Archive for February, 2008
February 29th, 2008 by Matt
(Editor’s note: Sorry about the delay. I’ll blame it on the snow. Yeah, that’s it: it was the snow’s fault!)
Margot at the Wedding is a film written and directed by, go figure, writer/director Noah Baumbach, and this is his follow-up after his Oscar-nominated flick The Squid and the Whale. Like the aforementioned flick “about” a cephalopod and a cetacean, this movie centers around families gone just a wee-bit haywire, marriages on the rocks, affairs, kids caught in the middle, and the forces driving people together and apart.
The film stars Nicole Kidman (equal parts biting, subtle, and heart-breaking) as Margot Zeller, a fiction writer, who takes her son in tow by train, boat, and car to her sister’s pad (Pauline, played by the beguiling Jennifer Jason Leigh) for a weekend. Pauline is set to marry Malcolm (Jack Black), an unemployed artist/writer/rocker, and the Zeller clan is getting together for the first time in a long time for the event. Secrets get shared and hidden, Black pulls off some laugh-out-loud hilarity in the midst of a relatively serious flick, and the tenderness that can be shared between those who love one another gets shot all to hell.
While I didn’t go all “Rah! Rah!” for The Squid and the Whale, I dug this flick because there’s hope hidden beneath the surface callousness of the players. Baumbach creates more believable characters by way of a looser script, which allows the actors to move organically through scenes. In much of his previous work (particularly the Wes Anderson directed flick, The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou), the characters are so affected you feel like you’ve been left out of a story told by old Ivy-League roommates. Here, though, I buy the conflicts, I buy the back-stories, I buy the surprises, I buy the love that nearly gets expressed. (And maybe that’s the up-shot of the flick: love, at best and at worst, can only be nearly expressed).
But you don’t need to buy it. Just rent this sucker.
February 27th, 2008 by Progressive Wednesday
Problem:
The first years of my memory are of Niagara Falls. We lived on Orchard Parkway in a tiny second-floor house apartment. And as I grew up in the surrounding area, I learned to think of my hometown as the honeymoon and suicide capital of the world.
I grew up with daredevils risking life, limb, and the lives and limbs of their rescuers, by plummeting in various contraptions over the Horseshoe Falls. I saw news reports of poor fools who fell and drown to their deaths on kayaks and jet-skis as they tried to conquer the cataracts. I watched national television coverage of the lawsuits connected to Love Canal, a neighborhood that was the site of one of the worst toxic-waste-dumping scandals in American history.
My first job, as a bakery assistant, was in Niagara Falls at the headquarters of Di Camillo Bakery, a family business still thriving in this city. And I watched as department stores and jewelry stores and restaurants evaporated from Main Street, turning the road into an assortment of seedy bars, adult novelty stores, and boarded up buildings, each empty as the pockets of the homeless wandering the city. And I watched as the factories closed their doors, and added good, hard-working souls to the unemployment lines– ¦.
.
Make Progress:
But I also grew up next to a place where people teem to see one the natural wonders of the world. And I grew up in an area where my relatives worked the bluest-collar of jobs, but managed to put lasagna on the table (we're good Italian-Americans, after all). And I grew up where my grandfather landed after traveling the Atlantic to move to America, the same city where my father was raised and remained, the same city where my sister got married. And I grew up next to one of the marvels of electrical science, the Niagara Power Project.
And so I believe in this place. And I love this place. And it's time we all helped this treasure of not just New York, but of America, and not just of America, but of the world. We're ready, if you are, to make progress in Niagara Falls.
- – - – -
Editor’s Note: Below you’ll find photos of some of our favorite locations in the city of Niagara Falls.
- – - – -
The Little Italy neighborhood and business district.
*
The genius that is the Niagara Power Project. To learn more about it, click here.
*
Di Camillo Bakery, where they make the best Italian bread you’ll ever eat.
*
The Niagara River in autumn (if it wasn’t obvious from, you know, the leaves).
February 26th, 2008 by Matt
Here’s a “Huzzah!” or two for the gray wolves. Why, pray tell? Well, give me a second, for crying out loud. According to the Associated Press:
Gray wolves in the Northern Rockies will be removed from the endangered species list, following a 13-year restoration effort that helped the animal’s population soar, federal officials said Thursday.
An estimated 1,500 wolves now roam Idaho, Montana and Wyoming. That represents a dramatic turnaround for a predator that was largely exterminated in the United States in the early 20th century.
Great, right? The Endangered Species Program works. That’s great, right? Right? Ummm:
The loss of federal protection allows the three states to move forward with plans allowing hunters to target the animals, possibly as soon as this fall.
Damn it. And we were this close to good news.
