Archive Listing
September 23, 2012 - September 16, 2012

Monday, December 19, 2011

SOMETIMES I REVIEW.... They're about to release a movie called The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo, starring the Brit stick named Daniel Craig. Doesn't give me much hope for its success. I've never seen an actor with less emotional range, including Finns I've reviewed in the past. His James Bond is sullen, humorless, and downright dreary. His subsequent Cowboys & Aliens effort cements him as a diminutive Brit version of Schwarzenegger's terminator, with a method acting tic or two offered up as evidence of empathy. If I were casting Hamlet, I'd pick Jason Stathem and even Vin Diesel over Daniel Craig for the eponymous role because of their greater capacity to connect emotionally with audiences. Are we clear?

But with all the hype I've seen for this movie, I finally broke one of my semi-cardinal rules and watched the Swedish original of which the Daniel Craig vehicle is a remake. The semi-cardinal rule has to do with subtitles. I don't like reading movies. Although the lady of the house has succeeded in getting me to watch subtitled Russian and German film classics, which has led to other abominations against my popcorn movie soul. I never do it for fun, but this time it was a calculation. There are now three of these movies featuring the same characters. and if they've convinced Hollywood to take a chance on doing something different, maybe there's something worth watching.

The good news? There is. The bad news? Hollywood -- even with abundant Brit help -- has no chance of doing it as well as the Swedes. The most extreme violence in this very dark movie is sexual, something Hollywood can't render truthfully or objectively, but only coyly and leeringly, or politically. It's central in this case, however. Rendered in Scandinavian terms, coldly and without blinking. And with very few words.

Same goes for the movie as a whole. I've seen the Daniel Craig trailer, which speaks the world to me. They're trying unusually hard to do a faithful remake, but even in the scene fragments they show, they feel compelled to explain and verbalize what the original merely shows without remark. And by casting a ham like Christopher Plummer in the pivotal plot role, we're guaranteed more scenery chewing than the original eschews so effectively.

Oh. Did I forget to tantalize you? Here's the teaser. A disgraced journalist is sentenced to a term in prison because he's been found guilty of criminal libel. He has six months before he has to begin serving his sentence. A mysterious third party hires a security firm to investigate him. An eccentric researcher (i.e., paid hacker) at that firm does the investigation and concludes that he was set up. The attorney who heard her conclusions arranges a meeting between the journalist and a tycoon who is harboring a secret sorrow. The beloved niece he regarded as a daughter disappeared in the 1960s without a trace. He suspects members of his own family, several of whom had Nazi ties during WWII. Now approaching death, he wants the mystery solved.

Meanwhile we learn that the eccentric researcher has a criminal past, a history of violence, and is on parole. A new parole officer begins to harass her sexually while she continues to follow the fate of the journalist she believes was set up.

So, yes, the journalist and the mysterious hacker do ultimately join forces to pursue the solution of a forty-year-old maybe crime, and there are twists and turns, and more twists, and additional turns, and emotional complications, and more violence, murder, and, of course, more turns and twists. Almost all of which are delivered to us in such matter-of-fact terms that some loony-tunes casting director got the wrong idea that a dead carp like Daniel Craig would be perfect for the male lead.

I don't see how he can be. The two key roles in this movie -- which is incredibly suspenseful and absorbing -- are complicated, contradictory characters. The journalist is both strong and weak. He's a bulldog in his profession but baffled and in denial about how to handle direct assaults on his person. The girl with the dragon tattoo is similarly afflicted, but neither an opposite nor a complement. She's a kind of perpendicular. As a hacker she's a relentless and thorough problem solver, driven not by ethics but outrage and obsession. Attacked in person, she is an archetypal and, when necessary, lethal Nemesis. But where the journalist is emotionally vulnerable, she wears an iron carapace of cold. Their work as a team is sometimes brilliantly effective and sometime tone deaf, on both sides.

