Thursday, February 24, 2005
Beating a dead horse: Actually, just one of the horses is dead. But I wanted to point out the Slate profile of comedian Chris Rock, who inspired some controversy (much of which was manufactured by Matt Drudge).
Please note, that Chris Rock is not the "Hunter S-ing Thompson of Standup."
Actually, the profile is a good one for those who aren't too familiar with the very complex comedian. He definitely has a chip on his shoulder, and I won't be the one to knock it off. Classify him as a conservative at your peril. But he's not as compatible with America's Left (or Europe's Left) either. He seems like a pragmatic libertarian.
Please note, that Chris Rock is not the "Hunter S-ing Thompson of Standup."
Actually, the profile is a good one for those who aren't too familiar with the very complex comedian. He definitely has a chip on his shoulder, and I won't be the one to knock it off. Classify him as a conservative at your peril. But he's not as compatible with America's Left (or Europe's Left) either. He seems like a pragmatic libertarian.
No punch line here: I had not heard the story of these two South Suburban doctors in a legal battle over "sperm theft," but I saw it today via Drudge Report.
Does he have a case? If a flurry of similar cases arise, what will the effect be on sexual relationships? Are we comfortable completely divorcing sex from reproduction?
I don't know. I tend conservative, and I'm pro-life. But I have no problem with contraception and don't have a strong enough opinion against gay marriage, despite my misgivings.
I sympathize with the man in this case, but I'm not sure he has a case. If he does, again, let's examine what other advances in science and DNA technology will have on human interaction.
Any other thoughts?
Does he have a case? If a flurry of similar cases arise, what will the effect be on sexual relationships? Are we comfortable completely divorcing sex from reproduction?
I don't know. I tend conservative, and I'm pro-life. But I have no problem with contraception and don't have a strong enough opinion against gay marriage, despite my misgivings.
I sympathize with the man in this case, but I'm not sure he has a case. If he does, again, let's examine what other advances in science and DNA technology will have on human interaction.
Any other thoughts?
Tuesday, February 22, 2005
Unfair comparison. Derrick is disappointed I compared Hunter S. Thompson to William F. Buckley Jr. He's right. I hope Mr. Buckley isn't offended at this tremendous slight.
If you haven't guessed, William Buckley has been a personal favorite for years. Attention to detail? Buckley's very descriptive, but not laboriously so. May I recommend one of his books? A Blackford Oakes spy novel? God and Man at Yale? Nearer, My God?
Take your pick, Derrick. And watch your mailbox.
As far as his fear of telling the truth, what truth didn't he tell? His book God and Man at Yale alienated him from his alma mater just two years after graduating. His "radical" thesis: the university's embrace of secularism and socialism was far too hasty, and that alumni should take part in the university's direction.
His magazine National Review was founded with the mission of "standing awthwart history, yelling 'Stop!' "
He did more than stop history from being made; he made his own. He was instrumental in Goldwater's ascent to the Republican nomination for president, which brought on Reagan's elevation, which ushered in Buckley's brand of conservatism as the mainstream Right.
He was in England just as the Brits entered World War II, and he was witness to Neville Chamberlain's folly of brokering peace at any cost. He called out the evils of Communism and socialism and the failings of modern liberalism.
Hunter S. Thompson was a symbol of the time, but little more. His writing talent cannot be denied, but what did he do with it? He smoked a lot of grass, drank a lot of Chivas Regal, and struggled to develop a coherent mantra.
Read Richard Roeper's column (reprinted from 1989) about a Hunter Thompson speech at Cabaret Metro.
Or read this piece from a former Rolling Stone colleague of Thompson's.
No one can deny his talent. I believe he was an entertaining writer, a humorous writer and an opinionated writer. But he was a guy whose love of chemicals kept him from doing anything with that talent.
What change did Hunter Thompson instigate with his writing? Where do you see his influences? What will be said of him and his body of work 10, 15, 25, 50, 100, 200 years from now?
He was an all-star, just no Hall of Famer.
If you haven't guessed, William Buckley has been a personal favorite for years. Attention to detail? Buckley's very descriptive, but not laboriously so. May I recommend one of his books? A Blackford Oakes spy novel? God and Man at Yale? Nearer, My God?
