New at GMR

Incidental stuff: I’ve had a couple of new reviews appear the last two weeks at Green Man Review. One is for Move Under Ground, by Nick Mamatas (a book I liked, but with reservations — Mamatas himself, incidentally, thinks my review is tripe); and Airborn by Kenneth Oppel, which I loved. Check them out. (Ane believe me, if you’re looking for a fun book to read, get Oppel’s. It’s the closest thing I’ve ever read to a fourth Indiana Jones movie.)

More to come at GMR in the next couple of weeks as I clear the decks.

Share This Post

Ahhhh, those Freepers

In comments to this post, Scott (of Archipelapogo) wonders how long until the Freepers (that is, the denizens of Free Republic, a place that makes the denizens of Little Green Footballs look like paragons of centrist moderation) start referring to Barack Obama as “Obama bin Laden”. Scott predicts that Ann Coulter will use that phrase in print within 48 hours, but she’ll be quite behind the curve: the Freepers already had this one in play more than three weeks ago. You’ll also find it in use here (what constitutes a political “moderate” to this person is an exercise best left to the reader).

As of this writing, a Google search for the exact phrase “Obama bin laden” only turns up three pages’ worth of hits, but give it time. I expect that number to do nothing but rise.

Share This Post

Best. Resource. EVER!

I mean, really, this thing is freaking AWESOME.

It’s American Rhetoric, a site that gathers more than 5000 audio and/or video versions of

…. public speeches, sermons, legal proceedings, lectures, debates, interviews, other recorded media events, and a declaration or two.


This thing includes a selection of movie speeches. Want to hear the greatest pep-talk in literary history? This is the place for you!

Man, does Jason Streed ever deserve a giant cookie (with an equally-large glass of milk to go with it) for finding this one!

UPDATE: Lynn Sislo also linked this, via Jason.

Share This Post

A Research Request

I have a question for my female readership (or for my male readers who have females present whom they can ask). This is for a writing project that I’m getting underway. (It’s a screenplay of sorts, freely mined from some of the more absurd aspects of life at The Store. Kind of like Clerks, I guess, only probably not nearly as good. And with more spaceships. [No, not really. Spaceships, that is.])

Anyway, here’s a situation I want to write but I’m not sure about the key detail. My main female character will at some point arrive for work in the morning, but she will have undergone some kind of emotional trauma the night before — maybe a sudden and ugly breakup or some such thing (I haven’t thought much of this out). It’ll be the kind of thing that’s bad enough to make you wish you’d stayed home from work, but not so serious as to make you actually stay home from work.

So my question is: what effect would this sort of thing have on her makeup? I don’t want anything so obvious as streaks of mascara running down her cheeks — maybe she got all her crying done and has enough self-control to keep from bawling on the job, but she still doesn’t want it to be obvious to everyone at work that she’s been crying all night. What does she do, makeup-wise, to accomplish this? And what details would tip someone off? I’m thinking that most people will simply think she looks a tiny bit different from her usual appearance, but I want to have one person who knows just what the tiny shifts (or not so tiny) in her makeup application might mean.

(For some reason, this project is coming to me in the form of disconnected scenes, all over the place. I have no idea how to tie it up as a story, which seems kind of weird to me, since I rarely work this way, if ever.)

Share This Post

Who WAS that masked man?!

Via just about everybody (Darth Swank, Modulatin’ Steve, Kevin Drum), I see that Atrios is no longer anonymous. He’s a guy named Duncan.

So I guess this puts to bed all those Sidney Blumenthal rumors of a while back. And while it’s pretty cool to see the face behind the Eschatonic greatness, part of me is slightly disappointed: it’s as if the “Who Shot JR?” episode of Dallas had revealed that the assassin was merely a night watchman whose gun accidentally discharged.

Anyway, I wonder if PZ Myers thinks that Atrios/Duncan looks like an axe murderer….

(As of this writing, Atrios himself has yet to say anything at all about being “outed”, as far as I can see. Hmmmmmm.)

Share This Post

Conventional Blathering

I watched the Democratic National Convention last night for all of six minutes while the Wife read to the Kid in bed, because while I myself could watch the damn thing gavel-to-gavel, the Wife has made clear that her tolerance for politics on TV extends very little distance past the closing credits of The West Wing. So, this is shaping up to be the election year that I watch the least convention coverage.

Of course, the TV networks have decided not to cover much of the conventions anyway, since it’s “not news”. Well, gee whiz — neither is half the crap on the nightly newscasts or on The Today Show, and that sure doesn’t seem to bother them. So I’m all for the idea of telling the networks, “You know what, who cares if it’s not news. Once every four years our political parties get together and talk to America about what they think. So the days of smoke-filled-rooms producing a nominee who is only nominated on the fortieth ballot are over. Big whoop.”

Of course, it has nothing to do with “news” per se; it’s about money, since by limiting convention coverage to a tiny amount the networks can still plan out their advertising budgets. But even then I don’t care. If they’re that worried about lost ad revenue during the conventions, then they can make for it by charging a little more for ad time during the Super Bowl or the Oscars. I mean, it’s not like the most important story in America right now actually is a single missing person’s case from Utah, but that’s what led off The Today Show this morning after they were done summing up the previous evening’s business from the Democratic National Convention.

And while I’m mildly griping, I caught a couple minutes of Tim Russert’s brilliant analysis this morning. And I mean, this guy is a freaking genius. First the Today folks play this bit of Bill Clinton’s speech from last night:

During the Vietnam War, many young men—including the current president, the vice president and me—could have gone to Vietnam but didn’t. John Kerry came from a privileged background and could have avoided it too. Instead he said, send me.


And then Russert says something like, “This was a masterstroke. Bill Clinton included himself in the numbers of men who did not go to Vietnam, like President Bush and Vice President Cheney, and then he noted that John Kerry went.”

Wow. I guess that’s how you get to be Washington’s most important political analyst: by possessing uncommonly keen powers of summarization.

(Yeah, Russert’s from Buffalo and a Bills fan. But the guy makes me shake my head every time he opens his mouth.)

Share This Post