And so the world awoke to news of the death of the King of Chess, Bobby Fischer. There is little I can add here that probably hasn't been written elsewhere, other than to add that it somehow all seems so right that Bobby would leave us at the numerical age - 64 - which also happens to be the number of squares that are on a classical chess board.
I have vague memories of the tall, lanky, intent, and striking looking Bobby when he was at the height of his playing powers. I can dimly remember as a small boy that my older brother was wrapped up in following the 1972 Spassky-Fischer match up. I remember that he used to play with my mother and that I would watch them, wondering about this strange game and how it was supposed to work. I do remember watching Bobby play tennis with Gail Goodrich at a tournament, but then it seemed that he disappeared from the public consciousness. I went to a parochial school where athletics was the past time of choice and none of my neighborhood friends played chess. In another time and another place, I might have become a master level player myself, but we were fated to play the newly created type of game called role playing games as teenagers. We then saw the onset of video game arcades in the 1980's, the precursors of today's home computer games. As it was, my memories of Bobby had faded like a ghost.
But it need not have been that way, and much of whether young people a generation ago might have picked up chess as a past time would in fact have depended upon Bobby Fischer. Chess, as a past time, has to compete with all other past times for time, money, and social attention, in order to thrive. In that sense, the Royal Game is no different in needing a charismatic figure than basketball needing Earvin Magic Johnson or Michael Jordon, or golf needing Tiger Woods. As it was, since he dropped out of the game, and out of public view, the surge of interest in the game - the "Fischer Boom" - was brief, like a fiery comet in the night. Bobby was literally fielding offers to play chess in Vegas for millions of dollars in the aftermath of his 1972 triumph. Anatoly Karpov became the first man to become a chess millionaire, but Fischer would have beaten Karpov to that title by 15-20 years had he stayed playing. It is a widely accepted observation that Fischer was literally 20 years ahead of his time when he was at the height of his game. Most people have no idea how much effort Fischer put into studying the game. Frank Brady wrote in Bobby Fischer - Profile of a Prodigy that Bobby owned some 480 chess books and thousands of chess magazines from all over the world in his apartment, many of which written in Russian, a language which Bobby taught himself how to read. He wrote that nearly all of the books had annotation notes written by Bobby under their board position diagrams. He had to part with some of them because he didn't have enough room to store all of them.
My thought is that Fischer, had he been a different person, would have held the title until around 1990 or so, probably losing it to a late 20's Garry Kasparov, who by that time had finally broken through the 2800 Elo rating barrier. What a match that would have been! Even today - 35 years later and armed with 3 gigahertz, 1 terabye sized disk computational power, and research assistants at their disposal - there are only perhaps 4 players in the world (Vladamir Kramnik, Viswanathan Anand, and Veselin Topalov, as well as Kasparov) who have achieved Elo ratings that are generally equal to or greater than that which was achieved by Fischer, who incidentally did all of his analysis on his own in the final age before the advent of personal computers.
Fischer could have easily amassed a fortune of over $100,000,000 had he kept playing, and could have been a hero to two entire generations of young American children. Instead, he found that once he had achieved the summit of being recognized as the greatest chess player in the world, he found that he literally didn't know what to do with himself. He gave a good chunk of his 1972 Championship winnings to a church which he then denounced (and with good reason) for malfeasance. Interest in the game cooled down after Bobby refused to defend his title in 1975. The game never really recovered and as a result, most really strong players struggle here in America to earn enough money to pay the bills. An acquaintance of mine who is a master level chess player has told me that there are only about 200-300 master level players in America (with an elo rating of 2200 or higher) who actively play the game. Most simply retire or go on to do something more lucrative.
It's hard to say where Bobby's anti-Semitism started, but it seems to me that it probably had the same roots which caused Bobby to be so difficult with his rock star, prima donna like demands which he imposed on tournament directors and game promoters. Maybe the rage from having been brought up in an unstable, fatherless household was too much for the chess board to bottle up, but that's an issue for the psychiatrists to chew over. As it was, I still find it hard to believe that he is gone. I hope that God has forgiven him and that he has left us for a better place.
Bobby Fischer - RIP.
Wizard
This is the fourth of a series of redirects from previous static web pages from which I had written book reviews. Wizard
========================================
January 6, 2004: The Closing of the Western Mind - The Rise of Faith and The Fall of Reason by Charles Freeman.
Bear in mind while you read this review that I am an agnostic.
Charles Freeman has written a book about an extraordinarily important historical matter, one that is almost always glossed over in the history books. That question is, Why was it that Europe went through a 1000 year period known as the Dark Ages, and later the Middle Ages, between the Fall of Rome and the Renaissance?
Although I love reading history just as much as the next history buff over, I had never seriously considered what the real answer to this question might have been. For years, I assumed that a standard answer (if there is one) to this question would have been something like this: Rome was sacked in 410 A.D. (and again in 476 A.D.), and with it books were burned by a bunch of barbarians like the Huns, Goths, and Visigoths who were not accustomed to living a cultured life the way that the Greeks and Romans were. Ergo, the wealthy and civilized Roman Empire in the West faded into memory, and its cultural achievements were not appreciated by those who came thereafter, learning didn't pick up again for a 1000 years.
Buzzer goes off. AAAAA wrong!
Actually, I was kinda sorta close in a few regards. In his book, Freeman leads the reader through the classical Greek age of the competitive city states. He relates how the Greek civilization of the 5th century B.C fostered a remarkable culture and spirit of tolerating intellectual inquiry into every sphere of human interest. This went for the sciences, math, philosophy, rhetoric, religion, and architecture. Indeed, there was something of an atmosphere of one upsmanship and competitiveness amongst the Greek intellectuals which would accept the achievements of the great, while trying to improve on previous achievements.
Meanwhile, another aspect of Greek civilization and rationality asserted itself. The Greeks, especially Aristotle, denoted boundaries between what was knowable and would could not be known. They ascertained and denoted the ideas of deductive and inductive reasoning. They also tolerated inquiry while remaining pious to religious (and to remind the reader that the Greeks were pagan) tenants. There was tolerance between Muthos and Logos. This spirit of inquiry survived through the age of Philip of Macedonia and his son Alexander "the Great," and eventually spread to other areas of the classical world where Greeks eventually settled, such as Alexandria and Sicily.
The Romans picked up on this spirit of the Greeks when they conquered the Greek peninsula before the coming of Christ. I've read elsewhere the when the Romans encountered the classical Greek culture, they were definitely had their eyes opened. Some aspects of Greek life, such as participating in sporting events in the nude were abhorred, but Romans loved rhetoric (think Cicero), and added their own achievements, such as road building, public baths, and architecture. Scientists such as Ptolemy continued to make advances in fields such as astronomy.
Moreover, in the sphere of religion, the Romans were as tolerant as the Greeks about the faiths of conquered peoples. Deities were swapped and matched between faiths, and faiths such as Mithraism were widespread. However, one faith that was founded during this time was not tolerant of others - Christianity.
Freeman's book lays the downfall of inquiry and reason in the Roman world at the feet of Christianity. Mind you, it was not the teachings of Jesus Christ that were to blame for this. Jesus, being without sin, preached in his ministry the message of love, forgiveness, charity, and walked with sinners and the downtrodden. The stellar ethics of Jesus were those of Excellence. They were worthy of one whom could be a Son of God.
Freeman blames much of what turned into what we know of as Christianity today at the feet of the apostle Paul. He points out that Paul had a bit of a precarious position amongst the early Church leaders, as Paul did not have personal knowledge of Jesus the way that Peter and others had. Freeman characterizes Paul as someone who seems uncomfortable with sexuality, to which this day is still a hot button issue in both Protestant and Roman Catholic faiths. Also, Freeman believes that when Paul went on his ministry to spread the Good Word, he eventually reaches Athens, where Freeman thinks that Paul may have taken an intellectual beating at the hands of the wise and learned in the Great City. Freeman thinks that this leads to Paul articulating a strain of thought within Christianity that frowns on the thinking of human philosophers. Better to not strain the brain about the world around you. Place your trust in God as man will not profit from inquiring too harshly of the world around us. Indeed St. Augustine warns of and condemns the "dangers" of having a mind of curiosity in his Confessions, written some 400 years later.
Two other major developments warrant mention. The first is that eventually the emperor Constantine makes the decision to adopt Christianity as the state religion in the year AD 323. Freeman characterizes this decision as one of pragmatism on the part of Constantine, who is trying to keep the empire together. Indeed paganism continued to flourish for some time.
However, the early Christian Church was a church that was plagued with many internecine wars. These wars were due to the fact that an entire swath of ideas and versions of Christianity had sprung up in the centuries that followed the death and resurrection of Christ. Writings and movements, such as the Gnostic Gospels, Arianism, and Donatism all had wide followings. Eventually accusations of heresy were tossed between the followers of various Church movements, which threatened the stability of the Church and broader social stability within the Empire. Added to this potent stew of social unrest was the fact that after Christianity was adopted as the state religion, there was money to be made via patronage. Eventually, various emperors in the later days of the Empire step in to enforce their own version of orthodoxy in an effort to quiesce matters.
All of these matters combine eventually to stifle the atmosphere of tolerance that was needed to sustain the freedom of inquiry that is so crucial to progress in other forms of human endeavor. Reason was squashed in favor of Faith. In all, Freeman's book is a must read for non - academic students of history.
Addendum: In one of my earliest blog entries, I exchanged emails with Mr. Freeman, which he allowed me to publish.
Wizard.
As noted earlier, this blog entry is part of an ongoing redirection of old static web pages of book reviews. Wizard.
====================================
Febuary 1, 2004
It took me about 2 weeks to get through Elaine Pagels' 1979 academic smash, The Gnostic Gospels. It wasn't because the book is long. At 151 pages, it isn't. It mainly had to do with the fact that I had other things going on, which made my reading of this book come in fits and starts.