Take your pick, Derrick. And watch your mailbox.
As far as his fear of telling the truth, what truth didn't he tell? His book God and Man at Yale alienated him from his alma mater just two years after graduating. His "radical" thesis: the university's embrace of secularism and socialism was far too hasty, and that alumni should take part in the university's direction.
His magazine National Review was founded with the mission of "standing awthwart history, yelling 'Stop!' "
He did more than stop history from being made; he made his own. He was instrumental in Goldwater's ascent to the Republican nomination for president, which brought on Reagan's elevation, which ushered in Buckley's brand of conservatism as the mainstream Right.
He was in England just as the Brits entered World War II, and he was witness to Neville Chamberlain's folly of brokering peace at any cost. He called out the evils of Communism and socialism and the failings of modern liberalism.
Hunter S. Thompson was a symbol of the time, but little more. His writing talent cannot be denied, but what did he do with it? He smoked a lot of grass, drank a lot of Chivas Regal, and struggled to develop a coherent mantra.
Read Richard Roeper's column (reprinted from 1989) about a Hunter Thompson speech at Cabaret Metro.
Or read this piece from a former Rolling Stone colleague of Thompson's.
No one can deny his talent. I believe he was an entertaining writer, a humorous writer and an opinionated writer. But he was a guy whose love of chemicals kept him from doing anything with that talent.
What change did Hunter Thompson instigate with his writing? Where do you see his influences? What will be said of him and his body of work 10, 15, 25, 50, 100, 200 years from now?
He was an all-star, just no Hall of Famer.
He's no "Titan." No love for Hunter S. Thompson here.
His writing was shallow. What were his principles? I never found them. Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas was a fun read, but what else did it give you, besides two hours of fun? OK, so there's the metaphor of the high-water mark of the late '60s having passed by 1971 (when Fear and Loathing was written). So what? What else is there.
Lately, Hunter S. Thompson's "mission" was to report on the "Death of the American Dream," and spread his countercultural nonsense. It's nothing but a crock of shit.
Hunter S. Thompson never understood that a guy like him was living the American Dream. He was able to do whatever the Hell he wanted in his life, and what is he left with? Some bizarre books, even more bizarre politics, and a head-scratching bizarre ultimate column in which he phoned Bill Murray at 3 a.m. to discuss combining the sports of skeet shooting and golf. (Not a totally fresh idea; there's an ad that airs during golf tournament in which a touring pro hits golf balls to shoot down skeet. Then again, reading the column was an entertaining way to waste 10 minutes.)
I do like pop culture, but I found Hunter S. Thompson lacking any meat. He doesn't rank among the top 100 20th Century American writers. Fifty years from now, no one will give a damn about him, unlike the true titans of the pen.
Want a real 20th Century titan? Let me point out William F. Buckley, Jr., in whose autobiographical anthology (Miles Gone By) I am engrossed. This is a true renaissance man, one that has befriended heads of state and peasant copy editors, an avid sportsman, a former spy, a magazine publisher, a far more prolific author of books and columns, and as influential a figure in American history as anyone in the 20th Century.
Buckley and Thompson were born into privilege; Buckley's privilege was grand, while Thompson's was relative. Both were endowed with great talent. While Buckley converted his into focused causes, Thompson flitted about, creating controversy when it was convenient or fun to do so.
Next to Buckley, Thompson's a midget. He's a good writer, but nothing great next to so many others more worthy of your tears.
Maybe most of all, I'm pissed that someone that has it all (including the lifestyle he wanted), decided to take his life at a relatively young age, leaving behind a family that will now pick up the pieces. He was relatively healthy, and he cavalierly discarded his life over (depending on whose news report you read) hip and back pain or the Bush Administration. Meanwhile, I see others cling to their lives at older ages, more debilitating illnesses, far less to look forward to, far less to look back on, and far less talent.
Hunter Thompson's party ended about 30 years ago, and he only realized it Saturday. So instead of growing up, he ate a bullet. What a waste.
Sorry, Derrick. RIP, Duke.
His writing was shallow. What were his principles? I never found them. Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas was a fun read, but what else did it give you, besides two hours of fun? OK, so there's the metaphor of the high-water mark of the late '60s having passed by 1971 (when Fear and Loathing was written). So what? What else is there.
