Still grappling with how to deal with I'm Not There and Dogville. I'm for sure completely in love with Dogville. And not head over heels, but a feeling of I know this film is in my life now, and I couldn't imagine that any other way.
I need to see I'm Not There again, but hopefully not by myself. It is a long film... (let's not even talk Dogville on that account)
BUT...I have to...I must correct my previous statements about my best movies of the year. Now I still haven't seen There Will Be Blood -- it's the last big one on my list, and I also have yet to see the evidently delightful Enchanted and the evidently rapturous Once (coming via Netflix tomorrow!).
Seriously, everyone, the best film of the year is Le scaphandre et le papillon (The Diving Bell and the Butterfly), directed by Julian Schnabel from the memoir by Jean-Dominique "Jean-Do" Bauby, which was adapted into an English screeplay by Ronald Harwood from the English translation of the book, then re-translated into a French screenplay by Ronald Harwood. Therefore, I feel it only appropriate to refer to it fully as Le scaphandre et le papillon.
Now, as some may know, I have a grandmother who is dying slowly, and that of course had an effect on me watching a terminally ill, incapacitated person on screen for two hours. Still...
It is so very rare that you see any work of art that actually transforms physically how you perceive the world around you. It changes how your eyes work, before any crap you might say about how your heart works, etc., even as you could, and probably will. The world doesn't look different to me now, I see it differently. I see it perhaps more as it is, but I also see a more beautiful and worthwhile world than we give it credit for. And I see how little influence, control, and power we have over our existence. That knowledge -- not even knowledge, but an awareness -- is disarming. However, unlike many disarming films or other artworks, this continues to disarm you afterwards. Days afterwards. This film is in my life now, and I cannot imagine my life without it. At the same time, in a strange way, one cannot imagine this film without one's life -- without one's participation in it. It requests your participation in its two hour running time to reinvigorate your participation in your own running time outside the theater.
I cannot stress the value of viewing this film. It's not important. It's not beautiful. (It is, but I mean): It just is, and it wants you to know it. And I want all of you to know it. To meet it.
The French word "to know," as in to be familiar with someone, is connaître. In my weird, indirect understanding of the language, this has certain parallels with their words for appear/disappear (apparaître/disapparaître) and to be (être). And then there is also the beautiful addition to the word that becomes reconnaître -- to re-meet, to re-know, to re-turn to one, to re-appear with one another. In this film, due to the illness the man is suffering (he's "locked-in" -- paralyzed except for his left eye, which he blinks in order to communicate) -- he has to re-meet the world, his family, himself in an entire new way. He has to cause himself to re-appear, to re-be, to be re-birthed. I felt similarly to the cold air outside Lincoln Plaza cinema, and walked blocks and blocks to take a different subway -- one I had not taken before. I could not go home the way I do every single day. And I couldn't go home to -- everything?
Le scaphandre et le papillon (The Diving Bell and the Butterfly) -- if only one film to see, you should see the film you desperately want to see; but this film wants desperately for you to see -- it, and, everything.
Friday, January 25, 2008
Tuesday, January 22, 2008
My MLK weekend of moviegoing
This past weekend I did not leave my apartment from Friday night to Monday afternoon, for a myriad of reasons. I thus watched lots of movies. I'll mention a few:
(on TV):
Bring It On: Still far more enjoyable than it has any right to be. Interesting to think about contextually, though. One of very few movies that are about females, and maybe the only successful female sports movie.
Bridget Jones’ Diary: What happened to Renee Zellweger’s career? Aside from a lot of coke? The trifecta of Bridget Jones’ Diary, Chicago (a continually surprising/enterprising perf), and Down with Love died for me after her atrocious perf in Cold Mountain. She was the worst part of an irritating and often unwatchable film. But Bridget Jones? Too much fun.
Now, to the big three. (I’m not yet done with Jules et Jim.) I started Netflixin’ to watch “important” movies, so we’ll see how this goes.
(Netflixin'):
Caché (2005, dir. Michael Haneke)
Caché (Hidden) begins with a long, still shot of a ordinary house on an ordinary street in Paris. The shot is so long it becomes unnerving, then suddenly it is re-wound -- it's actually a shot on a videotape, one of several being delivered to the people who live in that house, to let them know they are being surveilled by someone. These tapes are accompanied by very violent, childlike drawings of people and animals being killed. Daniel Auteil and Juliette Binoche play the terrorized/terrified couple, who maybe are being revenged upon by someone in Auteil's past.