Can Hollywood do justice to this? Can Daniel Craig? I doubt it. Let's not forget that Swedes know something about playwriting. Where Brits always think more words are the answer, Swedes think fewer are a better answer. There's a scene in the trailer up top which is, once again, very close to the original. Where Daniel Craig says "Put some clothes on. Get rid of your girlfriend," the Swedish version contains no such Brit ordering about. The dragon girl is already clothed, the journalist observes the girlfriend exiting the bedroom and asks if there is any coffee. Everybody, including us, knows what has been seen and WHY IT ISN'T IMPORTANT. Why the dragon girl eventually comes to trust him.

I actually appreciated the subtitles. So much is unsaid, unspoken, that it becomes easy to imagine the entire movie as a set of interior monologues for which subtitles are a graceful necessity.

I've avoided spoilers. If you can find a way (Netflix, etc), see the Swedish version.


Pretty sure you'll be as enthralled as I was.

P.S. On the other hand, here's what Americans do well:


Can't wait.

SHE OBJECTED TO THE PIC. So Lady Laird didn't like my Egotistical Senile Old Fool portrait. She seems to think it's insulting to her for some reason. Why I'm correcting the record. Thus, your very own photographic portrait of InstaPunk.

Of course, I never have only one agenda. FINE ARTIST is threatening (see Comments) to do a portrait of me when he loses his bet about Ron Paul. But I won't be sitting for any portrait sitting. Other artists have worked from photos. So can he. I suggest something along the lines of a St. Nuke version of the above:


Or, maybe, after all these years, I thought I should finally introduce myself, so you could finally put a face to my annoying voice.

You're welcome but not obligated to send me pictures in return.

Friday, December 16, 2011

TOUCHED A NERVE IN THE COMMENTS. Apparently, our formerly courteous Chevalier ("Still one of the best blogs on the web, period. At least when the Punkfather is flat out wrong, he argues his case with grace and style.") has had a major change of heart:

You egotistical senile old fool.

The rest of us were watching Gingrich when he was booted from Congress on multiple ethics charges [ED. NOT TRUE] by Conservatives, when his multiple ex-wives say not just that they don't like him because of the divorce but that he's a lying, evil SOB [GOSSIP], when he was buddying up with Liberal Democrats for the past decade plus [UNLIKE PERRY, ROMNEY & HUNTSMAN], supporting all of the LibDem causes [ALL? REALLY?], and when he was getting million-dollar payoffs from LibDem pet institutions [NOT HAPPY ABOUT THAT ONE EITHER. ANYMORE THAN I AM ABOUT ROMNEYCARE OR PAULISTA DISARMAMENT]. Where the heck were you? [RIGHT HERE, PAL. LONG BEFORE YOU. I ALSO SAW HIM DEMOLISH BILL BUCKLEY IN A FORMAL DEBATE ABOUT THE PANAMA CANAL TREATY. WHERE WERE YOU? DIDN'T SEE YOU.][HE'S A FUCKING POLITICIAN. NEVER DENIED IT.]

You must be losing your mind. And apparently so willing to swallow a big load of Newt that you're citing Newt's own boy as "proof" that Newt is a conservative who can get things done. That's a real comfort, one lying, unethical SOB on the payroll of another lying, unethical SOB. Great!

"We've never seen a Republican campaign like this before?" Are you freaking kidding me? We saw this campaign in 2008! And Obama beat the squishy "friends across the aisle" RINO that time, too!

When you're ready to pull your head out of your behind and present an argument based on reality, maybe I'll come back here. But until then, goodbye. It's too bad you're so ready to sell out all of your principles and good sense because Newt jammed some lingo down your throat. Go buy some Vaseline buddy, you're about to get plowed. [A CONCLUDING QUESTION: YOU SEEM PREOCCUPIED WITH HOMOSEXUAL IMAGERY. HAVE YOU SHARED THIS WITH THE OTHER 'CHEVALIERS' IN YOUR TROUPE? MAYBE IT WOULD REDUCE THE LEVEL OF YOUR HYSTERIA...? JUST A THOUGHT.]

