roster of global power players who loom as large — if not larger — in the online fever swamps of the fringe as the Trilateral Commission or the Council on Foreign Relations.
Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0512/76518.html#ixzz1vN5egowz
Aristotle and Plato didn’t agree on much, but they were united in identifying wonder as the origin of their profession. As Aristotle said, “It is owing to their wonder that men . . . first began to philosophise.” This idea appeals to scientists, who frequently enlist wonder as a goad to inquiry. “I think everyone in every culture has felt a sense of awe and wonder looking at the sky,” wrote Carl Sagan in 1985, locating in this response the stirrings of a Copernican desire to know who and where we are.
Yet that is not the only direction in which wonder may take us. To Thomas Carlyle, wonder sits at the beginning not of science, but of religion. That is the central tension in forging an alliance of wonder with science: will it make us curious, or induce us to prostrate ourselves in pitiful ignorance? We had better get to grips with this question before we too hastily appropriate wonder to sell science. That is surely what is going on when pictures from the Hubble Space Telescope are (unconsciously?) cropped and coloured to recall the sublime iconography of Romantic landscape painting, or the Human Genome Project is wrapped in biblical rhetoric, or the Large Hadron Collider’s proton-smashing is depicted as “replaying the moment of creation”. The point is not that such things are deceitful or improper, but that if we want to take that path, we should first consider the complex evolution of the relation between science and wonder.
[....]
Pretending that science is performed by people who have undergone a Baconian purification of the emotions only deepens the danger that it will seem alien and odd to outsiders, something carried out by people who do not think as they do. Daston believes that we have inherited a “view of intelligence as neatly detached from emotional, moral and aesthetic impulses, and a related and coeval view of scientific objectivity that brand[s] such impulses as contaminants”. It is easy to understand the historical origins of this attitude: the need to distinguish science from credulous “enthusiasm”, to develop an authoritative voice, to strip away the pretensions of the mystical Renaissance magus who acquired knowledge through personal revelation. We no longer need these defences, however; worse, they become a defensive reflex that exposes scientists to the caricature of the emotionally constipated boffin, hiding within thickets of jargon.
... We’re trying to harness photosynthesis. A key part of photosynthesis is what happens when the sun goes down. Cells convert CO2 into sugar and fat molecules. And they store the fat to burn as energy to get them through the night ... We’re trying to coax our synthetic cells to ... store far more fat than they actually were designed to do, so that we can harness it all as an energy source and use it to create gasoline, diesel fuel, and jet fuel straight from carbon dioxide and sunlight. This would shift the carbon equation so we’re recycling CO2 instead of taking new carbon out of the ground and creating still more CO2. But it has to be done on a massive scale to have any real impact on the amount of CO2 we’re putting into the atmosphere, let alone recovering from the atmosphere.
... We envision facilities the size of San Francisco. And 10 or 15 of those in this country. We need sunlight, seawater, and non-agricultural land, but you need a lot of photons to drive this. You need a lot of surface area of sunlight to do that. It’s a great use for Arizona. Lots of sunlight there.
... If we can’t get some key scientific breakthroughs within the next couple of years, it probably won’t happen in 10 years. So it’s something that’s really dependent on fundamental science. But we’re already able to do things that were once seen as impossible.
... I think the new anti-intellectualism that’s showing up in politics today is a symptom of our not discussing these issues enough. We don’t discuss how our society is now 100 percent dependent on science for its future. We need new scientific breakthroughs—sometimes to overcome the scientific breakthroughs of the past. A hundred years ago oil sounded like a great discovery. You could burn it and run engines off it. I don’t think anybody anticipated that it would actually change the atmosphere of our planet. Because of that we have to come up with new approaches. We just passed the 7 billion population mark. In 12 years, we’re going to reach 8 billion. If we let things run their natural course, we’ll have massive pandemics, people starving. Without science I don’t see much hope for humanity.
Hey.Season Two introduced several new characters in that same mold,with th highlights being the wildman record producer (and Moody's Doppelganger) Lew Ashby & the self-help guru/fraud Julian...check it out..
I've only seen Californication a couple of times, but I agree that it is very well written and Duchovny is hilarious!
The shows on cable don't have to dumb down their subject matter or play to the least common denominator, and I love them for it. Weeds, Six Feet Under, True Blood, and others get to be grown up shows that aren't always predictible. There are only a few writers working for the broadcast channels who are at the same level--David Kelly, the Lost guys. Oh how I wish Aaron Sorkin would come back with another show that is as well written as Studio 60, only less inane.
Until then, I'll stick the the DVDs of Showtime's fantastic shows.
Deadman, you talked me into upgrading my cable package by $10 a month (that's about $8.50 in real money). Californication better be as good as you make it sound.
I am flattered. It's good, plus you can watch Dexter, which I love, and Weeds, which my girlfriend loves. And a whole lot of crappy movies. But you could probably just rent the DVDs and save yourself some $$$. i assume youre getting more than just Showtime for that money tho.
Yeah, it's a whole movie/HBO-type package, and I have a PVR, so it should prove well worth it. I'd been putting off the upgrade, but then the long-range forecast called for an overnight drop tonight of about 20 degrees Celsius. I'm not leaving the house for days.
CALIFORNICATION THEME PARTY
Sunday, January 25th in NYC
WHO: Hank Moody, Mia Cross, Charlie Runkle, Becca Moody, Karen, Marcy Runkle, Lew Ashby, tons of Showtime’s “CALIFORNICATION” fans and more.
WHAT: A “Californication” theme party complete with multiple TV screens showing Seasons 1 and 2, Famous Shamus cover band performing music featured on the show, goodies, lots of F***ing and Punching and much, much more. Dressing up as your favorite character is highly encouraged!
*This party is not affiliated with Showtime or the makers of “Californication.”
http://www.musikBLITZ.blogspot.com
WHEN:
SUNDAY, JANUARY 25th
7 – 11pm
$5 cover
WHERE:
***RSVP REQUIRED FOR MORE INFO