Thankfully, an organization called Earth Justice is suing the feds to keep the wolves protected. Here’s their take:
Gray wolves have come perilously close to extinction in the Rocky Mountains. Only in the past decade has the wolf population rebounded from a population of less than 50 to more than 1,300 wolves today. Visitors come to Yellowstone every year to get the chance to see and hear wolves in the wild.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has issued two rules that would not only reverse these hard-won gains, by killing hundreds of these magnificent predators. One rule would remove gray wolves in the Northern Rocky Mountains from protection under the Endangered Species Act. The other rule would allow states in the Northern Rockies to kill wolves whenever wolves had impacts on wild ungulate populations.
The governors of Idaho and Wyoming express outright hostility toward wolves, and numerous counties in Montana, Idaho and Wyoming have adopted resolutions declaring wolves an “unacceptable species.” Once wolves are delisted, Wyoming, Idaho, and Montana could reduce wolf populations to a paltry 100 wolves per state — in other words, they could destroy 1,000 wolves out of the current 1,300-wolf population.
We’ve said it before, I’ll say it again: this, this right here, is yet another example of why the government can’t be trusted to behave, and why it must be watched closely as the toddler it is by its citizens.
We’ll post more about this particular issue as it develops.
February 22nd, 2008 by Matt
The Indian Runner, the first film written and directed by the brilliant Sean Penn, tells the story of two brothers, Joe (played by David Morse) and Frank (played with vitriol and intensity by Viggo Mortensen) and their inability to connect on the basic elements of life: love, family, peace vs. violence, and morality. But besides being a film tackling the tough topic of familial disagreements, this is really a story about the Vietnam War.
Frank is a returning vet when we first meet him, and as the film unfolds, I couldn’t help but think: he’s doing “this” because of what he saw and what he did during the war. Any sense of innocence and deep feelings of love were sucked away for him “over there.” For Frank, life is meaningless, a series of empty events — he tries desperately to believe otherwise, but can’t shake away his nihilism. Joe, on the other hand, abhors the violence of his job (he’s a cop), and centers his life on his love of family, and his contentment from routine (morning coffee, newspaper, dinner with his clan). They serve as his escape from the job, from the farm he once ran and still pines for.
Penn shoots the film with a kind of grainy quality – “ making this a period piece of a sort, and a reminder that life isn't clean and crisp. And he creates in Frank, a messenger that some experience can make it difficult to want to experience more. In Joe, he offers up, in some ways, the opposite: some can take the mundane and live off that (like the central character in Hemingway's short story “The Big Two-Hearted River,– a story also about a returning veteran). Additionally, Joe knows what love is: it takes him on trips crossing multiple states; it makes him touch the blood of a loved-one lost; it makes him teach others through a kind of surprising toughness.
In the end we're not left with two choices, for this isn't a morality tale. Instead, we're left with one choice: the one we decide on our own.
A wee bit of a warning: this film contains some bloody violence and not-so-pleasant full-frontal nudity, but it’s worth the ending's gut-wrenching payoff.
February 20th, 2008 by Progressive Wednesday
Problem:
I’m not going write this Wednesday without making a confession: there have been two times in my life when I regularly smoked cigarettes (between 1/2 a pack and 1 1/2 packs a day). Each time was brief (don’t worry, Mom), and both times I quit, quickly and cold, though not without struggles.
My buddy Pete, a former 15-year smoker, put it to me this way: “After a couple of days the nicotine is out of your body, then it’s just whether or not you’re a pansy.”
Even though it was mainly easy (but not-so breezy) for me to put out my last butt, I can see how people get hooked and hold onto the habit: it ain’t just chemical. It gets hard-wired in our brains in association with food, work, sex, travel, socializing, and escape. And those are six pretty damned good things.
But (you knew there was one coming, right?) none of those are a good enough reason to start or continue. Is there a good one? Of course not. Every smoker and non-smoker knows this. Should you be allowed to smoke? Probably Maybe. But should you? No $%&@*!^ way.
.
Make Progress:
There are three ways to make progress this week: stop smoking; help someone else stop smoking (just email the post to your pals); educate yourself on smoking for your own sake and the sake of others.
.
Quit:
In case you or yours actually need to know why quitting would be a good idea, here goes:
- According to the American Cancer Society, “smoking is responsible for nearly 1 in 5 deaths in the United States.”
- And it ain’t just lung, larynx, and mouth cancer staring us down, my people. Smoking is directly linked to cancers of the pancreas, cervix, kidney, stomach, pharynx, esophagus, and bladder.
- Of course, cigarettes don’t only bring about cancer. Smoking is a major or contributing cause of (in alphabetical order): aneurysms, asthma, bronchitis, emphysema, heart disease, pneumonia, and stroke.
- There’s more: smoking increases your odds of bone thinning, hip fractures, peptic ulcers, and (get this) cataracts.