Egotistical. Senile. Old. Fool. Hmmmm. I'm thinking about it............ uh, no. Except for the egotistical part, which all writers have to be if you think about it. We do tend to place some stock in what we have to say. Mostly, what I said in the offending post was 1) Since everyone's piling on Newt, maybe you should expose yourselves to a dissenting view, and 2) Watch the most significant debate yet and make up your own minds. I even encouraged readers to disregard the personal opinions I'd expressed. If that's enough to drive anybody away, so be it. You've made up your mind. Maybe that's a good thing even if I don't think it's the right thing. Go in peace. (I may have a little more to say about this comment later, but all in good time, though I'll note that it is possible to forfeit the "grace and style" privilege here. You wouldn't enjoy it if I got really angry.)

Now for the comment that may deserve some specific response. Skinny Devil responded:

RL said:

"Everyone for Bachmann, Perry, Paul, or Santorum is already conceding the election. Everyone for Romney is making a totally irrational bet that he will perform better as president than he did as governor of Massachusetts."

I must have missed that. Exactly what Bachmann, Perry, Paul, & Santorum supporters think their guy will lose to Obama?

My 2 cents (which won't even buy a cup of coffee anymore, so...) is that Santorum would get killed by Obama, Perry might lose to Obama, but Bachmann or Paul (or even the sadly forgotten Huntsman) would destroy Obama.

Obama is one-term unless republicans TOTALLY drop the ball.

Skinny's two cents may be as good as mine, but it's not as if I haven't shared my reasoning about the "Little Four" before. (Do a name search.) Still, I'm willing to update it based on current information, including last night's debate. Which I'll do after I address Skinny's final sentence.

Obama is incompetent at everything but winning elections. But don't ever discount how good he is at that. He'll have about a billion dollars to spend distorting, smearing, destroying the credentials of his Republican opponent. He'll have the mainstream media on his side from first to last, and even the mounting scandals of his administration will not be brought to light by the major media outlets. The major network debate formats will be designed to make him look presidential and his opponent insignificant or worse. Many polls currently show that a plurality of voters still blame George W. Bush and the Republicans more than they blame Obama for the continuing economic morass, other polls show that the MSM's smear job on the Tea Party has been effective, and all MSM coverage from now on should be considered Obama campaign publicity: From August to November 2012, daily headlines from Europe and the middle east can and will be spun to make him seem the victim of forces beyond anyone's control, no matter what terrible things happen. (In the 1980 election, the Dem line was that the presidency was too hard a job for anyone, hence all the putrid results; it might have worked except that the media hated Carter's smug Christian self-righteousness.) Scare the voters enough and they will reelect Obama in self-defense.

Obama is not Carter. He starts somewhere between 10 and 12 points ahead at the ballot box, which is like starting a football game for the national championship up by two touchdowns. It's absolutely not true that "Obama is one-term unless republicans TOTALLY drop the ball." On the contrary, Republicans have to do everything right to boot Obama out of office.

Where does that leave us with the "Little Four"? I'm sympathetic to the argument that a true conservative could win, but it would take a Reagan, and not one of these candidates is a Reagan or anywhere near it.

Bachmann. She's smart, attractive, and at times articulate. She also got in some good shots against Gingrich last night (until she overplayed her hand). But she has weaknesses that will be used like hammers against her in a general election, and she has a tendency to start playing the sexism card when hammers are flying around. ("I'm a serious candidate! Stop dissing me!") Not good. Her staff is second-rate; they prepare her with scripted talking points (frequently dumb) that she lacks the spontaneity to make seem her own and doesn't know when to let go of -- the "Newt Romney" bit, for example. But they do not prepare her with sound information. She made the mistake last night of citing "Politifact" as proof that her charges against Newt in the prior debate were accurate. Politifact responded with an immediate denial, citing her well under .500 batting average on facts they'd previously researched from her and her campaign. The Oral Roberts degree is a problem. Her insistence on making abortion opposition a major part of her campaign is a problem. The laugh potential of a husband who believes homosexuality can be "cured" is a problem. The fact that so much of her base and financial support comes from the Tea Party is a problem.

I grant you her supporters may think she can win. But imagine all the ways Obama will run against her. Against Sarah Palin Lite. Against Oral Roberts University. Against her mechanical public performances (Stepford wife?). Against her probably closeted-and-denying-it gay husband. Against that racist Tea Party connection. Against her weak grasp of the facts on any given subject. And there will come a time when she will wilt under a kind of pressure she hasn't yet had the wit to foresee, or we'd have heard her real voice emerge from the rote campaign rhetoric as we have with Palin.

