wedding madness

Matrimony Fever strikes again this weekend. An old friend is getting married Sunday. I already went to an engagement party, a bachelor party long weekend in Montreal (technically, this means we visited another country, though the strippers have no problem with the U.S. dollar), and went way out of my way to be fit for a tuxedo (I'm in the wedding party, but the entire wedding is black tie, which ensures that more people get to share the fun of renting uncomfortable clothing).

Now tonight, I'm expected to make another trip out to the tuxedo rental shop to try on the actual tux. Then this Sunday, I finally have the wedding; I've blocked out my Friday and Saturday nights anticipating that more wedding fun will kick in.

I have a friend who has a wedding coming up that had two separate, competing showers—both surprises for the lucky bride-to-be—thrown by her mother and the groom's mother, who don't get along. There was also, of course, an engagement party, and a bachelor party, and a party for the bridesmaids during the bachelor party (apparently two showers aren't enough), not to mention plenty of dress fittings. She's pulling her hair out, which sadly will give her hair stylist less to work with in her pre-wedding visit to the salon.

Worst of all, there are more weddings on the horizon. As soon as one of them wraps, it seems like another friend calls to tell me they just got engaged. I should be happy for them, and I am... but selfishly, it's also a little bittersweet. You mean I might need to rent another tux?

I've always said that when I get married, it'll be an intimate ceremony that'll steer clear of all the extraneous crap. But now I'm thinking about going in the opposite direction, to get back at all my friends who have put me through the paces with their weddings. First off, my wedding will be in Alaska. In the winter. And not in one of the populated areas—I'll find an area that's only accessible by dog sled. There will be at least four wedding-related events, all absolutely mandatory (unless the guest doesn't care about my feelings, snif snif), each at least a week and a half apart. At the ceremony, every attendee will be expected to offer a toast and/or memorize a complicated prayer in a dead language. There will be a large guest list; in fact, if you're reading this, you're invited. Bring something nice.

And yes, it will be black tie. You haven't lived until you've worn a tux on a dog sled.

dissing Da Vinci

"The Da Vinci Code" is getting panned, and for anyone who read the book, it wasn't hard to see this coming. Granted, Akiva Goldsman ("A Beautiful Mind" and "Cindarella Man") is probably a more talented screenwriter than I am. But this is a rambling page-turner of a book that is fascinating in part for its historical tangents, and in part for its puzzles that wouldn't seem to translate effectively to the big screen.

Right now, on rottentomatoes.com—a site that compiles reviews from other sources—Da Vinci has a lower composite rating (21% of critics like it) than (gulp) "Poseidon" or "RV."

Here's A.O. Scott, writing for the N.Y. Times, describing the film:

"The Da Vinci Code"... is one of the few screen versions of a book that may take longer to watch than to read.

But you know what? Sadly, I'll probably still go see it—even at the nearly $11 it costs to sit in a theater in New York City.

even better than the real thing

This is old news, but a fantastic prank. A New York improv group impersonating U2 took to a rooftop for an imprompu "concert" across the street from Madison Square Garden the same day the real band played there last year. (U2 has played unscheduled shows in L.A., Dublin and New York, which added credibility to the prank.)

The imposters got through almost five songs—including an encore—before the police stopped the show. Because the band (mostly made up of members of a cover band, dressed to the part) were barely visible from the street, most onlookers bought that it was U2.

The group's recount of the event is hilarious, with a detailed look at the planning and aftermath of the event, include the cops' reaction to learning that The Edge was impersonated by a Korean American.

Bill Simmons blows minds

As the man himself might say, there are your everyday bad decisions, there are the moves Isiah has made with the Knicks, and then there's this:

ESPN.com columnist Bill Simmons—who, to be clear, I read regularly and think is extremely talented and one of the funnier writers out there today, working in any medium—wrote a several thousand word running diary of yesterday afternoon's "Mike and the Maddog" show, a sports talk program on New York's WFAN.

