INCEPTION was very good: could it have been better?

(although nobody reads this blog, I want to issue a minor Spoiler Alert before we get started. ::whoop whoop:: ok. let's get started.)

I remember when I first saw the trailer for "Inception." First, it's the visuals that grab you. Paris is folding over into itself while Leo DiCaprio and Ellen Page sit in a cafe. Things start exploding around them yet they remain safe as though they're in a bubble. Then it's a train running loose down a major city street. A gravity-defying fight is taking place in a hotel hallway. Then you hear those thumping mechanical horns and it says, "From Christopher Nolan," and suddenly I'm getting out my phone to mark opening day in my calendar. It's about dreams? Sounds good. Sign me up.

The weight of expectations was always going to be a challenge for "Inception," the follow-up to Nolan's much adored "The Dark Knight." Expectations were high, and not just because of Batman and how good it was, but because - let's face it - this has been a miserable summer for adults who want to see good blockbusters. "Inception" stood alone as an event movie this season.

So I watched it. And you know what? "Inception" is actually somewhere between very good and great. It manages to be a fairly complex story with a lot of rules you have to follow in order to keep up, but yet it's never alienating. I think this might be where a lot of the debate is starting to center around. Is it too complex? Or is it actually not complex enough? This somehow seems to be where the debate it heading. You'd think consensus would lean towards one side.

To my mind, the story's complexity isn't a problem. True, it never gets into the "Primer" zone, for better or worse. "Primer" is this fascinating indie picture about time travel from a few years ago. Now there's a movie that really challenges your ability to follow along. It essentially dares you to re-watch it and figure out how everything fits together. "Inception" never gets to that point and that's okay. A major idea of the movie centers around our psyche being like a maze, a place that can being physically explored. I suppose to have felt lost within the story would have been an exciting exploration of that theme, but for all its rules, "Inception" is actually a pretty linear story. They go into the dream. Then they go into the dream-within-the-dream. And then they go down two more levels. They find resolution in Level Four and then the dream is over. A little confusing sometimes but no maze there really.

Here's the thing: maze or no maze, it's a really engrossing movie and there's only one thing I can imagine that could really take it to the next level: let's call it the Ellen Page Factor. She is such an enjoyable presence on screen. But her character is devoid of any real development in this story. I propose we use her character to fix a few things about the movie that could have been stronger.

For starters, like DiCaprio's character says in the movie, when you're dreaming you don't know you're dreaming. So why do all of Leo's crew know that they're dreaming all the time? Wouldn't we as an audience have connected more with the main characters if we saw them struggling to remember that the world surrounding them wasn't real? What if the explanation was that it's a skill they have to learn: to stay fully conscious while interacting with dreams. In that case, Ellen Page's character as the newbie could be the one we see struggling to keep it all straight. I think if the audience saw that it would draw us even further into the story. I understand that would pose new obstacles for the writers, since you wouldn't want to keep repeating the same type of scene over and over every time they move into a deeper dream level. "Oh my god, Leo you've been shot! You're dying!" "No no, come on. We've been over this. Remember? We're in a dream, okay?" "Oh yeah, right. I forgot." Yes, it would get old, so you'd have to be clever with how you did it, but it could be done.

Which brings me to the next thing. I would have preferred it if the Fourth Level Dream was given some time to unfold, to really showcase Leo & Ellen Page stuck in this deep inner dimension, much like his character was years ago. I want to see Ellen Page coming unraveled and having deja vu moments about her real life, forgetting if it ever was her real life. This would be much like "2001" after the wormhole scene. Just a bizarre meditation on life and time until they finally find what they're looking for (speaking of which, why was Leo's character still a young man when he found Saito, who was so old?). I think this would've given the story a little extra something, an extra sense of feeling lost in the whole thing. Maybe it needed to be a little mystical here. Something like a memory long forgotten and and briefly remembered. The sense that life has somehow been going on for an eternity. This would give their re-emergence all the more dramatic release when they finally wake-up.