Santorum. Even you concede he's toast. So apparently it doesn't matter all that much to you if a candidate's supporters think he can win...

Paul. Michelle Bachmann absolutely cleaned his clock in last night's debate. He was left spluttering and unable to finish his own sentences during their exchange on Iran. Look up the clip. Speaking of "egotistical senile old fools..." No Republican can win the presidency without the support of old-fashioned national security Republicans. They will stay home. Discount me all you will on this. But they're a population of mature and older voters who remember the Cold War and the dangers of the world, and whom the Republican Party absolutely counts on to vote. If they stay home, all is lost: that's the two touchdowns the Republicans won't be able to make up.

Worse, Paul's supporters are his own worst enemy, which would become clear if he actually became the candidate. They torch every criticism, every expression of opposition, and they can mount internet campaigns against their targets that are guaranteed to turn off casual supporters by revealing the lockstep fanaticism of their, uh, movement. And btw, if the MSM is presently downplaying or omitting reportage of Paul's past newsletters, which flirt with everything from anti-semitism to Trutherism to racism, do NOT expect that not to become the centerpiece of an Obama campaign against him. They'd looooove to run against Ron Paul because he makes Obama's troubled relations with Israel and Jewish voters look good by comparison.

Perry. The N-Word rock. The N-Word rock. The N-Word rock. 24/7 on every TV station in the country. Was there anything else? Oh, yeah, maybe a few more things. Another Texas governor. Oh how Obama would love to run against George W. Bush one more time. And all the better if the latest incarnation of GW is the kind of Texas oaf who thinks the United States was founded in the 1600s. And, me, I can't help thinking -- and dreading -- the world-shattering October Surprise that's probably already safely under lock-and-key.

Huntsman. Good luck with that. I've nothing much against him but the fact that nobody knows who he is. Maybe he's great. Didn't show me much last night... I guess he better get going if he's going to be president.

Why I think Romney and Gingrich have the best chance to win. And I do think we can win.

I'll close by circling back to the Chevalier's scorn about my characterization of this election. He said:


No. I'm not freaking kidding you. It's not 2008 because Obama is an incumbent, for one thing. And for another thing, the fact that Independents are looking for a good excuse to vote against Obama this time when last time they were already in the bag before the campaign ever started. Yet, in the face of this, the off-putting internecine nastiness on our side of the fence, long before the first primary vote has occurred, is striking. Interestingly, the National Review's Jonah Goldberg felt compelled today to respond to some "chevaliers" who launched bitter attacks against the NR editorial which conspicuously did NOT endorse Gingrich yesterday. I'm going to quote him some and let you be the judge of any relevance it has to our discussions here:

Now on to some of the unfair, hyperbolic and just plain weird charges.

First of all, what is with this complaint that we are trying to “dictate” who people vote for? I don’t get it. We are, as always, an opinion magazine sharing our opinion. It is not binding... In 1980, WFB kept the magazine from endorsing Reagan (Bill loved the Gipper but had grave concerns about his age). We endorsed Mitt Romney in 2008, for many of the same reasons some of our biggest detractors today did — to stop John McCain.

As I suggested above, some critics of our editorial fault us for not outright endorsing Romney, others complain that we endorse him too much. If you’re a committed opponent of Romney — or a committed fan –  those are all fair gripes. But some of our friends should at least consider the possibility that such nuances reflect both internal differences as well as the messiness of political reality. A conservative,  James Burnham argued in the debates over endorsing Nixon in 1960, “has to set his course within the frame of reality.” Burnham supported endorsing Nixon on the grounds that the real enemies were supporters of Kennedy. Frank Meyer, meanwhile,  argued that endorsing Nixon would be a surrender to the Eisenhower liberalism the magazine had been criticizing for years. Bill found arguments on both sides compelling. So what did he do? He punted, endorsing no one.  “National Review,” he wrote, “was not founded to make practical politics. Our job is to think, and write.”...