The word to describe Caché is unnerving. It is sometimes scary, and in one scene horrifyingly, suddenly violent, but mostly it is just unnerving, disarming, creepy. Haneke shows how that tension, that unknowing and suspicion, really tears up and lays bare the neat family life that this couple and their son have set up for themselves. Auteil's character refuses, most of the time, to discuss his past with his wife, as he is ashamed that his actions perhaps were the catalyst to their present fears. During his childhood, his family almost adopted an Arab orphan from Algiers, but Auteil's character (as a child) lied about the boy and prevented the adoption. When directions on one of the videotapes leads Auteil to this boy, now a grown older man, he claims to know nothing about them. Maybe he's lying? Maybe it's his grown son terrorizing the family?
Eventually the situation seems to have resolved itself, but the last shot suddenly occurs to you as a surveillance shot of Auteil and Binoche's son's school. It's almost unfair, and definitely perverse (but that's Haneke for you).
Haneke is also trying to say something about France's relationship with Arab immigrants and the Algiers/North African population that, once liberated, have moved to France instead (and into other European countries, especially Britain). He takes xenophobia and class struggle between Auteil and his Arab potential terrorist from the personal to the political sphere, magnifying Auteil's past crimes to a present revenge that encompasses and destabilizes his entire life. There's nothing he, or we, can do about it, at any rate.
Dogville (2004, dir. Lars von Trier)
I had seen about half of Dogville when I started to watch it again on Saturday.
Urgh......can't keep thinking about this today.
New update to include:
My yes to Dogville. It's a modern day expressionist play, and I love it.
(At Film Forum):
I’m Not There: Yes. I think. I need to see it again before speaking more clearly about it. It is similar for me to Across the Universe, but not superficially as "musicals," whatever. The experience was similar. The experience was troubling and insightful, and took a lot of complication to arrive at something very simple. Was it worth it? For my money I think they're the two best films I've seen from 2007. (Although there's plenty I haven't seen it, most especially Le scaphandre et le papillon (The Diving Bell and the Butterfly) and There Will Be Blood. Now that I've read Atonement I have very little desire to see it, as much as I like Keira Knightley).
More to come!
(on TV):
Bring It On: Still far more enjoyable than it has any right to be. Interesting to think about contextually, though. One of very few movies that are about females, and maybe the only successful female sports movie.
Bridget Jones’ Diary: What happened to Renee Zellweger’s career? Aside from a lot of coke? The trifecta of Bridget Jones’ Diary, Chicago (a continually surprising/enterprising perf), and Down with Love died for me after her atrocious perf in Cold Mountain. She was the worst part of an irritating and often unwatchable film. But Bridget Jones? Too much fun.
Now, to the big three. (I’m not yet done with Jules et Jim.) I started Netflixin’ to watch “important” movies, so we’ll see how this goes.
(Netflixin'):
Caché (2005, dir. Michael Haneke)
Caché (Hidden) begins with a long, still shot of a ordinary house on an ordinary street in Paris. The shot is so long it becomes unnerving, then suddenly it is re-wound -- it's actually a shot on a videotape, one of several being delivered to the people who live in that house, to let them know they are being surveilled by someone. These tapes are accompanied by very violent, childlike drawings of people and animals being killed. Daniel Auteil and Juliette Binoche play the terrorized/terrified couple, who maybe are being revenged upon by someone in Auteil's past.
The word to describe Caché is unnerving. It is sometimes scary, and in one scene horrifyingly, suddenly violent, but mostly it is just unnerving, disarming, creepy. Haneke shows how that tension, that unknowing and suspicion, really tears up and lays bare the neat family life that this couple and their son have set up for themselves. Auteil's character refuses, most of the time, to discuss his past with his wife, as he is ashamed that his actions perhaps were the catalyst to their present fears. During his childhood, his family almost adopted an Arab orphan from Algiers, but Auteil's character (as a child) lied about the boy and prevented the adoption. When directions on one of the videotapes leads Auteil to this boy, now a grown older man, he claims to know nothing about them. Maybe he's lying? Maybe it's his grown son terrorizing the family?
Eventually the situation seems to have resolved itself, but the last shot suddenly occurs to you as a surveillance shot of Auteil and Binoche's son's school. It's almost unfair, and definitely perverse (but that's Haneke for you).