So that's it really. Hey Chris Nolan, you should have used Ellen Page's character more! That's really my whole point. Otherwise, people who didn't like this movie are either stupid or nit-picking. Because it's a really good movie! And that's really rare for Hollywood lately!

Enjoy Failure

Dear Blog,

You are all I have left.  No one else will listen to my salty rants and my beautiful ideas.  So I turn to you in my time of need.

I am almost a fully grown man.  I am growing lonelier and ever more bitter with each passing day. Life for me has been a series of bad decisions and missed opportunities.  I don't have very much money, I have no women, I have waning hope for finding a truly satisfying career.  I have no fundamental hobby to fall back on, I have no plans for my future.  Overall, there is nothing much left for me in this world.  I am becoming a miserable failure.  [If you need definitive proof of my demise, here it is: I know who Jon & Kate + 8 are because I sometimes watch the show.  And what's worse is I'm not a.) married to a wife that I can blame it on, b.) a homo, c.) forced to watch it for any sort of publication.  This is called failing without dignity, my friends.]

When I'm not watching shows intended for middle-aged female audiences I might be watching sports instead.  (I don't bring this up with the hopes of keeping my Man Card.  You can't keep your Man Card after you admit to watching anything on The Learning Channel, I think.)  Specifically I enjoy watching the NBA Playoffs.  This was supposed to be the year when Kobe and LeBron finally battled for ultimate supremacy, like Batman versus Superman or something.  That's the match-up everyone wanted, I guess.  And LeBron was supposed to win, finally freeing the People of Cleveland from decades of shame and disappointment.  But like me, Cleveland was painfully reminded, again, that happiness and victory are never to be found in this life, and that torment and misery will be their only friends.

I sympathize with Cleveland, I guess.  BUT - and there is a big but here - I must confess, I'm also taking great delight in their defeat.  You might say I'm even basking in it.  Let me explain why.

I'm someone who feels like they can't catch a break in life.  If I bet on red, then you should bet on black because you will make money, you see?  That's how it works.  Likewise, if I was a character in the story The Lottery then surely I would be the one who pulled the red marble (or whichever color marble kills you).  I am a living, breathing Wile E. Coyote, and I'm tired of failing.  But you know what's a nice consolation while you continue to fail all the time?  Answer: watching the Road Runner also fail.

This brings me to LeBron James.  

King James.  The Messiah & Saviour.  Redeemer to All Mankind.  

He failed.  And he wore his agony on his sleeve. 

And I swallowed it up like sweet champagne.  

Life has endowed LeBron James with so many natural talents that you just start to think that it's not fair.  I'm not saying I like that about myself.  Boo effing hoo, etc.  I got that.  Nonetheless, that's where I'm at.  And this past Saturday I was offered a rare treat in this life.  I got to be a witness when The King - the person who has it all - came up short.  He was devastated.  He couldn't even bring himself to congratulate the team that won.  He couldn't even face the media afterwards.  Rather, he just vanished into a cloud of smoke.

Yes, that was probably one of the worst days of LeBron's young life.  And yet, I became happier for it?  What's wrong with me?  Am I the worst person alive?

Listen, I don't have all the answers.  Maybe I'm the worst.  Maybe I'm not.  Or maybe LeBron is the worst for always succeeding all the time.  Who really knows?