When have I suggested here that you not make up your own minds? I just like to add grist to the mill. And if that fills you with bile, then I'd ask why. Because like Jonah, I'm equally concerned about "candidates for the captain’s chair that leave us unsure." And like the rest of you, I'm just trying to navigate my way through it.

Thursday, December 15, 2011

IF I'M SO WRONG, PROVE IT... Do you want it to be about TV ads and smears and contextless sound bites and snarky personal accusations? There aren't many professional politicians I'd want to associate with. My dad once dreamed that he was back in Hurricane Hazel, which bowed the front door of his house, and then there was a knock on that door. It was Harry Truman seeking sanctuary. In the dream my dad didn't let him in.

I'm amused by all the expert observers who know more about Newt than I do. Thing is, I was paying close attention when he was Speaker of the House. Guess what. He did more for our side than anyone else in the current list of candidates has ever done. The score isn't even close. But the true believers know better, of course. Here's something for you to consider before tonight: what one of his House staffers, Tony Blankley, has to say:


There's more. Read it.

Then think about the contradictions in your own positions. Everyone for Bachmann, Perry, Paul, or Santorum is already conceding the election. Everyone for Romney is making a totally irrational bet that he will perform better as president than he did as governor of Massachussetts. Bad bet. It's the only major elected office he's ever held, but not for want of trying. How long has he been running for president?

You can't have it both ways. If you're determined to lose, then go with the guy who won't look like a monotone marionette (Bachmann), a (way) dumbed-down version of GW, a hectoring old woman who can't ever look anybody straight in the eyes (Paul), or a defeated senator who has been successfully caricatured as paranoid about outbreaks of polygamy and bestiality. Go with the guy who can at least make a fight of it and bloody his opponent even if the decision goes against him..

If you're determined to win, you have another bet to make -- between the tortoise and the hare. Romney is the tortoise, and maybe safer if things were normal, but will the electorate really punch a ballot for Bill Slowsky when the whole world is disintegrating?


Here's the rub. Things are going to get worse. Europe is imploding, the middle east is tipping into chaos, and even the Chinese economy is slowing down. There is going to be another recession. Is Slowsky the answer? Maybe. But none of the so-called remaining conservative candidates is. Ron Paul doesn't even acknowledge the relevance of Europe and the middle east. Bachmann can't speak without a canned set of talking points from her handlers. Perry doesn't know when the constitution was signed or what it says. And Santorum can't ever blip the polls above zero.

The situation in 2012 may very well be ripe for the sudden turn of opinion that put Reagan in office, whatever the polls say now. Does anyone in the heartland know or care about the definition of the words "nimble" and "agile"? If you don't, maybe you should.


But forget all that. Whoever goes up against Obama really should be able to make the other Republican candidates look lesser. So watch the damn debate.

I promise I will. Brett Baer will be there. Neil Cavuto. Megyn Kelley. and Chris Wallace. I'm thinking they won't be throwing softballs.

And then comes the general election.


Who do you cast in the role of Bugs Bunny against the Obama coyote genius? Are you sure?

Tuesday, December 13, 2011

COLLEGE FOOTBALL. Golly. Ohio State will be playing in the Potato Bowl. Not making that up. Don't trust anything I say next. Some of it's true, some of it isn't. But can you tell which is which?

USC isn't bowl eligible. Why they're playing in the Allstate Allmost Bowl. Does anyone remember when bowl games weren't preceded by some brand name?

Here's a frightening fact. Every Division I team with a .500 record is bowl eligible. Ohio State's great rival, Michigan, is playing in the Perrier Water Bowl. Against Hawaii Southern if memory serves. Penn State is playing in the Ticket City Bowl against the Ticket City Junior Varsity High School team, excepting only those players who have reached puberty by game day.

Meanwhile, Virginia Tech is playing Florida State Technological Seminary in the Tyson's Chicken Burrito Bowl, in Mexico. Free tostitos to all customers who arrive by game time. Alabama is playing LSU in the Brent Musberger Chivolet Been There Done That Bowl sometime next year, where Obama will change sides at the half and shoot a few baskets en route. Then there's the Preparation H Bowl, which will be held as usual in El Paso, Texas, between SMU and the University of Chicago. South Carolina is playing itself in the Buddy's Smoked Mirrors Bowl, Notre Dame is playing the Massed Archangels of Heaven in the FritoLay God Bowl in Godforsaken, Alabama, and Temple is playing Wyoming in the Mopar Some Goddam Bowl, somewhere west of East Jesusville, Oklahoma. I swear.

