Monday, January 31, 2005
A second post for the day, shorter than the first:
I got this link from The Corner at National Review Online.
This reminds me of a quote I heard. I think it goes like this: "First it's taboo, then it's permissible, and finally it's mandatory." Still, two years has to be some kind of record.
I got this link from The Corner at National Review Online.
A 25-year-old waitress who turned down a job providing "sexual services'' at a brothel in Berlin faces possible cuts to her unemployment benefit under laws introduced this year.
Prostitution was legalised in Germany just over two years ago and brothel owners – who must pay tax and employee health insurance – were granted access to official databases of jobseekers.
...Under Germany's welfare reforms, any woman under 55 who has been out of work for more than a year can be forced to take an available job – including in the sex industry – or lose her unemployment benefit.
This reminds me of a quote I heard. I think it goes like this: "First it's taboo, then it's permissible, and finally it's mandatory." Still, two years has to be some kind of record.
I need some quick posts to finish off the month above one.
Here's one that has been percolating for over a week:
Laura Ingraham, a law-school graduate and former Dartmouth Review editor-in-chief, sets herself apart from the gaggle of talk-show hosts with her mix of politics and pop-culture. Want a regular poke at Edward Kennedy? He's one of Laura's favorite targets. Want an update on the "The Bachellorette"? That's one of her favorite shows.
She's smarter than Mike Gallagher, friendlier than Michael Savage, funnier than Michael Medved, and less condescending than Michael Hewitt (you have to know no mother would really name her kid "Hugh Hewitt").
That doesn't mean she's not prone to the same sophomoric antics as all of the above. Last week (plus a half a week; I'm a little late posting), she had a reprisal of a guest from before the election, a performance artist who had organized "Millionaires for Bush". This guy would dress up as the Monopoly man, put on an unpolished southernish accent, and hold forth as though he were a millionaire who favored lower yacht taxes, fewer employee benefits, that sort of thing. Rich people are cold and heartless and care nothing for America (except John Kerry and George Soros).
When she first had him on, she berated him from the get go to drop the fake accent and talk straight with her about why he was demonstrating in this unique way against Bush. Instead he stayed in character and told her about all the wonderful things Bush had done for rich people in his first four years as President. She took to name calling and badgering, making for a supremely boring interview, except I suppose in the opinion of talk radio listeners who like to hear the host badger his guests (see, for instance, any Michael Medved listener for a more accommodating opinion).
When she had the head of "Millionaires for Bush" on again in January, he talked from the get go as himself. There really is no point in playing the part when the show has closed down. This time, rather than ask his opinion post election, she spent the whole time badgering him to get into character, saying how much more she enjoyed the millionaire (which can't be true -- that character was as annoying as Ms. Ingraham in that first interview).
The same guy takes two different tacks, but Laura Ingraham is impossible to please. Her show is in my opinion the most entertaining of the local talk-radio offerings at any time of the day. Michael Medved thinks I want to see him intellectually pound his opponents into the sand, Hugh Hewitt thinks "peeps" jokes are as fresh and funny the one-hundredth time as the first. I don't even have to address Michael Savage, except to say if you think his angry white man schtick is the nadir of talk radio, you haven't heard his regular expounding on nutrition and diet and his San Fran restaurant reviews. He's the only granola-crunching border-patrolling militia man in America, I think.
So, as I was saying, Laura's show may be the best thing going in terms of light-weight politainment talk, which is why I felt let down by her two-faced, monomaniacal interview of a harmless performance actor.
Here's one that has been percolating for over a week:
Laura Ingraham, a law-school graduate and former Dartmouth Review editor-in-chief, sets herself apart from the gaggle of talk-show hosts with her mix of politics and pop-culture. Want a regular poke at Edward Kennedy? He's one of Laura's favorite targets. Want an update on the "The Bachellorette"? That's one of her favorite shows.
She's smarter than Mike Gallagher, friendlier than Michael Savage, funnier than Michael Medved, and less condescending than Michael Hewitt (you have to know no mother would really name her kid "Hugh Hewitt").
That doesn't mean she's not prone to the same sophomoric antics as all of the above. Last week (plus a half a week; I'm a little late posting), she had a reprisal of a guest from before the election, a performance artist who had organized "Millionaires for Bush". This guy would dress up as the Monopoly man, put on an unpolished southernish accent, and hold forth as though he were a millionaire who favored lower yacht taxes, fewer employee benefits, that sort of thing. Rich people are cold and heartless and care nothing for America (except John Kerry and George Soros).
When she first had him on, she berated him from the get go to drop the fake accent and talk straight with her about why he was demonstrating in this unique way against Bush. Instead he stayed in character and told her about all the wonderful things Bush had done for rich people in his first four years as President. She took to name calling and badgering, making for a supremely boring interview, except I suppose in the opinion of talk radio listeners who like to hear the host badger his guests (see, for instance, any Michael Medved listener for a more accommodating opinion).
When she had the head of "Millionaires for Bush" on again in January, he talked from the get go as himself. There really is no point in playing the part when the show has closed down. This time, rather than ask his opinion post election, she spent the whole time badgering him to get into character, saying how much more she enjoyed the millionaire (which can't be true -- that character was as annoying as Ms. Ingraham in that first interview).
The same guy takes two different tacks, but Laura Ingraham is impossible to please. Her show is in my opinion the most entertaining of the local talk-radio offerings at any time of the day. Michael Medved thinks I want to see him intellectually pound his opponents into the sand, Hugh Hewitt thinks "peeps" jokes are as fresh and funny the one-hundredth time as the first. I don't even have to address Michael Savage, except to say if you think his angry white man schtick is the nadir of talk radio, you haven't heard his regular expounding on nutrition and diet and his San Fran restaurant reviews. He's the only granola-crunching border-patrolling militia man in America, I think.