Lately, Hunter S. Thompson's "mission" was to report on the "Death of the American Dream," and spread his countercultural nonsense. It's nothing but a crock of shit.
Hunter S. Thompson never understood that a guy like him was living the American Dream. He was able to do whatever the Hell he wanted in his life, and what is he left with? Some bizarre books, even more bizarre politics, and a head-scratching bizarre ultimate column in which he phoned Bill Murray at 3 a.m. to discuss combining the sports of skeet shooting and golf. (Not a totally fresh idea; there's an ad that airs during golf tournament in which a touring pro hits golf balls to shoot down skeet. Then again, reading the column was an entertaining way to waste 10 minutes.)
I do like pop culture, but I found Hunter S. Thompson lacking any meat. He doesn't rank among the top 100 20th Century American writers. Fifty years from now, no one will give a damn about him, unlike the true titans of the pen.
Want a real 20th Century titan? Let me point out William F. Buckley, Jr., in whose autobiographical anthology (Miles Gone By) I am engrossed. This is a true renaissance man, one that has befriended heads of state and peasant copy editors, an avid sportsman, a former spy, a magazine publisher, a far more prolific author of books and columns, and as influential a figure in American history as anyone in the 20th Century.
Buckley and Thompson were born into privilege; Buckley's privilege was grand, while Thompson's was relative. Both were endowed with great talent. While Buckley converted his into focused causes, Thompson flitted about, creating controversy when it was convenient or fun to do so.
Next to Buckley, Thompson's a midget. He's a good writer, but nothing great next to so many others more worthy of your tears.
Maybe most of all, I'm pissed that someone that has it all (including the lifestyle he wanted), decided to take his life at a relatively young age, leaving behind a family that will now pick up the pieces. He was relatively healthy, and he cavalierly discarded his life over (depending on whose news report you read) hip and back pain or the Bush Administration. Meanwhile, I see others cling to their lives at older ages, more debilitating illnesses, far less to look forward to, far less to look back on, and far less talent.
Hunter Thompson's party ended about 30 years ago, and he only realized it Saturday. So instead of growing up, he ate a bullet. What a waste.
Sorry, Derrick. RIP, Duke.
Monday, February 21, 2005
Death of a Titan II: I am in morning again, after an early wake-up call from my buddy Kevin. One of my heros in journalism -- for his writing, not his lifestyle -- is gone. Dr. Hunter S. Thompson, the gonzo journalist, is dead in an apparent suicide.
Thompson's "Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas" opened my eyes when I read it in college. It was part of a class in Literary Journalism, where we were exposed to narrative writing and encouraged to write "stories" not boring just-the-facts accounts. It was Thompson who really illustrated to me the beauty of writing. The book inspired me, not with its drug-induced rants, but with its metaphors. Thompson described the "high water mark" from the tidal wave that was the 1960s and how by 1971 the water had already rolled back.
He was a genius, even though I don't think he would like that title. He told the truth, even though some people couldn't find or appreciate it in his writing.
I'm sure Thompson is somewhere better now, toting his classic stash of drugs: two bags of grass, seventy-five pellets of mescaline, five sheets of high powered blotter acid, a salt shaker half full of cocaine and a whole galaxy of multicolored uppers, downers, screamers, laughers, a quart of tequila, a quart of rum, a case of Budweiser, a pint of raw ether, and two dozen amyls; riding a big red shark convertible on his way to his new fortified compound. But now he won't have to worry about the helplessness and irresponsibility that comes in the depths of an ether binge.
So long, Mr. Duke, those of us trying to be gonzo journalists and continue your legacy will miss you.
Thompson was a regular columnist for ESPN.com's Page 2 section. You can check out their tribute and his past columns here.
Thompson's "Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas" opened my eyes when I read it in college. It was part of a class in Literary Journalism, where we were exposed to narrative writing and encouraged to write "stories" not boring just-the-facts accounts. It was Thompson who really illustrated to me the beauty of writing. The book inspired me, not with its drug-induced rants, but with its metaphors. Thompson described the "high water mark" from the tidal wave that was the 1960s and how by 1971 the water had already rolled back.
He was a genius, even though I don't think he would like that title. He told the truth, even though some people couldn't find or appreciate it in his writing.
