I'd Like to Teach the World To Eat in Perfect Harmony

The other day, after reading my blood test results that indicated a level of cholesterol that made the nurse say "wow....just wow...", I decided to console myself on this bad news by taking a trip to McDonalds. While eating my delicious meal, I got to thinking, "this burger isn't bad, but I'm betting a burger at Wendys would be tastier". This is true--as far as East Coast chains go, Wendys makes the best burger. (In and Out Burger, which makes a truly excellent burger, is unfortunately confined to the West. And while Five Guys makes a great burger, I am only counting chains that have reached a critical mass of locations, and Five Guys just isn't there yet)

The problem is, places like Wendys (or Five Guys, for that matter) just don't have the fries of the quality of McDonalds. I would put McDonalds fries up against even the finest pomme frites at the finest French or Belgian restaurants, and if McDs was thoughtful enough to provide mayo or other fine dipping sauces instead of proletarian catsup, they'd have full "Fry Domination" (or "Frymination", a state of affairs I would love to see). Lets' face it, as far as fast food goes, McDs has the fry market.

And then for chicken, let's face it, McDs falls painfully short. The McNuggets only really hint at having a chicken-related background. Burger King is a bit better, as well as Wendys, but truly fine chicken has to go to the specialists--KFC, Popeyes, and Chick-Fi-La (the last having the best true chicken breast sandwich). Of course, those places fall short on fries and serve no burgers at all.

For milkshakes, the whole bunch will disappoint. For whatever reason that I hope I'll never know, McDs and Burger King serve shakes that sting my throat. And Wendys isn't so much a shake as a solid block of iced cream I'm trying to get down with a straw. Steak n' Shake has good shakes, but again, that's not so much a fast food place as a diner-like environment. But shakes should be easy to do--milk, iced cream, ice and blender! This can be remedied, people.

So what would I like to see created? How about a joint venture, that serves McDonalds fries, Chick-Fi-La chicken sandwiches, KFC chicken legs, Wendys (or Five Guys) burgers, and fresh milk shakes? If we could find a way to do that the world would be a better place. We'd still have wars though.

A Mosque? Oh Noes! Eek!

Ah, Sarah Palin. Just when I thought that no more stupidity can be taken from the well, here she comes with another bucket. Apparently, there's a flap going on about a group of Muslims trying to have a mosque built in the same neighborhood where the Twin Towers used to stand in lower Manhattan. Of course, the Thrilla From Wasilla has used Twitter--formerly the medium for intellectual heavyweights like Ashton Kutcher and the brain trust from "Jersey Shore"--to lash out and criticize the building of this mosque should be "refuted" (or "refutiated") because it "stabs the heart". The reasoning goes like this--a group of Muslim fanatics hijacked planes that caused about 3,000 deaths at that spot on 9/11, therefore the building of a Muslim place of worship nearby would be "too painful" for New Yorkers. In one of her "tweets" she even appeals to "peace loving Muslims" to refute the building of the mosque out of sensitivity and to promote healing. People, this is a woman who actually thought she should be in line for the presidency.

First, let me just say I like this new word "refutiate" since I've always liked the creation of new words (I also liked Bush's use of "misunderestimate"). So she earned a point there.

However, WHAT THE FLUCK IS WRONG WITH THIS PEA BRAINED WOMAN??? News flash--a mosque is sort of like a church or synagogue. It is a place for worship, and from my understanding this particular mosque is being built by and for mainstream Muslims, not some whacked out Al Quaeda-promoting sect. If anything, a mosque in that area would promote healing and demonstrate that New Yorkers are not some wilting flowers that can't tolerate an entire religion because some nuts went all crashy back in 2001. Are we now supposed to hate all Muslims? Is that it, Sarah, you know-nothing?

And who does this lady speak for anyway? Shouldn't conservatives--a rich political tradition spanning from Edmund Burke to William F Buckley--be embarrassed by this cliche-spouting failure of a politician? One would think after she bailed out on the Alaska governorship halfway through her one term, after ensuring that the Republicans could in no way retain the White House in 2008, that she'd be quietly swept under the rug as the Democrats smartly did with John Edwards. Who is giving this lady a platform? Is this really what the right wants as the face of their movement?