I'm tempted here to spill the beans about other schools I know some of you have been to. Rutgers. The Citadel. Villanova. Et cetera. But maybe you should tell me. Which one of you has a secret ticket to the Washington Post Insider Bowl? Or the Starbuck's Catholic Atheist Bowl in South Bend, Indiana? Come clean. Where are your teams playing?

Enquiring minds want to know.

PART THREE. Haven't read the comments on my last post yet. I trust they were all laudatory.

Here she is. The last 20 or so dates from Psayings 5Y in one big blowout.

33. 1788. Constitution was ratified and Washington became President in 1789, so...

A bunch of states ratify the Constitution. Mozarts dashes off his last three symphonies in the span of a few months (don't let those older Encyclopedia Britannica boys bully you into saying "antepenultimate," Wikipedia. "Third-to-last" is just fine). The money event has to be The Great New Orleans Fire, which "kills 25% of the population and destroys 856 buildings, including St. Louis Cathedral and the Cabildo, leaving most of the town in ruins." Holy hell.

Births and deaths: Wilhelmine Reichard, the first German female balloonist. And David G. Burnet, who went on to become President of the Republic of Texas. Tough to imagine a cooler entry on a résumé. I pine for the days when politicians looked and carried themselves like this, and make politics seem like an adventure fit for only the rugged and intrepid. (I said "seem." Teddy Roosevelt's Croly-loving ass was just as statist as FDR.)

34. 1898. Sounds familiar? I might recognize it when I see it.

Oh. Spanish-American War. That one.

Annie Oakley offers McKinley "the services of a company of 50 'lady sharpshooters' who would provide their own arms and ammunition should war break out with Spain." He turned her down. What a dunce. Bet he could have used one of those lady sharpshooters at his side in 1901, amirite?

Assassination jokes, everybody!

35. Zero. Birth of whatshisname. Technically, there is no year zero.

36. 1984. The book.

37. "Four thousand and some B.C.". What? Guess I'll search 4000 BC?

Domestication of horses? One of the early human cultures? Boss, little help!

38. 1919. All these WWI-era dates blur together for me. Lusitania? No, that's what got us in the war. '19 must be Versailles?

Yup. Even spelled it right from memory. Damn French with their decorative consonants. How poncy can you get? I'm no fan of the Nazis, but when the History Channel covers 1940, I have a tough time rooting for the Third Republic. The fact that they rolled over and played dead proved they weren't playing. Done as a culture. Not just decadent, but dead. Finito. Kaput. Marshall should have left them out of his Plan.

39. 1944. Battle of the Bulge. And other stuff, but that's the big one and I don't know any of the other stuff. I could probably tell you any notable Batman comics that came out that year.

40. 1836. Piss. No clue.

Hey, the Alamo. Neat. The only reason I know that was a defeat for America was thanks to Married With Children, of all things. Al declares war on some emasculating domesticity or another and invokes the Alamo. Peg fires back "Al, we lost at the Alamo." Al: "Come on, Peg, no one remembers that!" Roars of laughter, as usual for that show-- was crudeness on TV really so revelatory back then?-- but this time the writers earned it. This was when "Remember the Alamo" was still an active and known phrase in the culture. I don't think I've heard it used since the end of the '80s.

41. 399 BC. Dunno.

­Socrates dies. They know the exact year?

42. 1564. That one's gotta be from a random number generator. ...maybe not.

"Conquistadors cross the Atlantic." Now that they mention it, I think I did a report on Conquistadors back in 5th grade. Guess I can't blame the school system for this lapse.

43. 33. The Crucifixion.

44. 1871. Derp.

"First ever photographs of Yellowstone National Park region taken by the photographer William Henry Jackson." Bully for William Henry Jackson. "The abolition of the han system is carried out in Japan." And to think, that sentence would have made me glaze over in my teenage years.