Haneke is also trying to say something about France's relationship with Arab immigrants and the Algiers/North African population that, once liberated, have moved to France instead (and into other European countries, especially Britain). He takes xenophobia and class struggle between Auteil and his Arab potential terrorist from the personal to the political sphere, magnifying Auteil's past crimes to a present revenge that encompasses and destabilizes his entire life. There's nothing he, or we, can do about it, at any rate.
Dogville (2004, dir. Lars von Trier)
I had seen about half of Dogville when I started to watch it again on Saturday.
Urgh......can't keep thinking about this today.
New update to include:
My yes to Dogville. It's a modern day expressionist play, and I love it.
(At Film Forum):
I’m Not There: Yes. I think. I need to see it again before speaking more clearly about it. It is similar for me to Across the Universe, but not superficially as "musicals," whatever. The experience was similar. The experience was troubling and insightful, and took a lot of complication to arrive at something very simple. Was it worth it? For my money I think they're the two best films I've seen from 2007. (Although there's plenty I haven't seen it, most especially Le scaphandre et le papillon (The Diving Bell and the Butterfly) and There Will Be Blood. Now that I've read Atonement I have very little desire to see it, as much as I like Keira Knightley).
More to come!
Monday, January 14, 2008
McB@McK.com
So within a whirlwind 12 hours of drunkenness with the lovely Mia Katigbak, a plan was hatched to produced McB@McK.com, a producation of Macbeth at Mark et al's apartment in Brooklyn. The following are her (McKatigbak the producer's) restrictions on the production:
1. The piece cannot be more than 90 minutes. Preferably, shorter.
2. It will be an all-male cast, with no more than 6 actors.
3. It is pre-cast with the gentlemen copied on this email as your company. Other than the role of Lady M being undertaken by Mr. Jaynes, you are free to double/triple cast as you fit, although I would strongly suggest you work as collaboratively as possible with your company.
4. You must include the following musical instruments in your c-c-c-c-concept: horn(s); drums.
5. The song “Bridge Over Troubled Water” by Paul Simon (rendered by any artist of your choice) must be in the performance.
6. Please also incorporate some form of sign language.
7. Include one bicycle (or more) in your set. It (they) can be used. Or ridden.
In short, I accepted her request for a director. One last restriction I have placed upon the show is a requirement to use the entire text (here) within those <90 minutes.
1. The piece cannot be more than 90 minutes. Preferably, shorter.
2. It will be an all-male cast, with no more than 6 actors.
3. It is pre-cast with the gentlemen copied on this email as your company. Other than the role of Lady M being undertaken by Mr. Jaynes, you are free to double/triple cast as you fit, although I would strongly suggest you work as collaboratively as possible with your company.
4. You must include the following musical instruments in your c-c-c-c-concept: horn(s); drums.
5. The song “Bridge Over Troubled Water” by Paul Simon (rendered by any artist of your choice) must be in the performance.
6. Please also incorporate some form of sign language.
7. Include one bicycle (or more) in your set. It (they) can be used. Or ridden.
In short, I accepted her request for a director. One last restriction I have placed upon the show is a requirement to use the entire text (here) within those <90 minutes.
Friday, January 11, 2008
Gonna blog all day long? Have to put a stop at some point, thanks for reading if you get all the way through this mess (Gordon says to nobody)
UPDATED 2:09 pm:
This article expresses a lot of what I think I've been feeling (as well):
Emotion Without Thought in New Hampshire
(Judith Warner/Domestic Disturbances on NYTimes website)
-----
I really have no knowledge or understanding of economics, so I won't pretend to. I will say, though, that I don't make a lot of money and don't necessarily need to. Frankly, I would appreciate my tax rate to be less than it is, but only slightly. Right now my take-home pay is about 75%-77% of my actual gross pay. It would be really excellent if that were more like 85%. Why do they need my money? Just that 10% more could get me a little nicer, a little closer living space in Manhattan.
The other thing is living paycheck to paycheck, which almost everyone I know does. The money I make now does not allow me to save much, if any at all (without living like an absolute ascetic). Really and truly the only reason that concerns me is because I am uninsured, and couldn't even get private health insurance if I tried. No one will currently insure me! And I can't get it through a temp agency work situation. My biggest fear in NYC is if I fell down and hurt myself and was unable to receive the care I need because I don't have the cash and/or I am uninsured.
So what does this mean, that we might be falling into a recession?
Could it possibly mean bursting the real estate bubble in NYC? So that poor folk like me could maybe possibly re-afford places I easily could have inhabited just ten years ago that now are only privy to the mega-rich and to Calvin Klein, Marc Jacobs, and Diane von Furstenburg boutiques?