Why is it that in movies....

1) Everyone in the ancient world--who presumably spoke Greek, Latin, or Vikingish--seems to have British accents?

2) Just about every car crash or bullet to the gas tank causes a massive firestorm? If cars are really that explosive, should we even be allowed to drive them? With our CHILDREN???

3) During battle scenes, we never even once see even one soldier scream "eek!" and go running away from the battle like a little girl?

4) It seems like Virginians like George Washington and Thomas Jefferson had British accents, yet less than a hundred years later Virginians like Robert E Lee and Stonewall Jackson had southern accents? The same southern accent that we hear today, a hundred and fifty years after Lee and Jackson's time?

5) Speaking of which, since "Jack" is another word for "John" then would someone with the last name "Jackson" be related to someone with the last name "Johnson"? And should we refer to going to the toilet as "going to the Jack"?

6) Also speaking of which, how come if Abe Lincoln was born and raised in rural Kentucky, he is never portrayed with a southern accent in films?

7) Why is it that Mexicans are portrayed speaking entirely in English, only to throw in a word or two in Spanish, such as "Welcome back, amigo" or "Gracias, my American friend, for all you have done"? Do Americans ever speak completely in Spanish, only to toss in a word or two of English? Like "Necessito un abogado tambien, my friend" or "Quiero una bierra, please".

8) Also, why when ordering a beer at a bar, do people in movies simply say "I'll have a beer" without specifying which brand? Have you ever tried in real life to ask a bartender for "a beer", rather than a "Bud" or "Guinness"?

9) And why is it that when ordering a beer in the movies, the customer never takes their change? Have they never had to break a twenty, or do they always leave very large tips?

Poolside Lounging

Summer is that lazy time that I count myself lucky if I'm able to do lots of bbq-ing (this weekend--delicious scrimps and beef kabobs, then the next morning bacon and chicken marinated in red wine, all on the new grill!) and getting to splash about in two different pools. The pool at Shannon's apartment is generally rather empty (especially considering it's for a large building), but the pool at my place was packed to the gills when I got there yesterday afternoon. Due to the packed-in atmosphere, I could not help but overhear the conversation that the girl next to me was having with her mother on her cell phone. In a nutshell:

Girl: Mom, I met a new guy, I've been seeing him for about a month, his name is [Spanish name that sounds like a bullfighter or revolutionary]. . . no Mom, he's only half black! Mom, stop being so judgmental! I'm going to hang up on you! Yes, he's looking for work . . . he was in NYC this weekend to clear his head with some friends, but was texting me the whole time . . . Mom don't be like this! Okay, yeah he has a daughter . . . the mother has custody, but she's in his life. Mom, stop that! Okay, gotta go, love you too . . . [click]

I didn't regret not bringing a book to the pool with me.

Things I Can't Stand

1) Pants.

Okay, pants is the only thing I'm thinking of that I can't stand. Here it is, dead of summer, where the temperature will not dip below 80, and my legs are completely covered. Madness!

The invention of pants dates back to 1724, when Horatio J. Pantaloon was sitting on his couch watching the wall (they didn't have TV back then) and his wife complained about his hairy legs being on the table. So to keep the nagging to a minimum, he invented the leg coverings we have today. Now, I'm sure my co-workers are glad that I wear pants, as I'm sure they have no interest in seeing some hairy drumsticks puttering about, but somehow even if I shaved them I don't think it'd fly. And wearing a man-kilt wouldn't work, since adding "man-" before anything automatically implies a defensiveness about a girly quality. And I don't want to have to fake a Scottish brogue all day long.

Women of course have the option of the dress, an option that I usually approve (but don't approve vocally, because that's sexual harassment!) and unless it's winter I don't see why they'd wear pants when they have this option. But men? We have not yet embraced this new century, so I guess it's living under the tyranny of pants.

Birth of a Nation, Part II

Okay, having seen the second half of "Birth of a Nation" I can understand where all the controversy comes from! Basically, it's a recruiting ad for the KKK. If you were a viewer who didn't have any understanding of history, you'd see these hooded vigilantes as pursuers of justice and law and order who provide some relief and ultimately national unity at a time when cruel, corrupt conquerors--most of whom happen to be black!--are letting loose their depradations on a beaten people.