So, as I was saying, Laura's show may be the best thing going in terms of light-weight politainment talk, which is why I felt let down by her two-faced, monomaniacal interview of a harmless performance actor.
Tuesday, January 04, 2005
Last blog entry -- forever -- about Lemony Snicket, I promise (unless I really get the straight dope on this Daniel Handler character).
I slogged through three books, spread widely through the series based on availability at the library, and came to the conclusion late that the pessimism was unrelenting and the series was likely inappropriate for children.
Slogged may not be the right word, since the language in it is excellent, the books are well paced, and the plots are clever and have enough twists and turns. But kids form a worldview from literature (that is in part what it is there for), and Snicket's pessimism and paranoia are not a worldview I want my boy to have.
Incidentally, John J. Miller posts in The Corner that he has reconsidered his earlier praise for Lemony Snicket after finishing the first book. His conclusions almost echo mine.
Heralding this late agreement from John J. Miller is not the purpose of this post, however. It is instead some recent insight into the mind of Lemony Snicket.
I was recently loaned the audio recording of the first book, The Bad Beginning, which includes a plot by Count Olaf to marry Violet (as seen in the movie). The episode is referred back to in some of the later books and always felt a bit icky to me, but I marked it down to the imagination of a writer in touch with the angsts of children.
However, at the end of the audio recording is an interview with Daniel Handler (alias Lemony Snicket). The interviewer asks Handler which authors he liked as a child, proferring Lewis Carroll for some reason (I don't see the similarity). Handler provides a long list, starting with Roald Dahl (of course) and ending with Virginia Woolf. Included in the list was Vladimir Nabakov.
Nabakov is the author of the shocking novel "Lolita", about a middle-aged man who has an affair with a 12 year old girl (14 years old in both movies made from the novel). Now, I understand there are serious literary critics who feel Nabakov is a genius. I have no opinion since I refuse to read him. However, I am curious what to make of a children's author who includes Nabakov in a list of favorite authors at the end of a reading of his book.
I don't want to jump to conclusions. Perhaps Handler loves one of Nabakov's other novels. But googling "Lemony Snicket lolita" brings up this IGN interview, in which Handler baldly states his love of Lolita:
I suspect it tickles Handler no end that he managed an homage to Lolita in a children's book, with the forced marriage of 14 year old Violet to Count Olaf. In retrospect, it seems likely Uncle Montgomery Montgomery, which to me seemed merely amusing word play at the time (he is introduced as Uncle Monty Montgomery), is in fact another subtle reference, to Humbert Humbert.
At this point my ick meter is maxed and I wonder what the world is coming
to. Then I recall that guy in the 70's who saw sexy images in ice cubes in
liquor ads and wonder if I too have an overactive imagination and too much
suspicion of my fellow man.
I slogged through three books, spread widely through the series based on availability at the library, and came to the conclusion late that the pessimism was unrelenting and the series was likely inappropriate for children.
Slogged may not be the right word, since the language in it is excellent, the books are well paced, and the plots are clever and have enough twists and turns. But kids form a worldview from literature (that is in part what it is there for), and Snicket's pessimism and paranoia are not a worldview I want my boy to have.
Incidentally, John J. Miller posts in The Corner that he has reconsidered his earlier praise for Lemony Snicket after finishing the first book. His conclusions almost echo mine.
Heralding this late agreement from John J. Miller is not the purpose of this post, however. It is instead some recent insight into the mind of Lemony Snicket.
I was recently loaned the audio recording of the first book, The Bad Beginning, which includes a plot by Count Olaf to marry Violet (as seen in the movie). The episode is referred back to in some of the later books and always felt a bit icky to me, but I marked it down to the imagination of a writer in touch with the angsts of children.
However, at the end of the audio recording is an interview with Daniel Handler (alias Lemony Snicket). The interviewer asks Handler which authors he liked as a child, proferring Lewis Carroll for some reason (I don't see the similarity). Handler provides a long list, starting with Roald Dahl (of course) and ending with Virginia Woolf. Included in the list was Vladimir Nabakov.
Nabakov is the author of the shocking novel "Lolita", about a middle-aged man who has an affair with a 12 year old girl (14 years old in both movies made from the novel). Now, I understand there are serious literary critics who feel Nabakov is a genius. I have no opinion since I refuse to read him. However, I am curious what to make of a children's author who includes Nabakov in a list of favorite authors at the end of a reading of his book.
I don't want to jump to conclusions. Perhaps Handler loves one of Nabakov's other novels. But googling "Lemony Snicket lolita" brings up this IGN interview, in which Handler baldly states his love of Lolita:
6. What is your favorite book?
Either Lolita or The Wind-up Bird Chronicle.
8. Who – or what – would you say has had the biggest influence on your career?
Artistically, Vladimir Nabokov and Sun Ra. Logistically, Lisa Brown and Charlotte Sheedy.
I suspect it tickles Handler no end that he managed an homage to Lolita in a children's book, with the forced marriage of 14 year old Violet to Count Olaf. In retrospect, it seems likely Uncle Montgomery Montgomery, which to me seemed merely amusing word play at the time (he is introduced as Uncle Monty Montgomery), is in fact another subtle reference, to Humbert Humbert.
At this point my ick meter is maxed and I wonder what the world is coming
to. Then I recall that guy in the 70's who saw sexy images in ice cubes in
liquor ads and wonder if I too have an overactive imagination and too much
suspicion of my fellow man.