I bet it's that the first MLB game ever is played. I've got some tender feelings toward Dave the Dad for knowing the exact date. Whoever came up with Dave's list is a pretty good writer.

45. 337. Fall of Rome? Did we have that one already?

Kind of. Turns out Constantine's heirs divvy up the Roman Empire into three parts. Like Alexander's kids.

46. 1848. OK, I know this one, and it's complicated. I used to own an old book called Revolutions of 1848 that talked about revolts and uprisings happening all over the world. Looking it up­ to refresh my memory, I find revolutions in France, Germany, Austria, Denmark, Italy (the "Italian states" back then), Hungary, Switzerland(!), Belgium, Ireland, "Greater Poland," some made-up faerie land called Wallachia, some made-up Tolkein fifedom called the Habsburg Empire, and even effing Brazil.

The most potent revolution? Karl Marx publishes the faggoty Communist Manifesto. Thanks, dick.

47. 1896. More 19th century. In my mind, the era tastes like licking the side of a dirty old train. You know what I mean? Dunno what the hell supposedly happened this year.

Utah becomes a state. There's a quote I loved in my Mormon days that I can't find now, so I'll paraphrase. It's from a "gentile" outsider astounded and grudgingly impressed at the Mormons' intransigence on the polygamy issue. "The entire weight of the United States was brought to bear on this people. Their homes were broken up. Their leaders were arrested and driven into hiding. And they would not budge. But one word from their prophet [ending plural marriage], and they stop." Always loved that.

Also this year: The first modern Olympics. Ford makes its first car. Sousa writes Stars and Stripes Forever on Christmas. "The shortest war in recorded history, the Anglo-Zanzibar War, starts at 9 in the morning and lasts for 45 minutes of shelling." But I'm pretty sure the event in question is Plessy v. Ferguson.

48. 323 BC. Shrug.

Alexander dies, his kids divvy up Babylon. See, I knew of it. I knew it happened one of those years, in the past there.

Deaths: Diogenes. Ha.

49. 1452. Don't know.

Looked it up. Still don't know. Birth of da Vinci? I need the official word on this one too.

50. 1789. Constitution ratified. Washington becomes first President.

51. 1760. Stamp Act of the French and Indians? Dunno.

George II dies. I don't care what else happened this year. Since I am a cruel and purile 14-year-old boy at heart, I love the story of George II's death. From The First American: The Life and Times of Benjamin Franklin:


Love, love, love, that story. Will never stop loving it. Always chuckle imaging the king drinking a whole cup of melted chocolate every morning and it seals him up like it's pure cement. I know medical science wasn't then what it is now, but did no one guess that a cup of chocolate every morning might back a dude up? Was chocolate that new to the white man's diet?

I know I'm a bad person. No need to remind me.

Wait, it's 1660? Shit.

51. 1660. Cromwell beheads Charles the 1st. Or hangs him. I know it's one of those.

52. 1763. Stamp Act. For real this time.

53. 1849. Last one. Let's see if I can finish strong. 1849. 1849. What the hell happened 1849. It's the year after 1848.... I got nothing. Gonna have to look it up.

...and I still don't know. I'm too ignorant to see anything here that could make Dave's list. Hungary splits from Austria, ooh, big shit. Zach Taylor sworn in as President. So? What the hell was the New Roman Republic? In the 19th century? Sounds like a serious non-starter. Let's click and see what it was. Blah blah blah Pope blah blah blah Catholic Church YAWWWN, back to 1849. Fourth year of the Irish Potato Famine? No. "Denmark becomes a constitutional monarchy"? No. "The United States Department of the Interior is established"? Doubt it. How about this one: "James Bruce, 8th Earl of Elgin, the Governor General of Canada, signs the Rebellion Losses Bill, outraging Montreal's English population and triggering the Montreal Riots." Canadian history! It's its own punchline! Because it happened in CANADA!

So much for finishing strong. I break the tape with a cloud of question marks over my head.

That's my little history lesson. Only took me three weeks to squeeze it out in four posts. Dust off your Boomer Bible if it's been a while for you. Good shit in there.

Back to Archive Index