Pagels, a professor of Religion at Princeton University, is famous for having written a series of book length studies having to do with the the discovery of the so - called, Nag Hammadi books, after the area in which these documents were discovered. Pagels starts off The Gnostic Gospels by telling the riveting story of how in December 1945, an Egyptian peasant named Muhammad Ali al - Samman discovered a meter high jar while out in the desert. Inside were 13 papyrus books that were bound with leather. He took them home and laid them on the ground next to the family's oven. His mother later admitted that she burned much of the papyrus in the oven along with straw to kindle fires.
Reading that fact makes one's heart sink after finding out what was on those rolls of papyrus. For indeed, amongst the texts were such priceless writings such as, the Gospel of Thomas, the Gospel of Phillip, the Gospel of Truth, the Gospel to the Egyptians, the Secret Book of James, the Apocalypse of Paul, the Letter of Peter to Phillip, the Apocalypse of Peter, the Gospel of Mary, the Secret Book of John, amongst many other texts. They were written in Coptic, the language of Egyptian Christians, and were probably translations of earlier Greek writings. Pagels later writes that scholar Frederik Wisse has suggested that monks in the nearby monastary of St. Pachomius may have had the Nag Hammadi texts within their Devotional library. In 367, when Athanasius, the Archbishop of Alexandria sent orders that "apocryphal books" should be purged, the St. Pachomius monks may have hidden the books and buried them on the nearby cliffs, only to be found 1600 years later.
Nearly as insane was the political and academic wars which were set off by the discovery of these texts. The Egyptian government claimed control of the texts, which had leaked onto the black market. Meanwhile, scholars battled for access to the Gnostic Gospels, which they recognized would make their careers. Reading this early part of Pagel's book easily beats anything found in a Hollywood film.
Pagels divides The Gnostic Gospels into six chapters, each pertaining to important questions which the Gospels raise about the early Christian Church. The texts raise questions over whether the death and resurrection of Jesus should be viewed historically or symbolically. There were battles over what the roles of an institutionalized church and its officially ordained bishops should play in guiding faith. There clashing views over the role of women in the faith and the church. The early members of the Church was often persecuted. Should believers be martyrs, or should they spare themselves? What is evil? Is the faith one of self knowledge and the pursuit of spiritual self discovery, or is it a faith where you share your beliefs and participate in a wider community? Pagels' book shows that there were many, many sharp dividing issues which split the Christian church in its first 400 years.
Pagels also believes that the institutionalized church is what preserved the faith. Otherwise, the teachings of Christ may well have fallen by the wayside, as have the teachings of so many other faiths throughout history. She goes on to give other reasons why the Catholic Church prevailed over the Gnostic teachings. Among them are ideas such as the issue that the Catholic faith was non - discriminatory in whom it taught, whereas some Gnostics were very judgmental in whom they believed were ready to receive teaching. Also, the Catholic faith tried to make the faith touch you, whereas the Gnostic teachings required more of an effort on the part of believers.
Pagels shows what kinds of heretical charges were tossed between Gnostics and the Catholics. She goes on with this issue, showing that it was quite probable that heretical charges - and what types of heretical charges - were often tied to the political and social situations in which theologians found themselves in.
The Nag Hammadi texts have reopened an entire Pandora's box of questions regarding the followers and teachings of Christ. Pagels points out that it is rather extraordinary that these texts were found in our time, which is one of atheism, agnosticism, and belief in man's power. It would have been an entirely different story if these texts had been found 1,000 years ago. In all, Pagels has written an admirable introductory book to subject that should fascinate all open minded people, the subject of the foundations of Christianity.
British classicist Anthony Everitt, a professor, arts council advisor, and a writer for the European press about cultural matters, has greeted the Third Millennium by writing a wonderful introduction to the life and times of the man many people think of as the greatest Orator and lawyer of all time - the classical Roman politician Marcus Tulllius Cicero. The book Everitt produced is - at 330+ pages - easily accessible to modern readers, explaining not only the life of his subject in a clear eyed, lucid manner, but more importantly Everitt takes time out to explain the breathtaking and momentous events in Roman history in which Cicero himself was a player. It was Cicero's fate, to have lived (and died) in the death throes of the Roman Republic, when it finally collapsed into being an dictatorial Empire.
Everitt starts his story on March 15, 44 B.C. where he tries to describe the scene of the assassination of Julius Caesar from what it must have been like for Cicero, who happened to have a front row view of the grisly scene. But in a deft manuever, Everitt quickly shifts his tale to a 12 - 13 page synopsis which covers of the overall socio - political situation that Rome finds herself in during the last 100 years before the failure of the Republic. He shows us the Roman Constitution, describing the formal political posts within the government, including the Roman Senate, the roles of Tribunes (representing "the people"), Quaestors (officials who collected taxes), Adeiles (which put on civic events - at their own expense!), Praetors who acted as Judges and administered laws, all of which had to be served before one could run for Consul - the supreme executive in the Republic. During this part of the story, Everitt also discusses the origins of the terrible problem of land reform and redistribution within the Republic, which threatens powerful vested interests. By doing this, Everitt provides the reader a clear eyed account of the the main tectonic forces which were causing the Republic to tear itself apart. He plainly states his belief that the Roman Constitution had too many checks built within its system and that major social questions and problems of the day were left to fester simply because they could not be resolved within the political system as it was during Cicero's day.
Everitt then starts his tale with Cicero's beginnings in 106 B.C. when he was born to a well to do provincial family in the town of Arpinum, which was about 70 miles southeast of Rome. Cicero and his brother were given a good education by their father and when they came of age, their father arranged to have his boys educated by some well regarded rhetoricians of the day in Rome itself. Cicero's background as an provincial outsider, who did not belong to any of the old time prominent families of the city, was to have an interesting effect on his career. It was remarkable that this outsider was, within a span of 20 years, to go from being an unknown lawyer to reaching the highest pinnacles of power within the Republic.
Along the way, Everitt shows us glimpses of Cicero's teachers, such as Scaevola, Diodotus, and Philo. We see the young Cicero meet his wife Terentia, his children - especially his love for his daughter Tullia, as well as some of his contemporaries, - the young Julius Caesar, Pompey (whom he met during his brief military career), and his greatest friend the urbane Titus Pomponius Atticus, known to us simply as Atticus. It is to Atticus that we owe a huge debt of gratitude for much of our knowledge of Cicero. For it was with Atticus that Cicero kept up a 25+ year correspondence of letters, many of which have miraculously survived and have come down to us.
We also get to see Cicero, who was an extremely precocious boy, got swept up in the excitement of watching the great orators of the day slug out in (often corrupt) legal duels held the legendary Roman Forum. Early on, Cicero resolved that he too would be a lawyer. Cicero worked hard at studying rhetoric and perfecting his oratorical style, eventually writing a book on the topic. It would be his sheer ability to persuade jurists and public opinion that would bring him to the pinnacle of Roman life and ensure his memory.
Everitt shows us the effects of the acts of the ruthless dictator Lucius Felix Sulla, Consul when Caesar, Atticus, Pompey, and Cicero were in their teens and twenties. Sulla, was to cast a long shadow over the career paths of each of these men. Sulla was an army general and politician, who among other things had instigated a proscription amongst the Roman elite when the boys were young. This was to have differing effects amongst the young men: Caesar was to become something of a radical, who eventually decimated the Republic. Atticus, though staying involved at the edges of public life, essentially moves to Greece and settles into a life of making money and living Epicurean values. Meanwhile, Cicero who was horrified at the chaos and turbulence that afflicted his youth, became attached to a conservatism in which he felt the Republic had to be saved by means of bringing the various social groups together and uplifting "better" men into public life.
Everitt guides us through the long arc of Cicero's career, where after he reaches the pinnacle of power, he is ruined by a political rival, Clodius, then later rehabilitated. Early on, we see Cicero's famed corruption trial against Verres, the governor of Sicily, by which Cicero first comes to public notice. We see Cicero being banished from Rome by Clodius and later on govern a province. Everitt shows us Cicero's interest in training and promoting the careers of younger men, his retreat into books when things weren't going well, and he covers Cicero's incredible burst of writing in the last years of his life before he at last falls victim to a new Civil War era proscription by Marc Antony and Octavian at the age of 63. Everitt also touches points at times in his narrative on some of the great "what if" questions that might have changed the fate of what happened. Everitt includes a post mortem, where he concludes his narrative over the outcomes of the Roman Civil war between Caesar and the Republican forces.
This book is a first rate book for those who want to read a solid introductory tale of what classical Roman life was like. Everitt also includes a bibliography for those who are interested in further reading into a topic of Roman history and the lives of its notable citizens, as well as including some questions that readers can discuss (or ponder) once they have finished his tome. Trust me, Everitt has written a book that is a page turner. Once you have started reading this book, you just can't wait to see what's going to happen next. And that's how every biography or history book should be written.
The Wizard rates this book an A+.
Wizard.
I am wishing everyone out there a Merry Christmas and Happy New Year.
The Wizard is celebrating some of his 2007 Christmas by doing a bit of site clean up. Notably some static web pages that I have had hanging out there for years, and which look as though they were created in 1997, are being redirected to my blog page. Hence, the next 5 entries to be found here are redirects from elsewhere.
Enjoy!
March 27, 2004
Some time in 2002 or 2003, I was at home one evening watching The History Channel on television, when a curious television program came on. The program was entitled A History of God. Broadly speaking, the program was essentially about how our ideas of God have taken shape over time and what forces may have been involved in how the process took place. Being the history buff that I am, I was absolutely spell bound by both the subject matter and by the things that some of the people who appeared on the program had to say. In particular, there was one dignified British woman by the name of Karen Armstrong who enunciated some fascinating thoughts about the matter of God, and how our concepts of the Divine have both stayed stable and how they have evolved. The program mentioned that Ms. Armstrong, a former nun but who is now practicing writer / journalist, was the author of a book called "A History of God," so I wrote down this information and promptly headed over to a nearby bookstore to hunt down the book.
