I know, I know, we’ve all been so happy.  But something occured to me this week–I didn’t have to hear much about Rush Limbaugh in the last eight years.  Now I can’t stop hearing about him and the inane, hypocritical things he says.  I’m not going to waste my time going over his talking points and what’s wrong with them.  I will just say–he’s about to rise again.

You see, there wasn’t much for him to do when the Republicans ruled everything.  He (like Ann Coulter) sat around hating anyone who disagreed with the President, but it seemed somehow beyond the point.  Now that he can sit around hating the sitting President (and presumably the majority of the country who voted for him), he’s going to get more followers.  His numbers may even come close to what we saw under Clinton.

The NRA is benefiting, too.  A book came out last year by an ex-NRA insider–the whole point was that having a Democrat in office is very good for their business.  (And anyone who’s watched politics at all knows that nothing much changes in policy, no matter who’s in power.)  Deep down, Rush has to love Obama, maybe not as a man, but as a target and a cash cow.

Want to see what Rush et al are saying lately?

http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=219517&title=intro-harold-varmus-is-here

It’s a great day for name calling.  It’s a great day for making fun of war veterans (if they’re John Kerry).  It’s a great day for hate.  It’s a bad day for debate and civility and, if you watched the footage from the Republican meeting this weekend, for bi-partizanship.

“Take My Life, Please,” featured two new aspects: Hi-Def and a new Opening. Bart tells us in the blackboard that hi-def is worth every penny, but the Simpsons’ hi-def tv falls off the wall when they try to watch it.

But how’s the new opening, you ask? Fabulous. For those who miss the old one, you probably don’t even remember the old one. If you look at the original, it’s very different from what you’ve been seeing for over a decade. It’s longer. (And you may be surprised to know that not every episode even had an opening–for time’s sake, etc.)

The new opening gives us a new gag–the billboard in front of Bart’s school changes, as does Bart’s writing and the couch routine.

It’s great to see some of our current favorite characters (like the cat lady) in the opening. And Marge’s purchases at the store are updated to include tomacco and Mr. Sparkle detergent. (Maggie’s price has also been updated to reflect the amount it takes to raise an infant for a month in today’s economy.)

As far as the episode goes, “Take My Life, Please” features Homer going through an interesting mid-life (he’ll die young, we know it) crisis. Homer learns that he was supposed to be class president and believes that his life would have been superior to what he has. It’s classic Homer angst–rather than blaming his current life on his choices, he can pinpoint one decision (made by someone else).

“How the Test Was Won” had a fabulous couch gag, featuring the Simpsons as characters in classic sitcoms, showing a fine lineage (including the family sitcom’s move to the workplace/friend sitcom a la Cheers).

The episode itself was a critique of No Child Left Behind and standardized testing (the best moment is when Mrs. Krabapple teaches the students the most common test answer arrays (abbadaca, etc)).

The Simpsons has been renewed for two more seasons, which will make it the longest-running prime time series. At least once a week, I come across some blog or article that asks if The Simpsons still has it. Denise came across an idea the other day that it was the audience who has lost it, not The Simpsons. I agree–if anything’s tired, it’s us.

In other words, Simpsons, it’s us, not you. Which is why we’ll do everything we can to make this work.

When walking across campus on Friday, I saw an ad for a frat, one that encouraged people to join.  The frat proclaimed itself the “ruling elite” of Davis, with “ruling elite” in script.

I’m uncertain that the frat knows what elite really means.  To be elite means you don’t advertise.  To be elite means that you rule quietly, yet powerfully.  To be elite means that your numbers are small, intentionally.

I know of a small group in Davis where membership is by invitation only.  It gives sizable donations to independent film producers.  It doesn’t charge for membership, but relies on donations of fine wine, cheese, and chocolate.  Its weekly meetings are quiet, unknown to the general public, and held in a building without a sign (you have to know where to go).  This group is so elite that some people have fled–they want to be members, but find the members themselves intimidating.

I won’t name the group for privacy’s sake.

Real quick: This week’s episode of Big Love has the family taking a road trip (and reminding me why I refuse to take road trips). One scene is supposed to take place on the Mississippi, but it was apparently shot in Sacramento. See our familiar Old Sac (with weird faux-southern flags) and golden bridge in the background.

Last night I went to the opera.  Figaro was my first.  When I was in theatre, we would make fun of opera–too much singing, too little acting, but I had to go, especially when the chance presented itself.

I enjoyed it, but I have to say that sometimes the art of the singing did get in the way of the plot/acting.  I was taken out of the moment each time a character told another to whisper (because they were hiding) AT THE TOP OF THEIR LUNGS. 

I was also taken out of the moment by the incessant tapping of shoes.  The man seated behind me kept tapping both of his squeaky shoes (not in time to the music).

There were a surprising number of kids at the show (and the show went past 11:30).  One was seated to my right and in the fourth act, she got tired enough to need to whisper a lot.  She wasn’t rude, though–her mother was.  She decided that her tired little girl needed to leave the theatre before everyone else, so she waited until the last line to leave.  So I didn’t see the last line, I was too busy standing up to let her pass.  I sat down just in time for the curtain to fall.

The last rude thing of the show–the director came out and bowed with the cast.  WTF?  Who does that?  Is that an opera thing?  No wonder we theatre people made fun of them.  Our directors are pretentious off-stage, not on.

But the winner of the rudest person of the week contest:  Richard Williamson.  Yes, our favorite Holocaust-denying Bishop is back.  (Did you know that he hates The Sound of Music, not because its pap, but because it portrays Nazis in a bad light?  Seriously.)  He issued an apology and the Vatican has said it’s not good enough.