- In the year 2000, 8.6 million Americans were suffering from “at least one chronic disease due to current or former smoking.” Says who? Says the Centers for Disease Control. Just for comparison’s sake, let me just mention that there are 8.1 million people living in New York City.
- How many known carcinogens are in cigarette smoke? 43.
- And as if we needed to know another reason why the tobacco behemoths dump nicotine in cigs, there’s this: “nicotine, when inhaled in cigarette smoke, reaches the brain faster than drugs that enter the body intravenously.” We’re all about sticking it to these companies whose goal it is, quite literally, to addict us and destroy us.
- And on top of all that, cigarettes are freaking expensive.
- Oh, and they make your breath stink like a burning tire.
But quitting, as I know, is easier typed than done. And why is it so damned difficult? Because, according to the U.S. Surgeon General, “the pharmacologic and behavioral processes that determine tobacco addiction are similar to those that determine addiction to drugs such as heroin and cocaine.” You read that right: cigarettes are like heroin and cocaine.
Look, I’ve quit myself, and I’ve fired up again. I’ve watched my friends struggle through this addiction. There ain’t nothing wrong with asking for some help, so here’s some from:
Or just call this number: 1-800-QUIT-NOW.
.
Watch:
Need more umph for you or a pal? Give these pair of thetruth.com videos a whirl.
.
Look:
Look, friends, we were going to post three or four or five pictures here of diseased lungs, gangrenous legs, cases of mouth cancer, and laryngectomies, but… well, two things:
- These photos are so peel-your-eyelids-back gruesome, we didn’t think it would be appropriate for a place we consider to be rather PG, maybe PG-13.
- These photos made us want to power-puke.
So, our advice to you is this: check it out for yourselves if you want to. If you smoke, it’s a must. I’ll wager dollars to donuts (and I really dig donuts) that you’ll seriously consider a self-imposed cease and desist order for cigarettes (or your tobacco product of choice). And if you don’t smoke, well, hell, these photos will do two things: keep you from ever, ever, ever, ever smoking; convince you to get your friends who stink like old ashtrays to kick the habit before they kick ye old can.
And where might you find some of these not-so-fun photos? Here, here, here, here, and here. Please, please, please don’t say we didn’t warn you. We did. In fact, we’ll warn you one more time: this stuff is messed up, kids.
.
Protect:
This sucker is threefold, but we’ll focus on the most unusual of the three:
- Do yourself a favor and steer clear of bars and restaurants that still allow smoking. (There are only 22 states that allow the former and 20 the latter.) Secondhand smoke kills ya. You’ve made it to adulthood and still need proof? Just click here.
- Try to keep your kids away from secondhand smoke. Wanna know why? Read this, baby.
- Protect your pets.
If you’re not worried about yourself and you don’t have kids, at least consider your furry and feathered friends, because besides saving your own hide from cancer, emphysema, and breath that smells like a cadaver, here’s another reason to leave Marlboro country:
“There have been a number of scientific papers recently that have reported the significant health threat secondhand smoke poses to pets,” said veterinarian Carolynn MacAllister of Oklahoma State University. “Secondhand smoke has been associated with oral cancer and lymphoma in cats, lung and nasal cancer in dogs, as well as lung cancer in birds.”
Cats living with smokers are also twice as likely to develop malignant lymphoma, a cancer that occurs in the lymph nodes and that is fatal to three out of four cats within 12 months of developing it.
Studies have also shown that dogs living in a smoking household are susceptible to cancers of the nose and sinus area, particularly if they are a long-nosed breed, because their noses have a greater surface area that is exposed to carcinogens and a greater area for them to accumulate. Dogs affected with nasal cancer normally don’t survive for more than one year.
Birds are also at risk for lung cancer, as well as pneumonia, because their respiratory systems are hypersensitive to any type of air pollutant.
While I’ve heard some interesting arguments for banning smoking outright, I still fall on the libertarian side: as long as you’re not harming me (which means no smoking in public places, thank you), you should be allowed to do, for the most part, whatever you please. This study, though, complicates things: where does a person’s right to harm themselves end and the rights of an animal begin? The same goes, even more so, for kids.
So, will I smoke a cigar the next time one of my buddies gets hitched? Despite my better judgment, I probably will. But ask me this: Will you smoke that stogy in front of Weasley, Eric’s Cavalier King Charles Spaniel? No sir, I won’t. Why? Not just because I don’t want to harm the poor thing, but because what in the hell is his puppy doing at a wedding reception? That’s just not right.
February 19th, 2008 by Matt
Do you want the good news or the bad news first? The bad, you say? Okay, here goes (courtesy of LiveScience.com):
It’s been 40 million years since Antarctic waters were warm enough for sharks to lurk around and feed on polar prey, but rising ocean temperatures from global warming could eventually bring the toothy predators back, a new study suggests.