As for the book itself, I've read a lot of books in my life, but A History of God is a challenge to read. The paperback version of Armstrong's tome tops off at 399 pages, with another 60 pages of definitions, citations, notes and bibliography thrown in for good measure.
The book is composed of 11 chapters. The book's first 5 chapters start, as one might imagine, at the beginning of faith, and take the reader through the time of Muhammad. All of this was worth reading. However, in chapters 6 - 7 (and part of chapter 8), she writes about how God became the God of the philosophers and mystics during the era of the Middle Ages. This part of the book proved to be rather difficult to read because there are a few times where she - in a sense - repeats herself because by this time, many of the ideas of God that our ancestors had are now familiar to the reader. The book does pick up towards the end when in the last 2 - 3 chapters, she starts to approach more recent centuries. She begins to write about the rise of human rationalism and science. Topics like the "death of God," what ideas may we have about God in the future, or whether God even has a future are examined.
This is a difficult book to review, not because the topic is difficult, but because it is hard to distill so many ideas and thoughts into a relatively short review that touches on the many topics and ideas in this book. I may find that I might rewrite this book review sometime in the future in order to encompass matters I might have missed, or to extend the review so that I write more about the last half of the book.
I should clarify what I mean by the book being a challenge to read. The book is in fact quite readable and quite extraordinary. Ms. Armstrong has a gift of being able to delineate and get to the root of some complicated matters involving monotheism (the book does touch on Buddhism and Hindu ideas too), and do so in a way that a layman can grasp. Where the book becomes a challenge is that the reader has to make sure that he / she is staying alert and following along with the vast, ongoing train of Ms. Armstrong's great story. Readers encounter many personages, nation states, conceptual ideas, and conflicts that Ms. Armstrong covers in the course of this book. For example, at different times in history, men of different times and places have reached similar ideas about God, but in order to remember who had reached these ideas before, one has to look back at who had reached such conclusions before and why they had come to these conclusions. I found that in order to really get the most out of this book, I had to reread the book a second time and take notes in order to keep track of everything.
Armstrong starts the book off with her own story of her religious and spiritual journey. She clearly had some experiences that I think most people can smile at. For example, she writes about how easy it is for most people to conceive of Satan, but how are we to conceive of God? Or, for that matter, isn't the majesty of God supposed to be inconceivable to begin with?
I myself went to a parochial school growing up and I had to chuckle at Ms. Armstrong's efforts to "find God" when she was a nun. We all know full well that Satan is a red colored fellow with horns, but are we supposed to think of God as some huge, old, bearded fellow with a book that has everyone's name in it. Doesn't God look down on us from the heavens, waiting for us to die so that He can look at our report card and check off whether we are allowed into Heaven? Well gentle readers, things are not quite so simple in this world, and I'm sure things aren't so simple in the next one either!
There have been many theories about the origins of religion, but Armstrong writes about the idea that the ancients may have had ideas about religion because they may have been trying to deal with issues of the Unseen. She writes that what makes religious belief come alive for people is that religion works for them. Ideas and thoughts that may be relevant at one point in time might very well make little sense years later. People are spiritual animals, Armstrong points out that there are other ways in which we can have deeply meaningful experiences other than those experienced by religious belief.
Armstrong writes about the influence of Babylonian and Sumerian gods and their influence on monotheism. The Babylonians (and later the Greeks) thought that gods were not distant, unaccessible, or shut off from humanity. Ergo there was not any need for revelation. Faith wasn't something intellectual, or organized into Dogmas. Rather faith for the ancients was something that was held because the God Yahweh (or any other belief that was held) made good on his / her promises. Because of this view about faith, the Israelites had quite a struggle trying to let go of their old deities like Baal, and embrace Yahweh.
The God Yahweh was, as many Christians know, a jealous God. He (Armstrong traces how God became a "He"), also is a partisan God. Yes, Old Testament incarnations of Yahweh were later to be a source of frustration and consternation to later Jews and Christians. Similarly, the Unmoved First Mover of Plato and Aristotle seemed to many to be elitist. Later admirers of Greek thought, including educated Muslims and Jews, were to admit this. There must be some kind of Anthropormophism in religion, because we won't be able to identify with any faith that doesn't have such an element in it.
Religious faith needs to be effective in order to be successful, writes Armstrong. We watch while as the Israelites are overrun and exiled to Babylon, Yahweh makes a transformation. Yahweh becomes a Mover of History. Even enemies of the Israelites are His instruments. And yet, God relies on Man to act in the world, which became an important idea in Judiasm.
Later, we see the encounter of Greek philosophy with the Jewish faith. Armstrong devotes an entire chapter to the coming of the New Messenger, Jesus of Nazareth. She writes about the slow development of the concept that Jesus was Divine, which takes place over the next four centuries. She writes about the theological struggles that took place in early Christianity as Christian thinkers from all over the Roman empire battled to come up with a "workable" theology of The Trinity, which could encompass the story of Jesus and how Jesus the Man could also Divine.
Some interesting issues that Armstrong writes about were about how Jews, who used to be proselytizers of their faith, stopped doing so. This was because groups of monotheists, called God Fearers, who did not want to adapt all of the "baggage" of Judiasm, such as diet and various Laws, eventually convert to the new Christian faith. Jews became much more suspicious of converts. There were many converts to the new faith, but in the early centuries, such people were often slaves or lower classed people. What Armstrong believes brought "socially better off" people towards Christianity was the impressive social welfare efforts of the Church, as well as the intellectual efforts on the part of some educated Romans to expound on the new faith. Eventually of course, Constantine makes Christianity the state religion of the Roman Empire.
Armstrong also delves into the difficult legacy that St. Augustine left Christianity, especially regarding the roles of women and sexuality. Of course, this was only part of St. Augustine's legacy. St. Augustine was having to deal with the world shaking fact that Rome herself had been sacked by barbarians in the year 410 A.D. This event literally marked the end of the empire, and nobody knew what was going to come next. His great polemic, The City of God, was partly written to answer the charge made by pagans that Rome had abandoned her earlier gods, which had protected her for over 1100 years. It was when the new God had been adapted, so went the thought, that Rome fell.
Another strong area of the book revolves around the story of Muhammad. She writes about the changes that were going on in Muhammad's world, and about how the Last Prophet, who had never read the Bible, nor had ever heard of any of the Patriarchs, ended up having a story that nearly parallels the stories of all of the previous Prophets and Messengers of God. She writes about the political genius of Muhammad, who managed to weave together a workable faith that synthesized the traditional laws and customs of Arabian tribes, along with a strong element of togetherness. His message was that all men were the same before the One God. All peoples of God, including Jews and Christians, were to be seen as brothers. This chapter is a must read for anyone.
The story of Muhammad reminds me that one of the strongest points of this book is that it gives just enough insight into the character of each and every person who makes an appearance to make the book nearly as much a history of religious figures as it is a history of God. There are many more figures in the later half of the book. I will not write about the last half of the book because that would make this review twice as long as it already is. I hope that reading this review will give you enough of a feel about what the book is like to read. I may add a "part II" to this review in the future.
If that is not enough for you, I will end this book review with one last story. I purchased two additional copies of this book for two co - workers who were the type of people who I thought would be interesting in reading Ms. Armstrong's book. One of my co - workers was a girl, a college student in her early 20's, who happens to be from a practising Muslim family. She told me that this book just absolutely blew her away and that this was one of the best books she has ever read! She told me that her father, who is a highly educated man, saw her copy of this book and immediately stole the book out of her backpack! She told me that her father was so amazed and enthralled by this book that he would not give the book back to her so she could finish it. This book was a New York Times best seller and the Wizard highly recommends that you find yourself a copy and see for yourself why this is so.
Wizard.
It was front page news the Wednesday before Thanksgiving on Houston's paper of note that Archbishop Daniel DiNardo will be vested into the College of Cardinals of the Roman Catholic Church. Somehow it seems appropriate that the good Father will receive his appointment into the august body the weekend after that most American of holidays.
I was raised in a house of Protestant Lutherans. I was an occasional church goer as a kid, but I've had many people tell me that despite my cranky acerbic attitude towards a lot of things that I really am a sweet heart. So my religious upbringing might have done some good after all.
But one thing that attending 9 years of Lutheran school, nor 4 years of public high school tell me was that all that schooling really didn't give me a truly rounded understanding of things like faith and how religious beliefs had riveted human societies from time immemorial. It wasn't until I had gone through some long conversations with some of my school friends (who were raised Catholic), had watched some amazing History Channel programs, had traveled to other parts of the world, and done an enormous amount of reading on the ideas and doctrines of religious faith that I truly began to understand what the Roman Catholic Church meant to the world and why it is the way it is today. So I write this entry about Archbishop DiNardo's elevation to the Cardinal hood as a somewhat interested outsider, a wide ranging and curious layman if you will.
I have no special insider knowledge of the the ideas, troubles, or counsels of the Catholic Church of today. For some, most likely very secular lawyers, the Church has been only of interest when the some sexual abuse scandal erupts. For others the Church is a target of historical anger, whether because of forced conversions to the Catholic faith from their own indigenous beliefs or because of the Crusades it led to recapture the Holy Land. But what many people short change or overlook is the quiet piece of mind the Church has given literally billions of people over the past 2,000 years. It may never cross the minds of the Church's detractors of the countless newborn or infant children who were left abandoned to die by anguished parents, but were rescued by the Church believers. Even to this day, by the Church's own account the American branch of the faith alone assists more than 7 million people. Despite what many readers of this blog might imagine, I would far rather have dinner with someone like Cardinal DiNardo than with any computer programmer or politician.