Granted, the show is now simulcast on TV over the YES Network, which is available nationally via Direct TV (I think). And starting a few weeks ago, you can also listen to a web cast (you can find it here). Even so, what percentage of people outside of the New York area remotely give a shit? And even among New Yorkers like me, who tune in to "Mike and the Maddog" occasionally—did we need thousands of words to make fun of (and strangely, mostly flatter) this show?

And flatter Simmons does. Here's a couple of glaring excerpts:

• "...it's my favorite radio show ever. As I have mentioned many times in this space, I despise pretty much all forms of sports radio at this point, and it's mainly because Mike and the Dog are so entertaining."

• "I could listen to Mike read just about anything random -- Star Jones' autobiography, Michael Bolton lyrics, the Emergency Broadcast System's test message, an erectile dysfunction ad, you name it -- and be thoroughly entertained."

• "Dog struggles to say the word "Phillies." He's not strong with his L's and his R's. That's part of his charm."

• "Nobody has better jingles than this show. My favorite is the prolonged one at the start of the hour that goes, 'They're going at it as hard as they can! Mike and the Mad Dog, on the FAN. Nothing can get by 'em, turn it on and try 'em... Mike and the Mad Dog! W-F-A-N!!!!!'"

(Personally, I've always thought the fact that their jingle includes the line "They're going at it as hard as they can" is hilarious in a junior-high-school kind of way, and I'm absolutely stunned that Simmons bothered to mention the jingle and passed up on an opportunity to point that out.)

It's incredible that ESPN.com would run this, that Simmons would want to write this in the first place, and that he would write it and somehow it would wind up being even less interesting than anyone could have predicted. I mean, aside from the joke about John Flaherty ("Tonight at 11 on Yankeeography ... John Flaherty beats the odds to become the most mediocre backup catcher in Yankee history!"), there's very little here that's funny—even if you actually listen to the regional sports talk show he's writing about.

Unintentional comedy scale, anyone?

new poll offers clues about '06, '08

A new N.Y. Times/CBS News poll was released today, and the news is bleak for the party in power. Things haven't exactly gone from bad to worse; to put it more precisely, and in words Bush might use, they've gone "from worse to worser."

Here are some highlights from the poll:
• Bush's overall approval down to 31%. As the Times points out, in the last 50 years only Nixon and Carter have ever had lower approval ratings.
• Bush's handling of the following issues each polled at less than 30%: Iraq, foreign policy, the economy, immigration, and gas prices (only 13%).
• Only 23 percent think our country is on the right track. This is a historically bad figure. By comparison, before the "Republican Revolution" in the '94 midterm elections, 30 percent thought our country was on the right track. Bush would kill for 30 percent right now.
• Along the same lines, only 23 percent approve of the job Congress is doing. Although, prehaps predictably, Americans aren't blaming themselves: despite negative feelings toward Congress as a whole, 53 percent approve (and only 31 percent disapprove) of their individual representative. These figures show how tough it will be to win back a majority in the House, but the comparison to '94 is once again favorable. Before that election, 56 percent held positive views of their representative.
• More good news: 36 percent see their vote this fall primarily as a chance to indirectly vote against Bush, while only 45 percent say thier vote for a Congressman will not reflect their approval or disapproval of the Prez. Think about that for a second: almost as many people say they plan to use their vote this fall to penalize Bush, as to evaluate the candidate they'll actually cast a vote for.
• Here's a slightly surprising tidbit that could influence 2008: despite the huge gains by Democrats, some prominent figures have actually seen their approval ratings decline. Don't expect to see Gore or Kerry do well if they run in the Democratic primary; they both have less than a 30 percent approval rating. Curiously, Kerry's approval rating is now 14 points lower (at 26 percent) than it was right after he lost the election.

You don't need to be an expert to see that things look good for the Democrats, but we're still six months away from the election. But then, considering the incompetence of the Bush administration—especially in the last couple of years—things could actually look even better for Dems when November rolls around.

And as far as '08, not only is that still years—and hundreds of news cycles—away, but this poll reinforces the idea that Dems need some new blood; more to the point, they need someone to emerge as a viable alternative to Hillary, if for no other reason than to whip her into shape by forcing her to win a tough primary campaign.