Biologists at the University of Rhode Island analyzed the physiological adaptations and metabolism of sharks and other warm-water predators. Their findings indicate that a warming of just a few degrees in Antarctic waters could make the region hospitable to these species again, with potentially serious consequences to the ecosystems already dwelling there.
Basically, the fact that this could happen is ridiculous. That is, it’s ridiculous that we’re damaging our ecosystem so badly that this might happen. For the aforementioned to happen, the Antarctic agua just needs to stay above 32 degrees Fahrenheit around the clock. So, here’s the bad news: “The waters around the Antarctic Peninsula have increased by about 1.8 to 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit (1 to 2 degrees Celsius) in the last 50 years, which is double to triple the global average increase.”
The good news? You’re ready for the good news? Here goes….
[Scientists] don’t believe that the arrival of sharks in Antarctic waters would lead to widespread species extinction, but they could lead to dramatic changes in population numbers and the proportions of species found there. Shrimp, ribbon worms and brittle stars would likely be the most vulnerable species, the researchers report.
The upshot?
- We’re still polluting the hell out of the earth; we’re still jacking up ye old global warming.
- In this single case, it might not literally be the end of the world.
But let’s not start high-fiving ourselves just yet. We need to do some things. We owe it: it has become our pound of flesh. Click here to read all about what we ought to do (and pronto).
February 18th, 2008 by Charles Lamb
“Because of this many of his disciples turned back and no longer went about with him. So Jesus asked the twelve, – ˜Do you also wish to go away?' Simon Peter answered him, – ˜Lord to whom can we go? You have the words of eternal life.'– (John 6:66-67)- “At that very hour some Pharisees came and said to him (Jesus), – ˜Get away from here, for Herod wants to kill you.' Hs said to them, – ˜Go and tell that fox for me,– ¦– (Luke 13:31-32a)
- “God did not give us a spirit of cowardice, but rather a spirit of power and of love and of self-discipline– (I Timothy 1:7)
- “So we are ambassadors for Christ, since God is making his appeal through us– ¦– (II Corinthians 5:20a)
- “I solemnly urge you, proclaim the message; be persistent whether the time is favorable or unfavorable; convince, rebuke, and encourage, with the utmost patience in teaching.– (II Timothy 1b-2)
These five scriptures are from different contexts, of course, but it is legitimate to point out some of the themes they convey.
The first one reminds us that sometimes Jesus took unpopular stands. When many left him, that did not change his message nor deter him from his course.
The second shows that Jesus did not hesitate to speak strongly and truthfully against unjust and wicked people, even when they were in positions of power.
The third reminds us that God has given us his Spirit, the same Spirit that was in Jesus, and we need not be timid or cowardly. In fact, we must not.
The fourth tells us that our job is to represent Christ and his Kingdom.
The fifth tells us to speak boldly even when it may not be tactful at that time to do so.
I'm disappointed, because I don't see many clergy or churches following these themes to the extent that I think they should.
Many may disagree with this column. They may tell me I am getting into politics. I don't think so. I think from the beginning the Church of Christ was to stand up for justice, peace, and righteousness, and to confront the powers and principalities that damage our world and human life.
Let me more specific. How many of we clergy, or church leaders, have spoken up forcefully against the war? Or against torture? As ambassadors for Christ, shouldn't we be speaking up for peace and justice? Isn't it clear that what we are doing in the world in supposedly fighting evil is, itself, evil?
In my hometown in Western New York, how many are taking a stand against the proposed expansion of Chemical Waste Management? Do we intend to stand idly by while approval is given to expand this site for the importation of dangerous toxic materials from 30 states and Canada?
Whenever a minister, a lay person, or a congregation takes a stand opposition is to be expected. Members may leave the church. Angry anonymous letters may be received. Some people may stop giving money. Do you think any of this would have deterred Christ from his ministry? Are we ready to take up our cross and follow him?
Some might say I am equating my opinion with Christianity. My response would be, can you imagine Christ condoning torture? Agreeing to the bombing of civilians? Accepting the idea that dangerous poisons should be brought near to little children and fresh water? Once he turned over the tables of money changers because he said they were making his Father's house into a den of thieves. This earth is the Father's house; it should not be despoiled.
It doesn't do a lot of good to read the Scriptures unless we apply them to real life situations. I hope that those who read this will bring up these issues not only to leaders in governmental agencies and positions of power, but also within their congregations. I hope groups of clergymen will take strong and clear stands. I hope congregations will vote and go on record so that people know what the church has to say.
This is a time for boldness and for following a Christ who did not show fear when opposed. I think he needs some faithful followers today.
Make this your homepage 
Add this to your favorites