So what to make of the Archbishop's promotion to the College of Cardinals? Well, what is of interest is that the College itself was expanded by Pope John Paul II when he was alive to 120 members (others say 180). The Catholic Church of America has some 70 million members, but already has 13 ordained Cardinals. Considering that this hoary Church has over 1 billion adherents, and that it becomes quickly clear that America is overrepresented in the College of the Cardinals and Europe is even more so.
Does this lack of democratic representative fairness matter? Well, one could argue both yes and no. The Cardinals choose who shall be the Pope, who in turn chooses who shall be in the College of the Cardinals. The yes side of the democratic fairness argument says that the Eurocentric focus of the Cardinals detracts from where the attention of the church should be, while the no argument says that Pope Benedict has made it expressedly clear that a substantial focus of his papacy is going to be to shine a light on the - if you will - spiritual impoverishment and to combat what he sees as the dangers of moral relevantism of today's Europeans and Americans. As such, who said we were talking about having a Democracy here anyway, given that that Church was a European faith whose aspirations were universal? What was interesting is that when Pope John Paul passed away, it did not take very long for the Cardinals to choose Cardinal Ratzinger as the new Pope. That could be seen as a signal that Church leaders were largely united in their deliberations on where they wanted to go and focus their energies on. DiNardo's appointment can be seen as a continuation of the struggle against moral relativism and as a nod to the fact that Hispanics in America are often Catholics. I attended the funeral of the mother of a Hispanic former co-worker last year, who was given Catholic rites, including a rosary.
I've traveled to Brazil, the Phillipines, Argentina, and to France, all of which are nations with substantial populations of Catholics. I've been inside some cathedrals in places like Rio de Janeiro which are hundreds of years old and are nothing short of works of art. Despite all of the concerns about the affairs of the West, it would have been interesting to see the election of a Brazilian Pope, or a Pope from Africa or Asia. I suggested this to a Catholic girl I used to work with who was from Trinidad. She went bananas, telling me that it wasn't right that a Pope be anyone but from Europe.
To me, what made John Paul so successful was that he was seen as an every man's Pope; a man who came from a modest background and whose life was colored by the fact that his homeland was under the thumb of Communism. People from all over the world loved him. A successful Pope has to not only have convictions, but also has to have a kind of identifiable charisma which John Paul had in spades. So far, Benedict seems not to have that magic touch that his predecessor had.
So I suppose one might say that yes, in the larger scheme of things, DiNardo's appointment makes some kind of sense. If the church allows some creativity for DiNardo's role, one could see him as a kind of ambassador for Americans to those south of our borders, strengthening the bonds of the Church throughout the Americas.
Enough musings for now about the affairs of the world's largest religious faith. I'm watching the Macy's Thanksgiving Day Parade as I finish this. Y'all have a Happy Thanksgiving!
Wizard
On the eve of election day 2007, I found myself tonight going over to pay a visit to my fellow Houstonian Tory's blog and reading about his ideas for what to do with Houston's original grand temple to the Sports gods, the Astrodome. I also digested commentary from others who visited his blog.
This of course put the Wizard into contemplative mode. Hmmm. So what to do about the Dome?
We all know the story. This past week the politically powerful Houston Texans and Houston Livestock Show and Rodeo stuck a fork into the idea of reusing the Astrodome as a $450 million massive convention center and hotel. It should go without saying that both parties probably want the Astrodome demolished and I'd have to say that I cannot agree with them more. I have come out before saying that the Dome should be demolished, possibly either for parking space or for possible construction of some sort. Moreover both parties probably saved we peasantry from having to shoulder yet another levy being slapped on our backs by the political classes via having to taxpayer finance such a ridiculous scheme.
But despite of my Libertarianism, I am also enough of a political realist to know that the Dome will not be torn down anytime soon, mostly because the Harris County Commissioners are scared to death of being accused of demolishing the Dome. At the same time, we the peasantry are paying for a $1.5 million per year levy just to keep the Dome in modestly environmentally usable condition.
So what to do? Tory's ideas are going along the right path, along with his back of a napkin financial analysis of any massive hotel complex. The problem is that this is politics and for decades there has been this desperate hope amongst the political classes in this city that somehow they can turn Houston into a convention city. Never mind that the convention business has been dominated for years by Orlando, Las Vegas, New York and Chicago, and that the political classes in dozens of other cities in America have all been building convention facilities in a desperate battle over the convention market scraps despite the fact that trade show attendance has been dropping off.
Tory suggests turning the Dome into a speakers facility in addition to opening up the Dome for festivals. The speaker idea probably isn't too bad, though there are lots of places where speakers can be heard. As for the idea of holding festivals in the Dome, my intuitive feeling about festivals (in addition to those comments made in his replies) is that festivals are more of an outdoors type activity. There is also a kind of ritual to holding festivals. Most festivals are held annually (or semi - annually) at set times during the year. They serve as a kind of marker that we have come full circle reached another season in the cycle of our lives.
However it is along the right track. The idea is a low risk, low cost idea. If it fails, then Harris County taxpayers are not left with an even larger white elephant hanging around their necks. Moreover, we can say that we tried the idea and if it doesn't work out, then we haven't lost all that much.
Which brings me to my idea. What if the Dome authorities were to simply throw the doors to the Dome open to holding weekend bazaars at the Dome? Perhaps they could be held Friday nights, Saturday all day, then Sunday afternoons? They would not be held when the Texans were holding their football games, when other sporting events would be scheduled, nor when the Rodeo was in progress. And come to think about it, isn't the Rodeo itself a festival?
Running with the shopping bazaar idea, parking could be charged at a nominal fee, say $2-3 (or even free), to encourage attendance. Booth fees could be collected, in addition to beverages, though one might think of being careful about this and simply collecting sales taxes on lower priced items. The organizers themselves could be held responsible for cleanup after each weekend. Other ideas would include the possibility that if this idea were to become successful, then expansion would simply be done through allowing new booths to operate outdoors.
The beauty of this idea is similar to Tory's. The bazaars could be held nearly every weekend. Marketing the idea would probably not be too much trouble as everyone knows where the Dome is. This also would have the added attraction of being a low risk idea, which if it were to not be successful financially, then the operation could be shutdown quickly and taxpayers would not be left on the hook for a massive sum of money.
On the downside, I can imagine that some would object to turning the Dome into a marketplace simply on emotional or symbolic grounds. Their hearts might break at the thought of their cherished Dome being used for such tawdry commercial reasons, though it was exactly for commercial reasons that the Dome was put to during the glory days of Nolan Ryan and Earl Campbell. So what's the difference?
Another possible downside might be objections from other flea market or open market operations around town. More tellingly, maybe the Dome authority and the Commissioners themselves might not be happy, on the grounds that they might not be able to reward their campaign contributors with fat contracts from the building of some new fancy facility.
While stewing over this idea tonight, I was struck by the issue that the Dome (despite the fact that I think it should be torn down) at least symbolically means a lot to people in Houston. I have to admit that one of the most special days of my life when I was growing up happened at the Dome. On December 3rd, 1982, when I was a teenager, I along with a few of my friends attended my first rock and roll concert at the Dome. And Who was the band that we went to go see that night, the ones who initiated me and my friends into the joys of concerts and the nightlife? Let me give you a hint - I've already told you the name of that band.
Ah yes. One cannot imagine how emotional that night was for me. In fact I can still remember it nearly 25 years later as though it happened yesterday.
So what is all this nostalgia leading to? Well how about this. If people are so tied up emotionally in a mere building, then if we Houstonians are going to keep the Dome in operation for symbolic or emotional reasons, then why not use the Dome for emotional reasons? How is this for a suggestion: Why not allow Houstonians buy space along the walkways of each of the levels of the Dome where they can put momentoes of their most cherished memories of their times that they spent in the Astrodome? For example, for $200 why not allow a person or a family to purchase a 2 square foot wall area of the Dome walkways where they can etch images or hang photographs along the walls where they can tell stories of their experiences? Why not allow for larger spaces for a higher price, say a 5x5 foot mural space for $1,000? In my case, I would tell everyone of what happened to myself and my friends that night and why the Dome means so much to me. Others might tell of watching the Oilers play the Pittsburgh Steelers during the days of Luv ya' Blue. Maybe some of the old Olier legends like Dan Pastorini or Earl Campbell could add their own memorabilia. Maybe fans could see the famous Monday Night Football footage where a solitary Oliers fan gave the camera the finger on national television.
In other words, why not turn the Dome into a kind of museum where the people of Houston would share their fondest memories of what happened there? Proceeds from the sale of mural spaces could be put into a fund which would be invested in bonds which would draw interest that in turn could be used to help offset the costs of operating the Dome. Since the Dome is 710 feet in diameter, that would mean that each level is 2,230 feet in circumference. I could see 5,000 or more murals decorating each level of the Dome, maybe more if we would allow the concrete walkways to be decorated. I could easily see $5 - $10 million being raised by such an idea. Augment that with parking fees, sales taxes from weekend bazaars and you may actually have a viable operation which would pay for itself.
Enough for now. It's time for me to lie down and face another day.
Wizard
Over the past several months I've been steadily become addicted to watching The Mad Men, a television series about the going's on at a fictitious small to mid sized advertising agency called Sterling Cooper located in - where else - New York City.
Before going any further, I should say something. I am not someone who follows television shows. My preferences when it comes to watching television include (of course), the History Channel, watching football, basketball, and track and field events. I also enjoy watching the Discovery Channel, and a few others. I used to watch current events programs long ago, such as C Span and the Sunday morning talk shows, but long ago gave up doing that since I came to realize that my life was not going in that direction and there was little I could do to influence things. I'd rather read academic journals and magazines for political information, but my time in this world dwindles by the day and there are other things worth doing other than becoming a walking encyclopedia of knowledge which I can't make money off of being.