Colbert vs. Bush

Check this out: Steven Colbert speaking at the White House Correspondents dinner a few days ago. Colbert skewers Bush, despite the fact that they're just a few feet away from each other. It's long (over 20 minutes!) and not all great, but there's a lot of really sharp material here.

"There are those who would say the glass is half empty... but 32 percent [Bush's approval rating] means it's actually 2/3 empty."

MSNBC sticks it to the man

While I was home for lunch just now, I managed to catch some of an MSNBC special about the gas crisis (with the curious title "Stick it to The Man"), and it actually brought up a couple of clever ideas.

Check out www.fuelbank.com. This site allows you to pre-pay gas online and—get this—allows you to lock in as many gallons as you want at the current gas price, no matter when you purchase the gas at the pump. In other words, if you pay $2.80 a gallon now, you can collect that gas from the pump at that price years from now, even if gas prices have gone up considerably. MSNBC spoke to a man who was paying $0.98 a gallon today, because that was the price he locked in years ago. Even better, if the price goes down before you use the gas you've purchased, Fuelbank will refund the difference. (Begs the question of how they make money on any of this, but I'll let their accountants worry about that.)

The program also highlighted a man who recently decided he can kill two birds with one stone by quitting the gym and biking 12 miles to work every day. Obviously this isn't a viable option for everyone, but it does point out how illogical it is to pay an arm and a leg to get to work and back, then hit the gym after work and run in place for an hour. (Reminds me of Lewis Black's observation that he can't understand how in New York, a city with millions of stairs, people will pay almost $100 a month to use a Stairmaster and then refuse to live in a walkup apartment.)

taking back the Northeast

Interesting article by Raymond Hernandez in today's N.Y. Times about how Dems hope to take back the House by focusing on Congressional districts in the relatively liberal Northeast.

In eight of the 12 districts being targeted, Kerry received more votes than Bush in the 2004 Presidential election. With Bush looking much more vulnerable now than he did a couple of years ago, and with the President polling far worse throughout states like New York and Connecticut than elsewhere in the country, Democrats hope to gain ground by tying local Republican leaders with Bush.

Is it possible that Dems have actually hit on a strategy that could work?

Maybe. The challenge will be unseating long-standing House incumbents—never an easy task, because in local races name recognition (going back decades, in some cases) is often a more powerful motivator than party affiliation. Incumbents almost never lose in the House.

Another challenge is financial. Incumbents have access to more money. The Times cites the Connecticut 5th as a district where the incumbent has $2.5 million, more than three times as much as her challenger. Both candidates are receiving support from the national party leaders.

More bad news: Democrats are down 15 seats in the House, so even if this strategy is successful (like, if they can grab 8 of the 12 seats the Times mentions), there'll still be a long way to go.

Even so, it does create some hope for this fall's midterm elections.

Frist responds to Home/spuN, drops rebate plan

In light of scathing criticism posted yesterday in this space, Senator Bill Frist dropped his proposed tax rebate plan, which was created to ease concerns about rising gas prices. (Technically, Frist postponed the plan, saying it would be brought up again "later this year," but that's sort of the equivalent of a struggling restaurant posting a sign that it's "closed for renovations." Don't expect to eat there again anytime soon.)

Interestingly enough, much of the criticism of Frist's plan—and certainly, the criticism that led to the plan's collapse—came from business leaders, not Democrats. Apparently Big Business (aka The Man) is concerned about the bill because it would be paid for by an accounting change that would draw more tax money from oil companies as well as any other company that keeps a large inventory. Naturally, this drew a huge backlash from a wide spectrum of business leaders, rousing our president, who is always an advocate for the fair treatment of our corporate interests. (Bush threatened to veto the bill, apparently between rounds of Madden 06.)

What's interesting here is that, in a way, this only makes Michael Kinsley's proposal in Slate (highlighted here yesterday) seem even more logical and agreeable, because Kinsley's new proposed tax would only effect oil companies, avoiding the greatest rallying cry against Frist's proposal (which is that it would unfairly impact a wide range of businesses).