If so that would so incredibly excellent.
-----
In other news, Does this Media Hate Hillary? asks AMERICAblog.
They offer up How Bashing Hillary Backfired from Salon.
I just feel bad for Hillary, and I feel like she's due, in a way (?). I know what it's like to work really hard, to be the really smart one in the room, and then to always be passed over as difficult/controlling/bitchy or just "too much" for the kid that everyone likes, who does an OK job, who's "nice enough" (as Obama called the Hill), and who knows it. Obama, I think, knows deep down that Hill's more on top of certain issues -- and he exploits her (frankly) inability to discuss them complexly by offering up his "inspiring" oratorical solutions. He's the Golden Child of this campaign, and that's why I can't get behind him: because everyone else is, or would be were they not "nice enough" folk who are honestly backing the Hill, not for who she is (a la Obama supporters) but for what she honestly wants and what she'll honestly try to give.
-----
Re-reading Hamlet at work. It's so much more exciting than it ever was in school.
-----
Birthday Plans
Definite: Happy Days at BAM on Tues (my actual bday), dir. Deborah Warner and starring Aunt Petunia herself, Fiona Shaw
Maybes: Anything fun that any of my friends my care to think up. Ugh, it is such work coming up with your own goddamn birthday plans!
-----
Final note: Loving the Public.
This article expresses a lot of what I think I've been feeling (as well):
Emotion Without Thought in New Hampshire
(Judith Warner/Domestic Disturbances on NYTimes website)
-----
I really have no knowledge or understanding of economics, so I won't pretend to. I will say, though, that I don't make a lot of money and don't necessarily need to. Frankly, I would appreciate my tax rate to be less than it is, but only slightly. Right now my take-home pay is about 75%-77% of my actual gross pay. It would be really excellent if that were more like 85%. Why do they need my money? Just that 10% more could get me a little nicer, a little closer living space in Manhattan.
The other thing is living paycheck to paycheck, which almost everyone I know does. The money I make now does not allow me to save much, if any at all (without living like an absolute ascetic). Really and truly the only reason that concerns me is because I am uninsured, and couldn't even get private health insurance if I tried. No one will currently insure me! And I can't get it through a temp agency work situation. My biggest fear in NYC is if I fell down and hurt myself and was unable to receive the care I need because I don't have the cash and/or I am uninsured.
So what does this mean, that we might be falling into a recession?
Could it possibly mean bursting the real estate bubble in NYC? So that poor folk like me could maybe possibly re-afford places I easily could have inhabited just ten years ago that now are only privy to the mega-rich and to Calvin Klein, Marc Jacobs, and Diane von Furstenburg boutiques?
If so that would so incredibly excellent.
-----
In other news, Does this Media Hate Hillary? asks AMERICAblog.
They offer up How Bashing Hillary Backfired from Salon.
I just feel bad for Hillary, and I feel like she's due, in a way (?). I know what it's like to work really hard, to be the really smart one in the room, and then to always be passed over as difficult/controlling/bitchy or just "too much" for the kid that everyone likes, who does an OK job, who's "nice enough" (as Obama called the Hill), and who knows it. Obama, I think, knows deep down that Hill's more on top of certain issues -- and he exploits her (frankly) inability to discuss them complexly by offering up his "inspiring" oratorical solutions. He's the Golden Child of this campaign, and that's why I can't get behind him: because everyone else is, or would be were they not "nice enough" folk who are honestly backing the Hill, not for who she is (a la Obama supporters) but for what she honestly wants and what she'll honestly try to give.
-----
Re-reading Hamlet at work. It's so much more exciting than it ever was in school.
-----
Birthday Plans
Definite: Happy Days at BAM on Tues (my actual bday), dir. Deborah Warner and starring Aunt Petunia herself, Fiona Shaw
Maybes: Anything fun that any of my friends my care to think up. Ugh, it is such work coming up with your own goddamn birthday plans!
-----
Final note: Loving the Public.
Tuesday, January 8, 2008
Jesus is Magic, or is Barack? (Jesus? or Magic?)
Tomorrow at 10 am sharp I start my internship at the Public. I'm nervous.
Some interesting things today:
"Obama and Magic" from TAPPED blog
"Barack, You're Nice Enough" from the Huff Post
I just don't know what to make of Barack Obama.
I also don't know...what to do for my birthday on January 15!