Getting back to shows I do watch, I did follow Dallas when I was a young teen but quit doing so when I entered high school. I also watched Twin Peaks at the beginning of the 1990's. For comedy, I enjoyed watching Dream On and Reel Wild Cinema.
So what is it about the Mad Men that I find so alluring? Well, I will be the first to admit that the program will not appeal to everyone. One could visit the blog page of the show and read bucket loads of comments from the show's watchers. Clearly this show might have a fairly small audience, but that audience has a wild passion for this program. Clearly AMCTV has listened and has picked up the program for a second season. YES!
My own favorite character (and I should say that I like all of them) is the primary character, the handsome, wildly complicated, but 1950's Organization Man looking Don Draper, played by Jon Hamm. My own favorite scenes involving Draper include his telling off the hippie boy friend of Midge, how he punched Roger into remembering his wife's name after he suffered a heart attack, and most memorably, when he displays his awesome creative genius (which pays the salaries for the entire boat of everyone working at Sterling Cooper) when, in a mind blowing late night piece of inspiration while talking to Rich, he dreams up the name and sales campaign for the Carousel which is presented to Kodak executives. Draper's presentation is so inspiring, it causes Rich to depart the sales pitch meeting in tears because he is having trouble with his own girl friend. It causes the entire rest of the company, including the fiercely ambitious Pete Campbell to tip their hats off to him.
The women have their own dramas, constrained by the roles that were allowed to them by the America of 1960. Don's wife, an independent former model named Betty, slowly wakes up to the realization that her world has shrunk to that of being a housewife. Meanwhile she also (correctly) intuits that she might not be enough of a woman for her husband. That is because Don has also fallen for the strongly independent Midge and Rachel. Meanwhile back in the office, his secretary Peggy has displayed her creative talents, but fell pregnant with a baby she didn't want (remember this was before 1973). She however, admires Don for giving her the chance to be the first woman to get out of the steno pool since before World War II and has allied herself with her unwittingly visionary mentor against the younger hound dogs who size her up and think she should be put in her place.
It's rather amazing. Don finds himself at the end of the first season struggling to keep the hound dog younger 20 something men at bay, while trying to keep his wife and family in their place in suburbia despite his own indiscretions. At the same time he is attracted to women who are not constrained by the conventions of the era. Meanwhile, he has run away from a boyhood which he hated (he is revealed to be the son of a prostitute) and which he seems to have been treated a bit poorly. But at the same time he has a younger step brother (whom he disowned and who subsequently hanged himself) who adored him. My goodness, that has to weigh on anyone's conscience.
There were complaints early on that the show almost tried too hard to display everyone smoking and that nothing really happened. I dismissed these criticisms right away. I realized quickly that this was a show that could incubate a horde of problems and issues. Mad Men was a program that had an immense potential to mine a bunch of rich issues, such as the fact that a pair of lowly staff cleaning people, who were black, were fired for the discretions of a late night office party.
It's almost as though this program is a modern version of All in the Family, but made 35 years later and recast as a serious drama instead of a comedy. Whereas Archie Bunker was a bigoted working class man stuck in his ways, Don Draper is an any man American who has managed, both by the whirls of fortune and dint of genius, to reinvent himself and work his way into a star struck position in American society. Still, Draper finds himself surfing the waves of a swirling and rapidly changing world, though he and everyone around him don't realize how it is changing right below their very feet.
So, the Wizard heartily recommends watching this absolute gem of a program. You can download episodes, but I can't wait for the second season of the Mad Men.
Wizard
On Friday, September 21, 2007, the Houston Property Rights Association welcomed Houston trial attorney David Mestemaker, who is representing Houston area mobile food vendors in a federal lawsuit challenging new state laws which have enabled the City of Houston and Harris County to pass new stringent regulations surrounding the operations of taquerias.
Mestemaker, a personable fellow perhaps in his 50's, opened his talk by saying he first came to Houston in 1980 from Michigan. He got a job in the oil business, working for Tenneco. The company sent him to law school, but the company was sold just as he was completing his school work. Mestemaker mentioned that he has been practicing law for 18-19 years, but that the taco truck lawsuit is the first time he has had an opportunity to claim a United States Constitutional claim. Mestemaker mentioned that he would only have about 1 hour to speak to the group, as he had his (very noble) weekly appointment to read to the blind. He said to the group that when he first received the call that he was dreading the idea of speaking to such a group, thinking that he would be speaking to a bunch of landlords who would be telling him that their clients needed to get their trucks off of their property. He said not to get upset if anyone was offended. We at HPRA instead gave him our usual cold water welcome we give to our guest speakers and I informed him we were equal opportunity offenders, ergo he later on admitted that he had a great time speaking to us.
Mestemaker said that the taco & mobile food truck Constitutional claim was based on the 14th Amendment, specifically its due process and equal protection clauses. Mestemaker said that Constitutional claims are often very complex, but broadly the issue is whether a statute or ordinance is, either on its face or in its application, biased towards certain groups? If so, then such laws are violative of the 14th Amendment.
Mestemaker said that the new state statutes enabling local ordinances to be passed were originally authored in March 2007 by Duane Bohac and Kevin Bailey. As one can see by reading the legislation, the statues apply only to counties with a population of 2.8 million or greater - i.e. Harris County. Mestemaker said that representatives received substantial campaign contributions from the Houston area restaurants and associations. However a quick lookup on the Internet revealed that, though yes Duane Bohac received at least $3,800 worth of such monies, that was less than 2 percent of the $222,000 he raised during the period leading up to the 2007 State legislative session. So take that as you will. Kevin Bailey received a lot more money from labor unions and both Bohac and Bailey received more contributions from home builders than from food vendors.
All the same, the issue is still before us. Mestemaker said that the ordinances state that the mobile food trucks have to have written permission to be on a piece of land or property, that there needs to be a toilet within 500 feet of the business, and that they need to be inspected everyday.
A short time ago, a hearing was held in the court of U.S. District Judge Nancy Atlas. Justice Atlas asked the Harris County representative what they intended to do to enforce the new rules. Mestemaker told HPRA that the Harris County attorney said something to the effect that "this is an unfunded mandate and if they (the State of Texas) will not send us any money to enforce it, then we won't do a damned thing about the matter." Ms. Atlas then asked the City of Houston attorney what it intended to do and the CoH attorney said several things:
1) The CoH will empower the Houston Police Department to inspect and ticket taquerias - something Counsellor Mestemaker wondered whether the rank and file of HPD would really care to be doing when real criminals are roaming the cityscape.
2) The City intends to enforce the rule that a bathroom must be within 500 feet of the taqueria.
3) The building owner who has the bathroom where the taco truck is parked must have a signed notarized statement authorizing anyone can use that bathroom. More on this particular rule in a moment.
4) The mobile taco truck must be inspected everyday.
5) If the truck owner intends to be on a piece of property for 90 minutes, then the owner must have written permission to be on the owner's property. More on this later.
The City lawyer was asked by an AG lawyer in one hearing what would happen if violations would occur? The City attorney said that
1) A fine would be imposed.
2) Their medallion (which acts as a permit) would get yanked.
3) A felony charge would be slapped on owners and operators.
4) Then finally the City would shutdown a truck which continued to violate ordinances.
In Mestemaker's words, the City's attitude was one of "it's just a minor thing", no big deal. There may be a different point of view from the point of the truck operator or owner.
Mestemaker said that there were an estimated 17,000 restaurants in Harris County and only 43 full time food inspectors. In comparison, there are an estimated 1,500 taco trucks or trailers operating in Harris County, ergo that makes the taco trucks about 9 percent of all the food establishments in the Houston area. About 500 of these are licensed and are operating in the City. More are unlicensed, while others are admittedly downright illegal. Meanwhile, there are a total of 15 commissaries in Harris County which the taquerias get their food and utensils from, as well as functioning as places where trucks can get cleaned. 14 of these are in the City, while only 1 is in the County. Also, only one of these commissaries is open 24 hours per day.
As things stand today, the taco trucks are supposed to be inspected once per year, if an inspector shows up (and that can happen at any time), or if there is a report that they are in violation of an ordinance. These requirements are not too terribly far different from those facing fixed location restaurants, but one big difference between taco trucks and fixed location restaurants - and this gets back to items #3 and #5 above - is that the bathroom on the premises of fixed location restaurants must be in compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act. In other words, the ADA compliant bathroom must be accessible to those with handicaps.
Some HPRA members at this point brought up ideas. One member asked what was the difference between a Taco Bell with a drive through window doing after hours business, but whose restaurant was closed? Not much it seems. This is an issue because many of the taquerias in fact do walk up trade and have no place to sit down. Ergo, there would be no need for customer toilets.
Mestemaker went on to say that prior to the new ordinances, the requirements for the trucks were that they needed to have a wastewater tank which had a capacity of at least 33 gallons. This is because such trucks do not have a grease trap, something that normal restaurants are required to have. These tanks could be serviced at a commissary or via vacuum truck whose purpose is to clean clogged grease traps at fixed location restaurants and to clean tanks for mobile trucks.
Mestemaker went on to describe the demographics of who actually operates these mobile food trucks. A small number are operated by blacks, who mostly offer barbeque type fare on their menus. Some are operated by Asians who offer Chinese food, but about 85 percent of the trucks are operated by Hispanics. Mestemaker said that in January 2006, two elected officials, CM Toni Lawrence and Duane Bohac, made statements to the effect that, "these taquerias are springinig up like daisies and are making us look like a third world country." So, yes there is a contention that there is a racial motivation behind the enactment of these ordinances.