I'm sure Thompson is somewhere better now, toting his classic stash of drugs: two bags of grass, seventy-five pellets of mescaline, five sheets of high powered blotter acid, a salt shaker half full of cocaine and a whole galaxy of multicolored uppers, downers, screamers, laughers, a quart of tequila, a quart of rum, a case of Budweiser, a pint of raw ether, and two dozen amyls; riding a big red shark convertible on his way to his new fortified compound. But now he won't have to worry about the helplessness and irresponsibility that comes in the depths of an ether binge.
So long, Mr. Duke, those of us trying to be gonzo journalists and continue your legacy will miss you.
Thompson was a regular columnist for ESPN.com's Page 2 section. You can check out their tribute and his past columns here.
Tuesday, February 15, 2005
One for the "What were they thinking" file: I just have to scratch my head at the actions of the Tulsa World and its letter demanding blogger and critic Michael Bates stop linking World content on his Web site.
Bates uses his blog to criticize the Tulsa City Council and Tulsa World newspaper, routinely linking its content as part of his posts. The newspaper sent him a letter recently telling him it was a copyright violation and to stop immediately.
This of course enraged the bloggers around the Internet, and my friend Kevin and his boys at Rathergate.com have released the dogs on the paper.
My (and many others') question to the paper is: Why would you lend legitimacy to Bates by doing this? Whether his rants are right or wrong, (I'll let you all decide that. I don't know enough about Tulsa or the newspaper to judge.) the paper automatically brought a whole new bunch of headaches and created a whole army of enemies.
In this day and age, the best way to deal with someone like Bates (especially if you don't like what he does) is to ignore him. By sending the letter, the newspaper has admitted a blog that gets about 1,000 hits a day (the equivalent of a weekly 2-page neighborhood newsletter for the more than 100,000-circulation daily) is equal to the threat of someone starting another daily newspaper in Tulsa.
But the damage is done now. The issue was mentioned on CNN today. And I suspect Bates' blog will get a few more than 1,000 hits now.
Bates uses his blog to criticize the Tulsa City Council and Tulsa World newspaper, routinely linking its content as part of his posts. The newspaper sent him a letter recently telling him it was a copyright violation and to stop immediately.
This of course enraged the bloggers around the Internet, and my friend Kevin and his boys at Rathergate.com have released the dogs on the paper.
My (and many others') question to the paper is: Why would you lend legitimacy to Bates by doing this? Whether his rants are right or wrong, (I'll let you all decide that. I don't know enough about Tulsa or the newspaper to judge.) the paper automatically brought a whole new bunch of headaches and created a whole army of enemies.
In this day and age, the best way to deal with someone like Bates (especially if you don't like what he does) is to ignore him. By sending the letter, the newspaper has admitted a blog that gets about 1,000 hits a day (the equivalent of a weekly 2-page neighborhood newsletter for the more than 100,000-circulation daily) is equal to the threat of someone starting another daily newspaper in Tulsa.
But the damage is done now. The issue was mentioned on CNN today. And I suspect Bates' blog will get a few more than 1,000 hits now.
Saturday, February 12, 2005
Death of a Titan (I mean Salesman): playwright Arthur Miller died Friday at age 89. Aside from gaining fame from marrying Marilyn Monroe, Miller was considered one of the greatest playwright in American history.
As a writer, I must offer my comments on his legacy, even though I admit I know very little. I read Miller's "The Crucible" in high school and remember struggling to understand it. But years later it is easy to see why my American Literature teacher included it. It was written in the later half of the 20th century, revisiting the Salem Witch Trials during a time in American history when the McCarthy "witch hunt" for communists was still popular. It was relevant, even though it dealt with a time centuries past.
And of course "Death of a Salesman" is considered a classic about the American dream gone terribly wrong.
We will you, Mr. Miller, and we will never forget you. I hope you are reunited with Marilyn in heaven and the both of you are happy.
As a writer, I must offer my comments on his legacy, even though I admit I know very little. I read Miller's "The Crucible" in high school and remember struggling to understand it. But years later it is easy to see why my American Literature teacher included it. It was written in the later half of the 20th century, revisiting the Salem Witch Trials during a time in American history when the McCarthy "witch hunt" for communists was still popular. It was relevant, even though it dealt with a time centuries past.