Here's what I do know: I will continue to enjoy LeBron's failure for the time being and I will do so without guilt.  And besides, it's only a matter of time for him before the championships and the parades and the granite statues made in his honor.  His ultimate failure is highly unlikely.  So for this brief second, this brief moment of despair on the hero's journey, let me just enjoy it.  Let me savor the fact that LeBron and I are both failures, and that he is as human as I am.

ps. I wrote the Neko Case essay and it was lame, which helped remind me why I didn't want to write album & movie reviews in the first place.  But here's the summary: Neko Case's new album is good so you should buy it if you like good music.  i like her voice.  the end.

soft & boring

back to the blog grind.

i've enjoyed a cold, lonely winter and now it is time to begin again the journey we started years ago. i'm reminded of walt's ghost who once told a wounded john locke to get up because there was still work to be done. indeed there is, walt.

my friends, napkin sketches has been a formless forum of free thought for the entire duration of its existence. while this template may never die entirely, i have decided to shift ever so slightly towards a new path. free thought will always reign, but now it will reign within the confines of the arts. yes, i believe we are headed towards the art appreciation phase of Napkin Sketches. here we will not be boring criticizers of art. instead we seek to roll around in great art, to enjoy it, and to champion it.

the next phase begins very soon with a look at the brilliant neko case and her new album, middle cyclone.

what's that you say? i've becoming boring and soft? well my friends you are mistaken. i have always been very boring and extremely soft.

whatever. it's a stupid blog. let's just see where this takes us.

a toast to my country

here's to the rebels




and to the founders




to the newly free




to the innovators





to the weary




to the heroes




to those who fought just to be equal





to the impossible becoming possible




to all the peaceful resolutions and restored freedoms




to all those who never succumbed to fear





and to those who dared to hope.







we did it.

couric, where art thou?

many people expected (hoped) that sarah palin would utterly fall on her face tonight at the vice presidential debate (people like me). what would that look like exactly? maybe she would have vomited all over herself on live tv. maybe should would have gone Garth on us and simply stood in trembling silence trying to think of something to say for minutes at a time. otherwise, i don't know what utter failure looks like. i suppose it looks like what eventually happened: the moderator asked a question and sarah palin talked about whatever she could think to say, no matter how irrelevent her response was to the question.

katie couric ruined this woman over the past few weeks, from seeing russia from her backyard to not reading any newspapers to not knowing anything about america's legal history. she was exposed as a know-nothing fraud. i guess in a best-case-scenario for the debate tonight, people who loathe her like myself wish she had stumbled as thoroughly as she repeatedly did with couric.

but that was never going to happen tonight. the debate format limited follow-up questioning and moderator gwen ifill was rarely confrontational with the candidates. in essence, if you're palin and you don't know how to answer a question you simply fill the silence with words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words no matter how loosely they pertain to the question. SHE DID THE SAME THING WITH COURIC, except here's the difference: couric challenged her to go beyond the words with specifics which is the moment she looked down and realized she was walking on air.






that moment never came tonight, so she continued to walk on air i guess. biden is largely to blame for this because it was his job to call her out for dodging questions and he never did because he was playing Prevent Defense. whatever. joe was good otherwise.

in short, we're [hopefully] a just over a month away from never having to think about sarah palin again (that is, until she pops up on 'dancing with the stars' next season). and just for the record before i go on strike from ever talking about her again, i openly root for palin's failure because she represents the worst in the 'american voter.' those who would support her show an uncanny display of disdain for the power of the presidency and the seriousness of the job. they will say she is charming. relatable. has a nice smile. energetic. milf.

to those i would direct them to lauren graham, aka. the mom on gilmore girls. she is all those things and then some. which reminds me what a shame it is that gilmore girls had to rush through its final season a few years ago instead of getting the proper send-off it deserved. maybe it makes me a gay-wad for admitting gilmore girls was a &%#$ing good show, but i don't care. and now i'm starting to think they should bring it back for one last season and chronicle the meteoric rise of mama gilmore as she wins mayor of her small town and stumbles into the governor's mansion shortly thereafter, only then to be called by a floundering presidential candidate for her help. "just be cute," he says. "we'll take care of the rest." i.e. we'll blame the media bias for all your shortcomings, we'll shield you from the public as much as possible, and we'll lobby the debate commission for a format where the vp candidates can't directly address one another. the conservative base will declare you the new reagan, which will remind us just how phony reagan actually was. and together we will maverick our way to the white house.