Of course, it would have been nice if Frist's proposal fell apart not because it offended business interests, but because, you know, giving Americans $100 each won't exactly solve our fuel crisis. But hey, us Democrats have to take our victories where we can get them.

fill 'er up

Remember that lack of policy creativity that I was faulting our leaders for this morning? Slate's Michael Kinsley has a novel idea: one that not only makes a lot of sense, but could also go a loooooong way to solving some of our gas pump problems.

His idea is, basically, to tax the oil companies on all the additional profit they've made because of turbulence in the Middle East. I'll let him explain:

A year ago, that price was about $46 a barrel. Now it's more than $70 a barrel... Let's round off a bit and say that American oil extractors are getting an extra $25 a barrel. For 150 million barrels a month, that's $45 billion a year. And that's just for the oil that's extracted.

Kinsley would have the government collect that $45 billion a year in taxes going forward, and put that money toward the war, which is a nice enough idea. But it could be spent in any number of ways. Hey Republicans! Just think: if spending $10 billion to give Americans $100 each will solve our fuel crisis, how much more solving can we do with $450 checks?

The sad thing is, that's probably exactly how Frist, Bush, etc. would look at it. (Though, you know, a $450 check from an oil company wouldn't be the worst thing...)

True, oil companies would react to such a law by lowering prices to the pre-tax level, so let's not spend that money just yet. But I don't think too many people would be upset about that outcome.

Congress springs into action

With gas costs rising across the country right and the summer travel season approaching—not to mention the everyday pinch on commuters—pressure is mounting on our leaders to take action.

Say what you will about the current administration, but one thing they know about is the oil industry. Sure, certain aspects of running the country haven't always been easy for Bush & Co.—foreign policy and domestic policy come to mind in particular as problem areas. But this gasoline crisis is an area where they can draw on experience and show some of that decisive leadership we keep hearing about.

So what have they come up with? Perhaps a concrete plan and increased commitment to developing alternative fuels? Maybe new regulations on gas companies to limit price gouging and automobile manufacturers to improve gas milage?

Nope. Our executive branch isn't doing much of anything, actually. But our Senate Republican leaders, in all their wisdom, have sprung into action with a novel idea. Another tax rebate check, $100 mailed in advance of the November midterm elections, naturally.

For me, this is like found money. I live in New York City, walk to work and don't even own a car. But for the millions of Americans who do own cars, and especially those who commute, what kind of impact will $100 have? A few weekends ago I rented a car for a roadtrip to Montreal, and two fillups of non-premium gas in a freakin' Hyundai cost close to $100. So basically, Bill Frist and his buddies are saying, "We have no idea how to fix this, but here's a couple of week's worth of free gas!"

Except of course, it's not free; it's money—roughly $10 billion—the government could have put to use finding a real solution.

Either I'm on the wrong side of the argument somehow, or this is an especially ridiculous proposal, because for once, even many conservatives agree with me.

The N.Y. Times quotes Rush Limbaugh's reaction to the proposal:

"What kind of insult is this?" Rush Limbaugh asked on his radio program on Friday. "Instead of buying us off and treating us like we're a bunch of whores, just solve the problem."

The same article points out that Brit Hume recently called the idea "silly" on Fox News.

Never a group to sit idly by and watch a potential controversy unfold without comment, the Democrats have prepared their response!!!

Democrats still want credit for being the first to think of putting money back in taxpayers' pockets... A few days before the Republicans went public with their plan, Senator Debbie Stabenow, Democrat of Michigan, proposed a $500 rebate plan.

The Democrat response is to give out even more money?! No wonder we're stuck with the leaders we're stuck with.

In the meantime, I'll be taking things into my own hands. When my check arrives I've come up with a plan to give myself a Personal Alcohol Stipend, to invest in going to a bar and getting obliterated in an effort to alleviate tension about governmental incompetence. Hey, easier to deal with it that way than actually facing the problem, right Senator Frist?