Through the film, the focus is on the friendship of two sets of sons and daughters. The Stonehams are the progeny of a powerful Northern abolitionist Congressman based on Thaddeus Stevens, and the Camerons are the sons and daughters of a doctor and plantation owner in South Carolina. The respective sons are good chums, and are also romancing their friends' sisters--a truly intertwined relationship. (Question--is it incestuous to date someone if their sibling marries yours? Or just "incestuous-in-law"?) The war tears the families apart, though the two sets of sons do meet on the battlefield and treat one another with honor--the younger sons dying together and embracing in death, the older sons surviving while fighting in the final clash. The older sons and their sisters wind up back in South Carolina during Reconstruction (the Stoneham father has moved his family there to improve his health in the warmer weather, and also to more clearly manage Reconstruction) and in the meantime an evil mullato henchman (named "Lynch", ironically enough) of the Stoneham father is seizing power by using the newly freed blacks and carpetbaggers. Ultimately, Lynch has designs on the Stoneham daughter (who is engaged to the Cameron son) and Cameron and his Klansman buddies ride into town to save the day.

Through the second part of the film, Reconstruction is painted as a great wrong, and the blacks who are part of it are portrayed as thugs while the white southerners are shown as civilized and oppressed. Now, Reconstruction certainly had its faults and abuses--as any system of military rule and disenfranchising of a significant portion of the citizenry will cause--but this overlooks that this effort was intended to protect the freed slaves and secure their rights as citizens, as well as rebuild the shattered South. The one-sided and exaggerated portrayals in the film are certainly offensive, even for the year it was released (1915). A black-dominated legislature eating chicken and taking off their shoes during their session? Well I'd still bet that even the unsophisticated rabble represented in the film would do better than the morons who passed that health care mess earlier this year.

Further, the portrayal of the Klan makes them look like heroes, glossing over the fact that the real Klan engaged in collective intimidation of the freed slaves, committing murders and assaults to spread fear. This was not just a "fight the occupying army" resistance group--it also sought to enforce racial dominance. The film, rather, shows the KKK fighting pitched battles with armed troops, and the one "offender" they murdered was actually given a "trial". While it's fine for a film to explore why the Klan sprang up and enjoyed so much support in the South at the time, this heroic portrayal does a disservice to history.

Overall, the film was artistically brilliant and a huge advance in moviemaking--but unfortunately its historic portrayal is both an insult to blacks as a race and history itself.

Birth of a Nation, Part I

As an amateur film buff--seeing as I don't get paid for my film buffing--I figured it was about time I reviewed one of the earliest feature length films ever made--D.W. Griffiths' "Birth of a Nation." This film has been roundly criticized for its glorification of the Ku Kux Klan and negative portrayals of blacks, but it has also been praised for its artisticness. As I've only so far seen half the film (it clocks in at a total of 3 hours and seven minutes!) I'll only comment on the first half here.

The film was made in 1915, before the U.S. even entered the First World War, so of course it was a silent film. As such, you can really notice a difference in the acting (besides the lack of sound) in that the actors have to be more expressive and more has to be portrayed visually. In doing this--framing scenes, developing plot, etc.--Griffiths has done an excellent job and pulls you into the story.

The story begins on the eve of the Civil War, portraying a family of antislavery radicals and a family of southern plantation owners, bonded by the friendship of their respective sons. As war breaks out, Griffiths does a fine job portraying the futility of war, with friends recognizing one another on the battlefield and rows of soldiers being mowed down senselessly. Likely this was the first antiwar film, and interesting in that it was also the first film screened at the White House--it was highly praised by Woodrow Wilson (who, having grown up in Virginia during the Civil War, was very sympathetic to the Confederacy) who at the time of the film was trying to get the U.S. involved in the First World War.

The beginning of the film doesn't appear particularly controversial, except that the slaves were depicted as generally happy in their position and many were in fact portrayed by white actors in blackface. As the second half is going to cover the Reconstruction Era, the controversial section awaits...