I do need to see the following plays: August: Osage County, The Homecoming, and Happy Days. I need to see the following films: I'm Not There (or I'm Not Sure How I Still Haven't Seen 'I'm Not There'), The Diving Bell and the Butterfly, There Will Be Blood, Atonement, Juno, Enchanted, and the digital Sweeney Todd at the Ziegfeld. On DVD I need to see Once. Maybe one of these will provide the night's entertainment. And dinner at Sea (?)
Rewatched The Piano the other night w/ the roomies. Excellent film. Other selections from the evening were Hard Candy (w/ Juno star Ellen Page and the delish Patrick Wilson) and Diggers (w/ everyone you would expect in a cast headed by Paul Rudd and Maura Tierney and directed by the folks from Wet Hot American Summer). Both sizzucked.
Some interesting things today:
"Obama and Magic" from TAPPED blog
"Barack, You're Nice Enough" from the Huff Post
I just don't know what to make of Barack Obama.
I also don't know...what to do for my birthday on January 15!
I do need to see the following plays: August: Osage County, The Homecoming, and Happy Days. I need to see the following films: I'm Not There (or I'm Not Sure How I Still Haven't Seen 'I'm Not There'), The Diving Bell and the Butterfly, There Will Be Blood, Atonement, Juno, Enchanted, and the digital Sweeney Todd at the Ziegfeld. On DVD I need to see Once. Maybe one of these will provide the night's entertainment. And dinner at Sea (?)
Rewatched The Piano the other night w/ the roomies. Excellent film. Other selections from the evening were Hard Candy (w/ Juno star Ellen Page and the delish Patrick Wilson) and Diggers (w/ everyone you would expect in a cast headed by Paul Rudd and Maura Tierney and directed by the folks from Wet Hot American Summer). Both sizzucked.
Monday, January 7, 2008
Can you imagine?
Thank you, George McGovern: Why I Believe Bush Must Go. (from Washington Post)
----------------
From me, not George McGovern:
Obama is looking all-the-sudden unstoppable. It occurred to me this morning reading something that it doesn't really matter who I want out of Obama/Clinton/Edwards/Richardson/whoever else, because I am not going to get an opportunity to make that choice before a nominee is called. That's fine. I don't have major problems with any of them, and would love to see any and all of them in office.
That was my biggest problem watching the debate on Saturday night. There is so much in-fighting and self-promotion on the littlest whim. It's like a high school debate club. As soon as someone hands you a a highlighted word or a talking point, just run with it until you're out of juice.
Do they not understand that fully sixty-some-odd percent of the population wants one of them as President? I know they're debating "for" New Hampshire, but if you're going to televise, if you're going to make it a national debate, then let's really debate. And not debate about each other and our differences, but about the actual issues. Not what I will or won't do v. what you will or won't do, but what isn't being done v. what needs to be. And what each of your four can bring to it.
My biggest problem with Obama are his ideas on health care and taxation. I'm such a sucker for John Edwards' populist appeal -- but then, who shouldn't be? Unless you're uber-rich. Pur the two of them together, you've got quite a dream team.
I feel badly for Hillary sometimes, because even as "she says just what she thinks will get her votes," as a friend of mine put it, I do think she's a remarkable and intelligent person who is trying to solve problems. I do think sometimes she tries to take care of everybody and every concern, which gives off a sense of just saying what's necessary to get elected. She kind of flipped out during the debate, and I don't blame her. If I were all the sudden losing to Sen. Obama, who makes it look so effortless, I would be confused and pissed too; especially with the short shrift and, frankly, caddishness he was giving her and the rest of them on Saturday night.
I want this election year to stay exciting for the Dems without turning ugly. Real interest, not intrigue. Really and truly, between these three candidates (and against Bush plus the GOP candidates), we've got this one in the bag. Let's not shoot ourselves in the foot, getting greedy amongst ourselves.
I sat back and imagined this morning, in a year, a new President at his or her inauguration. (And regardless of whether or not you think it matters, it does: can you imagine the reaction of the world to a black President Obama or female President Clinton?). I sat back and imagined President Obama (let's be honest), and in my hopeful mind his first words to the world as President:
Today I want to apologize. The United States of America has acted wrongly and grievously against the nations of the world and against its own citizens in the cowardly hands of a few, and in the face of enormous trust and good will that our friends and allies had placed in us. We know we have lost that trust, from many around the world and, indeed, from many of our own American people. We have murdered and pillaged indiscriminately, we have detained and tortured without cause, we have cast a shadow of suspicion, doubt, and mistrust across our land and others'. And we have asked the rest of the world to bear the brunt of our mistakes and our crimes.