He said:  “Observing these consequences I can truthfully say that I regret having made such remarks, and that if I had known beforehand the full harm and hurt to which they would give rise, especially to the Church, but also to survivors and relatives of victims of injustice under the Third Reich, I would not have made them.”

Karma’s quick translation:  If I’d known everybody was going to get upset, I wouldn’t have said it.  (Note that he doesn’t say he was wrong.)

He also said:  “On Swedish television I gave only the opinion… of a non-historian, an opinion formed 20 years ago on the basis of evidence then available and rarely expressed in public since.

“However, the events of recent weeks and the advice of senior members of the Society of St Pius X have persuaded me of my responsibility for much distress caused. To all souls that took honest scandal from what I said before God I apologise.”

Karma’s quick translation:  Twenty years ago, I think we were all agreed that the Jews were overexaggerating things and I haven’t learned anything since then.  The Church has ordered me to say I’m sorry, so I am.  Saying it.

1988?  I think we all knew about the gas chambers in 1988 (I did, and I was 13) and it’s the gas chambers that he’s really not convinced about.

Note: no one from the Church is asking him to recant any of the sexist bullshit he believes or even make him agree to Vatican II.

The matchflick column is here:  http://www.matchflick.com/column/1882

I reported a little while ago on Atwood not attending a conference in Dubai because the conference censored an author whose book had a gay muslim character.  Atwood (and the rest of us) have since learned that the conference says they didn’t censor the book or author, but that they did not choose the book for inclusion in the festival.  The author seems to have exaggerated.  Atwood is going to appear at the conference via satellite for a panel on censorship.

I think there’s going to be a lot to talk about.  Her own book, The Handmaid’s Tale, is still under review by a school system after a challenge.  Part of that book was inspired by Atwood’s visit to Islamic countries and her experimentation with a burka.

Also, while the conference says it didn’t censor the other author’s book, one interview I read did say that a conference organizer felt the text was “too controversial.”  As we asked in book group last night, what’s the line between “I censor your book!” and “Sorry, due to its content, we won’t work with this book–it’s too controversial/thought-provoking”?

First, the bad:

Steven Page is leaving Barenaked Ladies. Perhaps it has finally occurred to him that he is a bloke who is often dressed? Will miss his voice.  Am trepidacious about his upcoming “solo” career, even though he’s incredibly talented.

And now the good news: Stillman (aka Chaz) had one of his songs featured at isound. This is an older one, but it’s the one who got him a contract. Check it out here:
http://www.isound.com/stillman

You can also listen to other songs on his myspace page.  I recommend “The Thaw.”  If/when he ever puts up the song about our summer together, I’ll let you know.

Chaz at work

Also, we can rejoice because Michael Cera has agreed to do the Arrested Development movie.  There’s always money in the banana stand!

So I tried crumpets for the first time day–Trader Joe’s rarely does me wrong.  Are they supposed to taste like doughy english muffins and sit heavily in the stomach?

I’ve been watching The Simpsons all week (from the beginning), making notes, and checking the wikipedia entries for things I may have missed (this has led to my new hobby of wikipedia editing–sometimes it’s grammar, sometimes factual.  The boy says I simply must do this service.  It makes me even whiter and nerdier than before!

<object width=”425″ height=”344″><param name=”movie” value=”http://www.youtube.com/v/Nh9mVsBKwYs&hl=en&fs=1″></param><paramname=”allowFullScreen” value=”true”></param><param name=”allowscriptaccess” value=”always”></param><embed src=”http://www.youtube.com/v/Nh9mVsBKwYs&hl=en&fs=1″ type=”application/x-shockwave-flash” allowscriptaccess=”always” allowfullscreen=”true” width=”425″ height=”344″></embed></object>

(Yes, the lego version.  I can’t embed the real one for some reason.)

Am also reading everything other people have written about my favorite show.  This in itself isn’t a problem (except that it’s taking a lot of time and I like reading more than the requisite taking of notes).  I’m going crazy with the little and big mistakes and growing increasingly more paranoid that I’m going to make some. 

But really, I’m tired of reading the same two things over and over again (especially when they’re in every article in a book).

1.  One may think it’s strange to write/study/learn from The Simpsons, but . . .

2.  (some description of the characters, e.g. Bart is the troublemaker . . .)

It’s all cliches now and I think I’m going to go mad.  Am tempted to keep a chart with how many times the same words are used (hapless, moral center, etc).

A little ways into The History of Love by Nicole Krauss, it occurred to me that the book had a lot in common with Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close by Jonathan Safran Foer.  I read Foer’s book with my book group, but I wasn’t that fond of it.  Krauss seems to be doing what Foer was trying to do–but actually pulling it off.

The History of Love has multiple points of view and books within books.  I enjoyed all of the voices and found them touching.  Ultimately, this book is about two people.  Leo escaped WWII only to find his love married to another and the book he was writing lost.  We meet him decades later, as he struggles to feel seen in a world where he’s been erased as a man, father, and writer. 

Alma is a young girl trying to find her widowed mother a new love interest, to shake her mother out of depression.  She must also contend with a younger brother who consols himself in religious devotion (to the point of building an ark) and a foreign born male friend who wants to be a boyfriend.

Are the lives of our two heroes going to touch?  Of course.  Will all secrets be revealed?  Not exactly.  And even those that are will be more clear to you than to the characters.  While there are amazing coincidences in this book, the realistic streak comes from several characters dying before they find out secrets or before cathartic confrontations.

Speaking of coincidences, Krauss and Foer are married, but they didn’t meet until they had written the books about writing and love that I find so similar. 

I highly recommend this.