{    Cnytr   }

{Friday, February 29, 2008  }

.:{JK Rowling Can't Cope Without Spotlight}:.


Rowling Bashes Potter Encyclopedia

I am less and less impressed by JK Rowling. Unable to cope without her own legitimately godlike powers over another (subcreated) universe, she attacks clearly apocryphal and legitimate creativity of others -- the sort of creativity that's supposed to be inspired by a good work of fiction.

Get over it, lady. You were done with what you had to say at the end of the 7th book.
posted by Lauren, 9:48 AM | link | 1 comments

.:{The Advent of the Son of God}:.


I have to admit that I'm taking a page out of Mark Shea's book here with regard to Obama.

Washington Post's story about SNL illustrates the ridiculous messianic treatment of Obama.

For example:

When Barack Obama announced his candidacy for president last year, some observers questioned whether the senator from Illinois was "black enough" to embody the hopes and aspirations of African Americans.

Now a variation on that theme has emerged: Is Fred Armisen, who is not African American, "black enough" to embody Obama on "Saturday Night Live"? [...]

Nobody much cared about Armisen's racial background (he is of white and Asian heritage) when he played Prince and Steve Jobs during seasons past of the NBC show. Nor did it seem to matter that "SNL's" Darrell Hammond, who is white, has impersonated the Rev. Jesse Jackson for years. Or that decades ago on "SNL," Billy Crystal played Sammy Davis Jr.

But in 2008, Obama isn't just any politician or celebrity. Which is why Armisen's DNA became something of an issue when he became "Fauxbama" in "SNL's" first show back since the writers' strike ended this month.

Maureen Ryan of the Chicago Tribune put the question bluntly: "Call me crazy, but shouldn't 'Saturday Night Live's' fictional Sen. Barack Obama be played by an African-American?" Ryan went on to conclude: "I find 'SNL's' choice inexplicable. Obama's candidacy gives us solid proof of the progress that African-Americans have made in this country. I guess 'SNL' still has further to go on that front."


Read: all men were created equal, except for Barack Obama, who is better than everybody else.

If there has been a precedent, I think people should just get over it. It's not as if SNL was doing Alabammy blackface-style, banjo-strumming routines. In no way was it an affront to his heritage, but come one -- they don't have anybody else on the cast who looks like Obama.

But this has become such a big deal, it smacks of "heresy" or "blasphemy."

People want to cast such an air of The Sacred around him, it will be impossible to speak of him but in hushed, vibrant tones:

"If we had as many examples of black actors playing white figures, no one would need to discuss it. But when you have a figure as historically important as Barack Obama . . . people can get mighty protective of his image."


What with the wave of the anti-intellectual following Obama and the virulent feminists following Clinton, the Decmocratic party sucks more than ever.
posted by Lauren, 9:27 AM | link | 1 comments

.:{"Prince Hal at last!"}:.



That he which hath no stomach to this fight,
Let him depart; his passport shall be made,
And crowns for convoy put into his purse;
We would not die in that man's company
That fears his fellowship to die with us. [...]
We few, we happy few, we band of brothers;
For he to-day that sheds his blood with me
Shall be my brother; be he ne'er so vile,
This day shall gentle his condition;

~Henry V

It does my heart good, yet at the same time disappoints me greatly, to hear of the news of Prince Harry's deployment to Afghanistan (Washington Post).

On the one hand, THIS IS FANTASTIC! It is "Prince Hal, at last!" as Robert Lacy exclaimed. It brings to mind the glorious kings of England who fought beside their subjects -- the mark of a good leader. Also, good for Harry! I'm very pleased he was able to follow his ambition to make a (very traditional) career in the military. There's nothing so laudable. This is good for Harry and good for England.

On the other hand, it's rather wretched we're reading about it now and not in April, as we were supposed to. Conspiracy-theories seem to have switched to a batty, right-wing thing to a batty, left-wing thing, and the liberal conspiracy-theory mongers who think there ought to be no such thing as classified information are going their usual crazy selves over the media-blackout on this story. Behold this ridiculousness:

The idea that Britain's diverse and highly competitive media outlets could keep a secret about anything struck many observers as remarkable -- particularly when that secret was England's favorite young hell-raising party boy.

"It makes me wonder what else is going on," said John Harmer, 30, a London office worker. "I don't think it can be the first time" that the media have agreed to keep information from the public.

Some wondered whether an agreement among leading media outlets to withhold information would damage the media's credibility. "One wonders whether viewers, readers and listeners will ever want to trust media bosses again," TV broadcaster Jon Snow wrote in his blog. "Or perhaps this was a courageous editorial decision to protect this fine young man?"


I think people forget that people elect government so they can do the job that everybody just can't do all the time. This involves some inherent amount of trust. Thus, when certain information needs to be kept from the public for the good of the public, the increasingly-more micromanaging public goes ape-shizzle.

I think this whole affair speaks very well for the British media, but I'm wondering what the hell Drudge thought he was doing. I often give a nod to Drudge for saying and reporting things no one else will touch with a 10-foot pole (both good and bad), but on the other hand, what on earth could he have been thinking?

Welcome home, Harry. We admire your bravery and your self-sacrifice. Sorry we suck so much and ruined your Afghanistan tour.
posted by Lauren, 9:12 AM | link | 0 comments