As noted above, Mestemaker said the County passed an ordinance saying a bathroom had to be within 300 feet of the taqueria, while the City requirement was that a bathroom had to be within 500 feet. The trucks can no longer be cleaned by a vacuum truck, but now has to go to a commissary for cleaning. As noted above, there are 1,500 trucks and only 15 commissaries. During ealier court hearings, Mestemaker asked a City witness on the witness stand how long an inspection takes and the reply was an inspection takes 20-45 minutes per vehicle, so you do the math. Imagine a commissary is open 16 hours per day. Can all 1,500 trucks get inspected in an average day? That aside, my notes say that the commissaries pay for the inspections, which I would imagine would imply that the truck owners themselves would ultimately bear the cost for these inspections as I would think that the commissaries would pass on the cost of the inspections onto the truck operators (I did not get this part of the story clearly). That leaves these truck owners having to drive for perhaps 30 minutes to the nearest commissary, then wait in line for their daily inspection, then pass the daily inspection before they can go home for the day.
One HPRA member asked whether these rules are in effect for trucks operating in San Antonio, Richmond, Victoria, or other urban areas in the state? The answer of course is no (from reading the statute), which begs the question of why are these rules in effect for trucks operating only in Harris County and Houston? Are the trucks in Houston any dirtier than those operating elsewhere, or is the incidence of sickness resulting from patronizing these places any worse than in other areas in Texas?
CM Toni Lawrence said to Counsellor Mestemaker that City ordinances have been on the books since 1999 regarding inspections. Mestemaker told the audience that the ordinances that have been on the books have to do with the operating of wastewater tanks, not the requirement of everyday inspections. Mestemaker went on to ask why is the solution of wastewater tanks still not viable and why can't they still ply their business? Mestemaker asked City Council whether there had been any reports of sickness from patronizing the taco trucks in the past 5 years. The answer was no.
Mestemaker told the audience that most property owners have a kind of symbiotic relationship with the taco trailers (not necessarily trucks). Many collect rent from trailer owners and sell gasoline to them. They are happy that they are there, but they are not happy with the new requirement that the mobile food units need written permission from them to operate because of the fact that the ADA approved bathroom requirements are stiffer for a restaurant than for, say, a gas station. Mestemaker did say that some of these facilities are of a semi-permanent nature, complete with water meters and have leases with the property owners.
When Mestemaker was approached by the taqueria owners about taking on the case, he told them that they could not afford him, but he has been proven wrong. These people have come on strong because they know their livelyhoods are at stake. Mestemaker said that there are an average of 3 employees per truck, which means that 4,500 people's jobs are at stake here. Many of these trucks are operated (but not necessarily owned) by single mothers and most of these trucks are not making a great deal of profit from what they do. These trucks do not carry a great deal of food because they regularly replace their food stores from their commissary visits. The freshness of their food stores and the fact that they do not store their food supplies for long helps to account for the fact that patrons almost never get sick from eating the food on offer.
Mestemaker said he has few problems with the requirement that taquerias have written permission from property owners to be on their land. However he did bring up the scenario of whether a new construction site which has the lunch truck roll up would be able to satisfy such a requirement? Also, some of these trucks operate on parcels of land which have not had paid any taxes for many years and, if one were to look at the HCAD website, there may be doubt as to who may be the title holder or owner of the property in question. In other words, the land is probably vacant. How would one secure permission to operate on such premises? One HPRA member then asked, almost in outrage, why should this be a City requirement? If he owned a piece of property, then if he didn't want them there, then he (as the property owner) would evict them. No government intervention would be necessary.
One HPRA member who happens to be a practicing attorney asked about the 14th Amendment claims surrounding this case. Mestemaker said that the precedent was founded in 1886 when the City of San Francisco passed an ordinance prohibiting the operation of laundries in wooden buildings. They had to be operating in brick and mortar ones. Ergo, it was alleged that the ordinance violated the 14th Amendment in its application by denying a same playing field. The United States Supreme Court ruled that if the effect of a law denies equal footing, then its gone. Mestemaker says that these ordinances and statutes, in their application, chill the ability to do commerce and force taqueria owners to spend several hours per day - every day - of their time in complying with them. Furthermore, neither the City nor the County specifically asked for empowerment from the State to enact them.
Mestemaker has talked to many people about the matter, including fixed location restaurant owners. The general consensus about the matter amongst the public seems to be that if people aren't getting sick or if these mobile food trucks are not dumping wastewater down sanitary drains, then leave them alone. The other matter at stake is Premises Liability Law. Mestemaker said that if you are a property owner, but that something happens on your property without your permission, then you are not liable.
One HPRA member said that the politicians in question are really trying to follow the wishes of their voting constituents. In other words, there are plans being made for areas where the taquerias are numerous and that the populace in those areas do not want them operating there. What are the politicians in question supposed to do? Another HPRA member though said that this sounds like one of those matters where we just have to do something about those people.
Finally, there is a hearing on the suit on October 24. December 1 is when the ordinance is supposed to become enforceable. Mestemaker wrapped up his story by telling of something that happened at the end of one hearing. The Houston Chronicle reporter asked if if he knew whether Homeland Security was here? Mestemaker said no, was he on the watch list and would he not be able to fly anymore? This was because some 60 truck operators showed up for the hearing. They were, in Mestemaker's words, the nicest and most well behaved people in the court room, but our government pulled out the stops and rang the fire alarms in reaction.
I will say here that more than 20 years ago I worked for a Domino's franchisee for 2+ years. The company operated (and still operates) an area wide commissary off of 610 North Loop where dough, meat, card board delivery boxes and vegetables are all distributed by truck for standardization purposes. If you every happen to see an 18 wheeler with the Domino's logo on it, then that truck is on a run from the commissary delivering food orders to company stores . Each of our stores were inspected maybe 2-3 times the entire time I worked for him. I had to attend a City mandated restaurant sanitation course.
Having stated all of this, I will say that the entire idea that these trucks must get inspected every single day is absolutely preposterous on its face. Instead of the public paying for the burden of having government employees going out to perform what are perhaps annual inspections of restaurants, we will have effectively turned the tables by having the taqueria truck owners and operators bear the burden of having to report for a daily inspection. This is a classic example of using governmental regulatory powers to shut out your competition, using the usual rationale that we need to protect the public. One might want to read these threads from Blog Houston. One HPRA member suggested that Mestemaker talk to the Institute for Justice which works on economic freedom type cases.
I will wind up this rather lengthy epistle by saying that this case has drawn considerable attention throughout the country. Mestemaker has given interviews in Spanish. KPRC, the Chronicle, and the New York Times have all done stories on the issue. Mestemaker told HPRA that he has not had more fun as an attorney than he has had in his entire career, on the account that he genuinely believes that he is right and that he has gotten himself involved in a rather weighty issue here.
So stay tuned!
Wizard.
I present to the public a photo story book of a Tolkien literary pilgrimage I made to Oxford in January 2007.
Several months ago wrote of my visits to the United Kingdom on behalf of the Big Evil Company. Two items which I never got around to writing about were a pair of visits I made to visit the places of legend where J.R.R. Tolkien lived, taught, worked, and wrote his stories. My first trip occurred during the weekend of January 20-21, 2007. I made a follow up visit on February 3, 2007. I had to make the follow up trip because of several factors. First, I took a train to get to Oxford since renting a car would have been a pain in the rear to do. The train which I had originally booked from the Paddington Station was canceled, leaving myself and dozens of other passengers stranded. One British man traveling with his girlfriend was less charitable. "God Damn!" he shouted. I caught the next train, but that train was a slow one which stopped at about 8-10 places before getting to Oxford. The trip took 1 hour and 45 minutes one way to only go 67 miles. One trio of 40-something British men who got on at Reading talked about the girls they thought were hot and how Felicity Kendall was the hottest thing they ever laid eyes on. They also complained that they could have gotten to Oxford faster if they had taken a car.
So I get to Oxford at perhaps 1:30pm. This gave me only 3-4 hours to make my trips. I eventually wended my way through the town to St. Giles Road and found the Eagle and Child pub. As the Wikipedia entry notes, I am now a marked figure amongst the fans of Professor Tolkien.
From there I made it to the Tolkien's house at 20 Northmoor Road. I wandered around the neighborhood that day, soaking up the feel of what the Professor's world was like. I saw St. Aloysius Church where the Tolkien's would sometimes worship. However the day turned cloudy and it started to drizzle. It was a brisk day and the weather reminded me of how I always envisioned Frodo's travels through to Rivendell in Arnor. I decided it would be better if I made my way back to London since I was on foot.
Because my time had been cut short, I had not been able to locate Tolkien's grave. I made a considerable effort to locate all six of Tolkien's homes as well as where he taught school. I made a second trip on February 3, 2007. This time I was able to find Wolvercote Cemetary. I had planned to purchase some flowers to lay at the Tolkien's headstone, but that thought got pushed out of my mind as I walked along the road. Incredibly, I didn't realize that the Tolkiens had lived at 22 Northmoor Road, right next door to 20 Northmoor Road, so I stopped by the neighborhood again before I made my way back.
So there you have it. I never thought I would be get around to making this pilgrimage and I will never forget those two days as long as I live. Having walked those streets of that ancient university town helped me understand how it was that the man whose stories of magic, fantastic races and creatures, war, conflict, romance and heroism which had entranced me as a teenager growing up in suburban America could have written them. The Professor wrote of what was all around him, but as a boy growing up in 1970's America I never understood that. We didn't have the Internet, nor the wave of secondary literature which has been produced over the past 15-20 years to help Tolkien fans understand what the Professor was writing about. As I wrote in one my of my photo notes, it became clear to me that there was no way that Middle Earth could have been invented by someone living anywhere else and not by any other man.
And that is my Ode to J.R.R. Tolkien.
Wizard.
Kevin at BlogHouston picks up the Houston Chronicle story about financial collapse of Infernal Bridegroom Productions.