There are many Americans who have previously felt helpless to reverse this course, who felt their government had been hijacked by people they had elected in good faith and trust. But today Americans stand up and with me pledge to end these wrongful actions and to begin to restore peace and justice and trust amongst the nations of the world, all our friends and allies, and our native citizens and immigrants. And as one we ask forgiveness of every human person on this earth. With good faith and honest apology, I implore my fellow Americans to re-dedicate our America today to peace, liberty, justice, freedom, and goodness for all mankind.
Seriously, someone should pay me to crank these out!
Just the idea of saying "President" and following it with something other than "Bush" makes me tingle! Although if, God forbid, one of the Dems loses, Montreal here I come.
----------------
From me, not George McGovern:
Obama is looking all-the-sudden unstoppable. It occurred to me this morning reading something that it doesn't really matter who I want out of Obama/Clinton/Edwards/Richardson/whoever else, because I am not going to get an opportunity to make that choice before a nominee is called. That's fine. I don't have major problems with any of them, and would love to see any and all of them in office.
That was my biggest problem watching the debate on Saturday night. There is so much in-fighting and self-promotion on the littlest whim. It's like a high school debate club. As soon as someone hands you a a highlighted word or a talking point, just run with it until you're out of juice.
Do they not understand that fully sixty-some-odd percent of the population wants one of them as President? I know they're debating "for" New Hampshire, but if you're going to televise, if you're going to make it a national debate, then let's really debate. And not debate about each other and our differences, but about the actual issues. Not what I will or won't do v. what you will or won't do, but what isn't being done v. what needs to be. And what each of your four can bring to it.
My biggest problem with Obama are his ideas on health care and taxation. I'm such a sucker for John Edwards' populist appeal -- but then, who shouldn't be? Unless you're uber-rich. Pur the two of them together, you've got quite a dream team.
I feel badly for Hillary sometimes, because even as "she says just what she thinks will get her votes," as a friend of mine put it, I do think she's a remarkable and intelligent person who is trying to solve problems. I do think sometimes she tries to take care of everybody and every concern, which gives off a sense of just saying what's necessary to get elected. She kind of flipped out during the debate, and I don't blame her. If I were all the sudden losing to Sen. Obama, who makes it look so effortless, I would be confused and pissed too; especially with the short shrift and, frankly, caddishness he was giving her and the rest of them on Saturday night.
I want this election year to stay exciting for the Dems without turning ugly. Real interest, not intrigue. Really and truly, between these three candidates (and against Bush plus the GOP candidates), we've got this one in the bag. Let's not shoot ourselves in the foot, getting greedy amongst ourselves.
I sat back and imagined this morning, in a year, a new President at his or her inauguration. (And regardless of whether or not you think it matters, it does: can you imagine the reaction of the world to a black President Obama or female President Clinton?). I sat back and imagined President Obama (let's be honest), and in my hopeful mind his first words to the world as President:
Today I want to apologize. The United States of America has acted wrongly and grievously against the nations of the world and against its own citizens in the cowardly hands of a few, and in the face of enormous trust and good will that our friends and allies had placed in us. We know we have lost that trust, from many around the world and, indeed, from many of our own American people. We have murdered and pillaged indiscriminately, we have detained and tortured without cause, we have cast a shadow of suspicion, doubt, and mistrust across our land and others'. And we have asked the rest of the world to bear the brunt of our mistakes and our crimes.
There are many Americans who have previously felt helpless to reverse this course, who felt their government had been hijacked by people they had elected in good faith and trust. But today Americans stand up and with me pledge to end these wrongful actions and to begin to restore peace and justice and trust amongst the nations of the world, all our friends and allies, and our native citizens and immigrants. And as one we ask forgiveness of every human person on this earth. With good faith and honest apology, I implore my fellow Americans to re-dedicate our America today to peace, liberty, justice, freedom, and goodness for all mankind.
Seriously, someone should pay me to crank these out!
Just the idea of saying "President" and following it with something other than "Bush" makes me tingle! Although if, God forbid, one of the Dems loses, Montreal here I come.
Friday, January 4, 2008
A new beginning!
I am going to attempt to post more often. Whether or not anyone reads it.
I am still working at Marsh three days a week but starting next week I will be at the Public on Wednesdays and Thursdays!
I am still working at Marsh three days a week but starting next week I will be at the Public on Wednesdays and Thursdays!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)