And of course "Death of a Salesman" is considered a classic about the American dream gone terribly wrong.
We will you, Mr. Miller, and we will never forget you. I hope you are reunited with Marilyn in heaven and the both of you are happy.
America -- love it or leave it: Some people don't think the U.S. has the best game in town anymore and are seeking a better, and apparently more liberal, life in Canada.
Check out this story in the New York Times today (registration required): http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/08/national/08depart.html?oref=login&8hpib
Note: The story ran earlier this week, but I've been busy and not able to upload the link.
Check out this story in the New York Times today (registration required): http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/08/national/08depart.html?oref=login&8hpib
Note: The story ran earlier this week, but I've been busy and not able to upload the link.
Monday, February 07, 2005
Reality Check: Ok people, let's step back and think for a second...
Fact: Tom Brady is a very good quarterback. He has won three Super Bowls with the New England Patriots.
Fact: Brady has never lost a playoff game as a starter. That is an impressive record.
Fact: Brady plays well in big games. A sign of a quality player.
Fact: Tom Brady is NOT a Hall-of-Famer right now. He has played in the league four years. Terrell Davis is questionable for the Hall of Fame after rushing for nearly 10,000 yards and winning two Super Bowls, but having his career cut short by injury. How can anyone say Brady is worthy already when he is 27 years old?
Fact: Tom Brady is NOT the greatest big-game quarterback of all-time. I don't believe some of my collegues in the sports media actually considered this. I can give several names without thinking more than a few seconds of quarterbacks that are CLEARLY better than Brady: Joe Montana, Terry Bradshaw, John Ellway, John Unitas, Bart Starr. Brady still has a long way to go to move up that list.
Fact: The New England Patriots are a very good team and they have proven it over the last four years. But they are not as good as the Steelers of the 1970s or the 49ers of the 1980s. Those are two dynasties... I think it is safe to say the 85 Bears, the 1992 Redskins, the Cowboys of the 1990s, and the 1999 Broncos would have beaten the brilliant Tom Brady and his Patriots.
We just keep moving the "great" Patriots down the list of great teams. Keep some perspective. The Patriots are a good team thriving in an NFL that is wrought with parody. They play a team game in a league that stresses individual stars. And they won three Super Bowls against teams that clearly were not playing at the level they were playing. Does that mean they are one of the greatest teams of all time? I don't think so.
If you want to call the Pats a dynasty -- they are a "lesser" dynasty. But the rings still will end up on their fingers later this year.
Fact: Tom Brady is a very good quarterback. He has won three Super Bowls with the New England Patriots.
Fact: Brady has never lost a playoff game as a starter. That is an impressive record.
Fact: Brady plays well in big games. A sign of a quality player.
Fact: Tom Brady is NOT a Hall-of-Famer right now. He has played in the league four years. Terrell Davis is questionable for the Hall of Fame after rushing for nearly 10,000 yards and winning two Super Bowls, but having his career cut short by injury. How can anyone say Brady is worthy already when he is 27 years old?
Fact: Tom Brady is NOT the greatest big-game quarterback of all-time. I don't believe some of my collegues in the sports media actually considered this. I can give several names without thinking more than a few seconds of quarterbacks that are CLEARLY better than Brady: Joe Montana, Terry Bradshaw, John Ellway, John Unitas, Bart Starr. Brady still has a long way to go to move up that list.
Fact: The New England Patriots are a very good team and they have proven it over the last four years. But they are not as good as the Steelers of the 1970s or the 49ers of the 1980s. Those are two dynasties... I think it is safe to say the 85 Bears, the 1992 Redskins, the Cowboys of the 1990s, and the 1999 Broncos would have beaten the brilliant Tom Brady and his Patriots.
We just keep moving the "great" Patriots down the list of great teams. Keep some perspective. The Patriots are a good team thriving in an NFL that is wrought with parody. They play a team game in a league that stresses individual stars. And they won three Super Bowls against teams that clearly were not playing at the level they were playing. Does that mean they are one of the greatest teams of all time? I don't think so.
If you want to call the Pats a dynasty -- they are a "lesser" dynasty. But the rings still will end up on their fingers later this year.