I have some personal knowledge of what it takes financially to survive in the local stage world. A girl I know wrote a play several years back and entered it into a new playwright talent competition that was judged by a panel of professional theater folks. Her play won first prize and was later put on in an abridged form on a few occasions by several local theater troupes at some small theater houses here in town. She crafted a few others before stopping her work to concentrate on furthering her formal education.
To cut to the chase, there were problems with venues, the terms which theater house owners would put on allowing her play to be staged, and so on. Moreover this girl had some ambition. She wanted to do some rewrites to her play and then put on a full length run (3-4 weeks) at a larger theater house. It turned out that she located 2 venues that were interested at the time, but they wanted (if I remember correctly) a minimum of $500 per night to put on her play. That would have meant that a 4 day per week run for 3 weeks would have had a starting price tag of $6,000 to stage and that did not include such small things like props, lighting, advertising, and so forth. However those items would have been donated for free by sympathetic travelers and allies. As for the cast and crew receiving payment for their efforts, well I made it clear to these youthful idealistic souls that he who had the gold was the one who made the rules - right? They soon got the message that they were not the ones in the drivers' seat when it came down to talking about money.
I told this girl that I was willing to put up the money for staging her play on the terms that I would have gotten 100 percent of all ticket sales up to my initial investment and would have split anything beyond that 50 / 50 with her and her troupe. I would have also been given Executive Producer credit for my investment risk. It later turned out that there were scheduling issues and several troupe members who worked with her went off to do other things, ergo the enterprise eventually drifted apart.
Still, the experience gave me a new appreciation for what many entertainers do on the Houston theater and arts scene. Starving artists had their own self help groups back in Ancient Rome. Two millennia later I found that little had changed and their spiritual descendants here in H-Town still suffer for their art and willingly at that. As Kevin sort of alluded to, many times established theaters or troupes will put on well known plays just to pay the bills and upstarts have to fight tooth and nail just to get started. I would venture to guess that IBP's following might have been growing older and moving on with their lives. However, not having ever seen any of their work I would not be certain of the validity of my belief.
The exercise really does go to show how hard cultural types have to work in order to make it in the free market for entertainment where they compete for your discretionary spending dollars with television, movie theaters, home videos, hobby past times, music venues and nightclubs, and so on. Many talk the talk about Houston being a great place for culture, but little do they know how hard it is to put your money where your mouth is and walk the walk. Maybe I should revisit the idea of becoming an arts entrepreneur and make another run at bankrolling some hopeful artists. Stay tuned.
Wizard.
So I am up right now during the small hours doing some opening line studies because I am thinking about entering the Houston Open next weekend. VH1 is on and I've just seen the video for Rehab by Amy Winehouse for the second time in about 90 minutes.
I have to admit something here. I am one of the few Americans so far who have had the privilege of seeing Amy Winehouse perform in person. I went to see her play to a jam packed gig at the Camden Crawl while I was in London in April. What caught my attention was hearing Rehab playing while I was in a Boots store buying my chocolate fix for the day at VLICA. Amazing how it is with certain songs that you will always remember where it was when you first heard a song. Well, it does seem bizarre and rather out of place that I would have first encountered Amy's work in a pharmacy store of all places. Still, Rehab was good enough for me to head on over to a record shop that night, nab a copy of Back to Black and listen to it about 42 times in a row. I then proceeded to drive my colleagues at VLICA nuts the next day by playing the album over and over again on my laptop.
Amy's stuff was all over the airwaves when I was in the Sceptered Isles. It strange, but I went to the UK for the first time in May 2002 on holiday. While watching the BBC one night, I watched a music show and was star struck by a then unknown woman named Norah Jones. She played a slow sounding wistful ballad called Don't Know Why. Norah had everyone in that audience in the palm of her hand that night and that included the show's host and the other artists. I couldn't believe that Norah wasn't a monster back home, but that trivial matter was settled by that summer.
The Brits have a way of digging up and giving an airing to really great stuff that often doesn't make it over here. I didn't know about The Jam until I was in my mid 20's, even though I came of age in the early 1980's and would have died and gone to heaven had I known of them.
But I digress. When I saw Amy play at the Crawl, I witnessed a small girl with a big whiskey soaked voice (and a nice rack and big bouffant hair do to match) get the entire crowd going with sing along songs. I fell in love with Amy on sight. Once again Britain came through for me on the cultural front.
Her website shows that Amy is supposed to play a series of shows here on our side of the pond. Too bad she isn't scheduled to show up in Houston (though she does have a habit of canceling shows) because I would love to see her again.
To me, Winehouse is what Scarlett Johansson would have been had she been a singer instead of an actress. She is one of those young women artists whom you get so scared about. You just don't know whether Amy will hang it up, crack under the pressure, burn out artistically, or careen off the rails on drink. All you can do is sit back, soak in the emotions from her songs, and hope she finds out what makes her happy. What a Star!
It seems impossible to escape the onslaught of coverage surrounding the incarceration of Paris Hilton. The front page of the Houston Chronicle carried a photo of Ms. Hilton sobbing away at the prospect of spending a mere 45 days in the lockup, crying that it was "unfair". She looked like a six year old girl.
Since Ms. Hilton has made it impossible to escape paying any attention to Hollywood, culture, cinema or celebrity without having her vapid face appearing in front of the cameras, I made a conscientious decision a number of years ago to quit paying attention to what she was up to since she wasn't worth following anyway. She can't sing, she can't dance, she cannot act, she cannot paint or do computer wizardry. Ms. Hilton isn't even that good looking. As such, I had no real idea that Paris Hilton was even in trouble with the law. So I figured a timeline was in order so I could reconstruct the chain of events which has led to her incarceration:
1) Paris was stopped September 6, 2006 for driving under the influence.
2) Paris pleaded not guilty in January 2007 at her arraignment on the DUI charges. She ends up getting probation for DUI.
3) Paris then proceeds to get arrested again. This time it is because she failed to live up to the terms of her probation, which included not driving under a suspended license. She then refused to accept responsibility for the matter and blamed her publicist, saying that she had been told she could drive for work related reasons. Her mother called the sentencing disgusting.
4) Fans and arm twisters apparently made an appeal to California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger to get him to commute the sentence. It appears that the Terminator refused to grant their demands.
Sorry folks, but the whole point of probations is to slap you on the wrist and let you off easy. Paris Hilton didn't even live up to something as simple as that. It's too bad that she won't be able to stay in one of California's more upscale lockups.
While watching Simon Schama's A History of Britain on the History Channel several years ago, Schama recounted that one of the better investments a well off man could make in 17th and 18th century Britain was to put money into prisons. That was because convicts were charged for the privilege of staying in their hotels from hell on a daily basis. The more money you put up, the better arrangements you got. You might have even had the chance to stay in a private cell with a pot to go to the toilet with, along with a barred window where you could toss out your - ahem - wastes. If you couldn't cough up, then you got to sleep with the rats and 30 other cell mates. You might have even gotten a chance to eat something during the day.
But it seems poor Paris won't get a chance to buy her way out of this one. I doubt she will be scared into behaving any better, but even I have occasionally been wrong. After all, any publicity is better than no publicity at all.
Well, yesterday's Grand National came and went. And how did the Wizard fare? Well gentle readers, I hate to admit that the Crystal Ball was cloudy when it came to viewing this event, but me thinks that many had clouded visions when it came to picking winners yesterday.
A brief rundown on the Grand National yesterday. Of the 40 horses which entered the race, only 13 finished. There were several false starts and the Brits don't start the horses out of a gate when running this race.
I put a total of 200 pounds down on three horses, Point Barrow, Dun Doire, and Le Duc, none of whom finished. Point Barrow was heavily backed, but stumbled jumping over the very first grass fence! There are thirty grass fence jumps in this 4.5 mile race. Dun Doire pulled up at fence 23, while Le Duc unseated his jockey at fence number 6. The winner finished in the 4.5 mile distance in 9 minutes and 12 seconds and had 33-1 odds. The horse who finished fourth had 100-1 odds. In all, I think the bookies went home happy, as did the tiny number of those who actually bet on the long shots.
In other news, Prince William and his longtime beau Kate Middleton have split. How sad. Ms. Middleton has that classic Brit Girl look to her which makes my head turn. Somehow I hope that the two of them will reconsider maybe in another 3-4 years and end up getting married anyway.
Two Tolkien related items of note:
1) Yesterday afternoon I watched a soccer match between Sheffield United and West Ham United on the BBC-1. And guess who happened to be in a private box at the stadium enjoying the match?
The answer: Sean Bean. It seems Mr. Bean had childhood dreams of being a football star and playing for the hometown team.
The first TV shot showed Sean Bean with a bit of an unhappy look on his face, but the score was 0-0. Later after the Sheffielders put in a few through the net and won the game 3-0, Mr. Bean got just as pumped up as the rest of the crowd and went home with a smile on his face.
2) Today I took a long walk this afternoon to Camden Town and happened upon the famous street markets which stretch for many blocks. If any of you ever have a chance to come to London, you really should make an effort to see the Camden markets. These markets are probably the biggest hidden gem that tourists and short time folks like myself should see, but rarely do since they aren't widely advertised as part of touristy London.
Anyway, as I wended my way through the stalls and houses, I found myself walking into a place which advertised lots of old maps. I love looking at old maps (though I rarely buy them), but I so happened to stumble onto a used book store which was right next to where the maps were kept.
I had stumbled upon my own mines of Mithril.
For 30 pounds cash, I will be burdening myself on the trip home with the following books:
1) A 1985 Unicorn / Unwin Paperback version of The Silmarillion.
2) A 1981 copy of The Tolkien Quiz Book, compiled by Nigel Robinson and Linda Wilson.
3) A 1993 copy of The Tolkien Companion by David Day.
4) A 1968 copy of Understanding Tolkien and The Lord of the Rings, written by William Ready.
