.comment-link {margin-left:.6em;}

What Would People Think?

Friday, December 16, 2005

Peter Jackson = God

Okay, so that title is straight-up blasphemy. Forget I said it.

But after having referred to The Lord of the Rings trilogy as "the cinematic achievement of our lifetime", I've kind of painted myself into a corner. What superlatives can I possibly use to describe King Kong?

How about this one:


Oh man...I'm still jumping up and down about the scene with the THREE T-Rexes and the cliff and the vines. Or the Valley of Really Creepy Bugs. Or Jack Black as Carl Denham. (Ok, so I'm a Jack Black fan. I know he's not exactly the main attraction. The big ape is properly awe inspiring and actually sympathetic. But I still love the line "and we'll donate the proceeds to his wife and kids!" You'll have to see it in context.)

It's official. I'm a Peter Jackson groupie (in an entirely platonic, non-sexual way). If Peter Jackson made a movie about watching grass grow, I'd see it. Why? Because he's freakin' Peter Jackson. He'd find some way to weave A-list talent and mind-boggling special effects with captivating story-telling and epic scope into a story about grass growing.

Why are you still reading this blog? Why aren't you running out the door, careening your car down the road (narrowly missing a little old lady and running over at least one lawyer), and settling down for the fun? I'd only recommend that you go to the bathroom first. It's a long movie.

On an unrelated note: The New York Times publishes an article revealing that Bush authorized potentially unconstitutional (but potentially life-saving) warrentless wiretaps of people inside America. The Times delayed publishing the article for a year, to conduct more research they say. RedState accuses the Times of delaying the publication so they can torpedo the PATRIOT Act. Dailykos accuses the Times of "betraying the American people" by waiting to publish the story at all.

My response to the political blogs: "Oh, shut up. Why do I even read these thought-free rants?"

I think it's a complex issue. I come down against the warrantless wiretaps because I don't trust the government to responsibly spy on Americans. But I don't pretend there is no possibility that such illegality may have made me (temporarily) safer. Feel free to disagree with me. I'm sure any debate we have on this blog will be better than the mindless bile coming out of the political blogs.


  • The Times' delay was probably for the reason they said it was... with all the flap over Dan Rather's forged document and with the Jayson Blair scandal in memory, the Times probably wanted to make damn sure they had their facts straight before they ran such a potentially explosive article.

    Haven't seen King Kong yet. I wasn't particularly excited about it until now. And yes, Jack Black rocks. This post is just a tribute.

    The biggest problem with the wiretaps is twofold: 1) they were warrantless. Come on, is it really that difficult to get a warrant to tap the phone of a suspected terrorist? 2) the NSA conducted them. Domestic spying is supposed to be the FBI's domain - they're more well-known, subject to oversight, etc.

    Perhaps the Bush administration doesn't abuse their newfound powers. But it's somewhat silly to assume that we won't one day have a president with no scruples whatsoever. (Picture President Rove.) There's already some borderline abuse going on with NSLs.

    Sure, these wiretaps may have made us safer. But so would suspending Miranda rights. Or habeas corpus. Our national debate should be this: what cost are we willing to pay for security?

    By Blogger Jeff, at 12/17/2005 12:32 PM  

  • "Why are you still reading this blog?" Because I'd be willing to bet I saw the movie before you did. So there!

    I still get icky thinking about the scene in the bug pit. Particularly the phallic slug things that made me think of when Aaron's beagle Bandit used to get a hard-on when anyone would rub his belly. (How's that for disturbing?)

    But not as icky as Jeff's two words: "President Rove." *shudder* The wiretaps thing is not the slightest bit surprising. Jeff makes a good point about the Times' delay: with the whole Dan Rather thing, best to make sure facts are straight. Though I also still firmly believe the Rather report, even if the facts it was based on were false.

    Wiretaps are a tricky issue, but consider this: in the 50s and 60s, they were used on such threatening people as Martin Luther King and basically anyone so radical as to suggest the possibility of change. I'm fine with wiretaps that are merited, but not wiretaps put in place just because people differ with the current administration.

    By Blogger Mike, at 12/17/2005 1:55 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home