5) Four copies of The Hobbit, including a 1975 edition which had artwork depicting Smaug from Tolkien himself; a 1993 edition which has cover artwork depicting Smaug from John Howe; a 1988 edition with cover artwork depicting Smaug from David Garland; and a 1989 edition which has cover artwork depicting Rivendell from Ted Nasmith.
6) And last by not least, my Precious! I found a 1995 printing of a one book edition of The Lord of the Rings which is none other than the one with the classic John Howe portrait of Gandalf on the cover. I thought I would never find one of these. I fell in love with it on the spot and I already know that this version will become my favorite of all my Tolkien collection. The cover artwork has a dark green tint to it, but I consider this to be priceless.
As it was, I also threw down money on some incense, a City wide map of London, and some t-shirts from British rock bands The Jam, the Cure, and Joy Division which you just can't get back home. I ended up dropping about 100 pounds today, but had a blast doing it!
Ciao for Now.
Wizard
You would think that an American, especially a relative Anglophile such as myself, would know a lot of what goes on in a country like the United Kingdom. Wrong! This morning while eating breakfast with my colleagues at VLICA (the Very Large Industrial Corporation of America), I took a look at the television only to discover that tomorrow afternoon is the annual running of The Grand National horse race. The race, held at the Aintree Racecourse, promises to be quite a spectacle for a sometime gambling man such as yours truly. My colleagues told me that the premier race to be held tomorrow will feature 40 horses running in the race over a course of 4.5 miles. Furthermore, the horses have steeplechase type barriers that they have to clear! This ought to be blast to watch.
Clearly a 4.5 mile race with steeplechase barriers thrown in is a major endurance test for horses and predictably the animal rights freaks have come out squealing. Nonetheless, they should realize that nobody wants to see horses come to a nasty end over a mere human passion.
Though I am not in shape, I have done distance running for many years. If there's anything I know, that is that endurance races of all kinds throw the field wide open. There are so many things that can go wrong, especially in a race like this, that it only makes watching the spectacle that much more exciting.
This evening the BBC had a program where the sports writers made their picks as to who was going to win. They did expose spots on famous trainers and jockeys. I discovered that the Brits allow amateurs to race with the pros in the event, though an amateur hasn't won the race in 17 years. All of Britain's major newspapers have Grand National pullouts and guides in tomorrow's editions. I am getting pumped up!
I briefly thought of trying to get to Liverpool in order to see the race in person, but I'm thinking that I'll have to get up pretty early in order to make it up there. On second thought, I think I'll just stay and watch it on the telly.
But watching the Grand National at the hotel doesn't drain all of the excitement out of the event. I just need to make sure that I peer into the Crystal Ball first, take a look at the field, then go to a Ladbrokes and plunk down 50 or 100 quid on a 100-1 horse! Why not? After all, even the horse many think has the best chance of winning, Point Barrow, is being offered 11-1 odds over at Ladbrokes.
The World Awaits!
Wizard.
And what kind of person did you think The Mighty Wizard is?
You are an alchemist. "Alchemists are those who seek Truth. Judges, scientists, and philosophers (who are a kind of scientist, though they have forgotten it) and even a few clergymen are Alchemists."
Naturally!
Yours truly has been in glamorous London for the past 10 days or so, on business for VLICA. Many things have happened here, including David Beckham signing a deal with the L.A. Galaxy soccer team for a cool $250 million, not to mention a possible split being possible between England and Scotland right on the 300th anniversary of the Acts of Union which founded the United Kingdom. But more on all topics Britain in future blogs.
Tonight's blog entry has to do with an otherwise boring story which has managed to blow into an international diplomatic row. It seems that there is a TV show on ITV channel 4 here in the UK called Big Brother. From what I can gather, the show appears to be one of these reality TV shows where you throw a bunch of disparate and otherwise incompatible people together into a house and watch voyeuristically while the friction starts. I got back to my hotel, ran a workout, then turned on the telly in time to catch the last 10 minutes or so of tonight's episode.
Well, the main sauce surrounding this TV show is that this program features, as one of its cast members, a certain smokin' hot Indian Bollywood actress by the name of Shilpa Shetty.It seems that some of Ms. Shetty's local British house mates can't pronounce her name, they don't like how she carries herself, they don't like her accent, they don't like her looks, and for that matter they just don't seem to like the fact that Ms. Shetty is Indian. Meanwhile word has it that the cast members themselves seem to be blissfully unaware of the controversy that their own behavior is generating, being effectively being isolated from the outside world.
The uproar over charges of racism has generated enough heat that British Prime Minister Tony Blair has had to comment on the program in the House of Commons. His finance minister, Chancellor Gordon Brown (timing is everything in politics) just happens to be in India while all of this is happening and he finds himself having to condemn whatever is happening on the show in front of protesting Indian mobs. There is a certain irony to all of this. And what is that irony? That irony is that neither man has ever seen the TV show, yet find themselves having to fend off charges that their country is full of racists and that the program be perhaps censored, condemned, or taken off the air completely. Back in Britain, the TV watchdog group has received over 10,000 complaints about racism on the program, with 2/3rds of those complaints coming from non-Indians.
With all the fuss, what is The Mighty Wizard's verdict on the program? Well after 10 minutes of watching the program, I was ready to watch something else. It wasn't because of racism or fireworks mind you. It was because I found the program to be incredibly boring! The best part of the program was watching Ms. Shetty strut her bod around. She is hot! Otherwise, if it weren't for this controversy, I would not be able to figure out why anyone would watch the show. Amazingly I was watching CNN tonight and saw a reporter ask a British MP about how it could be that Mr. Blair had never seen the show? I couldn't believe that a CNN reporter (I'm sorry but I didn't catch the woman's name) could ask a question like that. The MP replied (quite truthfully for once - not bad for a politician) that Mr. Blair was a very busy man and that if he did watch TV, then the PM was probably watching programs like The West Wing.
As far as I can tell, this is nothing more than a bunch of women (and men) living under the same roof, and you know what you get when you do that - lots of catfights! It seems Ms. Shetty did this at least partly as a career move, but she did receive over $700,000 to do the show so clearly money was a factor too. Ms. Shetty said on the show the other day that she is sad about what has happened on the show, but I suspect that at the end of the day that the matter will blow over and in a year or two nobody will remember that this ever happened. By that time Ms. Shetty will still have both her money and a bad taste in her mouth about people from Britain.
Ciao for now from a rainy and blustery London.
It is now the beginning of a 4 day weekend for me and I've spent quite a bit of this evening doing some good ol' surfin' of the Net. It isn't too often that I sit down and surf like I used to back in the late 1990's when I would spend hours and hours just following thousands of sites just for the hell of it. Ah, the good ol' days of the Internet when the world was young...
One site I visited today which I hadn't dropped in on in a while is none other than a site which I link to - The 2 Blowhards. In today's entry entitled "The Birth of Rock and Roll?", Michael Von Blowhard pays tribute to various artists like Chuck Berry, Roy Brown, Sister Rosetta Thrape, and Ruth Brown.
So what does The Mighty Wizard have to say about this topic? Well, the birth of Rock and Roll should be something that should interest all Americans as it really is an enormously important part of our cultural history. I did do a little digging on the subject a number of years ago (don't you ever forget that yours truly is an extraordinarily learned fellow), and found a true gem of an artist in Big Joe Turner. Don't forget to visit this site on Big Joe, which includes a You Tube link showing Big Joe playing his original bluesy version of Shake Rattle and Roll.
When you listen to Big Joe sing "Roll 'em Hawk", "Corrine Corrina" and "Shoo Shoo Boogie Boo", you can hear a die hard bluesman struggling to lead us to Rock and Roll Nirvana. All I can say is that Big Joe richly deserves his honored place in The Rock & Roll Hall of Fame. If you need to be turned onto some good stuff, then take a tip from The Wizard himself and spend a few nickels on some juke joint stuff from Big Joe. You won't regret it.
Last night I went to see the first of 2006's summer blockbusters, Mission Impossible III.The film is everything you have come to expect from the MI franchise - the IMF (impossible mission force) secret government agency which actually does it's job competently, the explosions, the wild ass technology complete with exploding human injections, the twists and turns that come at you like a freight train, and who's screwing around whom (especially within the agency!), as well as some personal development for Tom Cruise's character Ethan Hunt.
The film starts off with a mission gone bad for one of Hunt's proteges, Lindsey Farris (played by Keri Russell). Hunt is asked by his former team, led by Luther (Ving Rhames - one of my favorite actors) and given marching orders by Director Brassel (confidently played by Laurence Fishburne) to go rescue her. The mission itself is botched when they lose Farris, who is being held by Owen Davian (the film's amoralistic and ruthless villian, played by Phillip Seymour Hoffman). Brassel wants Davian dead and it's up to Hunt and his team to get him. Of course, this wouldn't be MI without everything seeming to be what is seems to be, so you find out there are some problems in getting Davian along the way. The primary issue is that Davian finds out about Hunt's marriage to Julia (a doctor played by Michelle Monaghan), and tells Hunt that she is in trouble too.
The film's twists and turns lead our team of heroes to the Germany, the Vatican, Shanghai, so we get our fill of exotic worldwide scenery. The film credits state that Tom Cruise co - produced the film. If so he did a first rate job, as the action scenes are shown as though the camera is being rocked around. This gives the action sequences a gritty and tumbling uncertainty to them. It feels as though there is a ton of things going on around you, even though it might only be one event happening at the moment. The supporting cast of Maggie Q, John Rhys Meyers, and others all play their roles competently, though Rhames is the only one whose character seems to be fleshed out.
So what's the verdict? Well, many in the audience clapped after this one was over. So take your date, buy a big bag of popcorn, and fasten your seatbelt as Tom Cruise takes you on the best action flick I've seen in a long, long time. The Mighty Wizard gives MI 3 a 9 out of 10. I am predicting this one will gross at least $700 million worldwide. Enjoy!
Ciao for now.