whatever. sarah palin sucks. the end.

fear & loathing in michigan

i've been reading the Good Doctor's book about the '72 election, "fear & loathing on the campaign trail," because i can't get enough of this election business. back then it was nixon trying to keep the white house away from the democrats, a bid for re-election against the odds-off favorite to win even his own party's nomination, that person being george mcgovern. in the end, nixon wins the race handedly, and in fact mcgovern almost manages to lose every single state in the union. i'm still reading the book, so how nixon accomplishes this landslide remains a mystery to me.

as we approach the final leg of this never-ending presidential campaign, i thought i would write an ode to the great gonzo journalist in the best gonzo style i can muster...







the democrats were supposed to be a shoe-in this year after the wrecking ball presidency that has been george walker bush / dick cheney. and yet here we are with six weeks before the general election and the polls are dead even. leave it to the democrats to find a way to ruin a perfectly winnable election. they couldn't just nominate some white guy and get it over with. instead they picked a young black guy with the middle name hussein in order to tempt fate as much as possible. not that i dislike obama. in fact he's pretty damn impressive if you ask me. but there sure are a lot of stupid bastards out there who probably wouldn't grab a life line from anyone who's not white, if you catch my drift.

michigan is one of those vaunted "battleground" states you're always hearing about. it's a GD mess of racial, ethnic and economic segregation. getting 50.1% of the residents of this state to vote for the young black fella isn't unimaginable given the devastated economy around these parts (one person in ten is now unemployed in this state). you've got to be some sort of devoted republican to stay true to the GOP this year. you've got to give those slimy rats credit for trying though. there's no shortage of feces they won't try to throw against the wall. and this v.p. gimmick is going in the history books for something, either as a brilliant political stunt the likes of which we've never seen before or the most colossial pander-act of desperation ever attempted in the entire history of american politics, which isn't to say those two things can't both be true. it's not a stretch to imagine some of these yankees with their southern roots and confederate flags getting excited about the lady from alaska. she's the closest thing to dubya on either of the tickets, which is probably not appealing to you or me, but for some of these goofy bastards it's an out-and-out gift from God. personally i don't understand the appeal of presidential candidates who can't explain basic policies and speak with definitive generalities, like "war against russia might be necessary," spoken with no regard for reality. but hey, who doesn't love a good republicans vs. the commies conflict? it really brings me back to the good ole days and i'm starting to think governor palin might be the next ronald reagan after all.

the numbers say it's a dead heat here in The Mitton. traveling around this troubled state day-in, day-out, it's much harder to get a sense of this thing. obama is definitely winning the bumper sticker battle. spotting a mccain bumper sticker is a bit like trying to spot a shooting star. it happens from time to time, and every time it's surprising. i find myself staring at the presumptively white catholic inside said vehicle with a heart full of pity and rage. i want to ask them if they really support john mccain or do they just not want obama to win? i've seen the phrase "Nobama" scribbled in the dirt on the backside of a few cargo trucks and i can't help but assume the truckers inside have fallen victim to the cultish disease called conservative talk radio. do these truckers realize how a mccain vote destablizes the union they take comfort in? why vote against your own interests? it's like a bodysnatchers situation. but at least these folks don't hide their anti-obama vote behind a "mccain" sticker. i can respect that.







i was surprised to see obama yard signs the past few days in the rural parts around grand rapids (a conservative region) and even in the rural hillsdale area. i met a few guys in the little town of charlotte who were as excited as a cheerleader on coke when they saw the obama button on the bag i carry around. it makes me think of iowa. in other words, as long as the white folks are at a distance from the black folk, they are fine and dandy with the young fella.

it's metro detroit that's hard to figure out. obama just isn't getting traction with a majority of the suburbanites, i fear. my city is your classic blue-collar, hardhat kind of town with a democratic club just up the street. so why is it that there are three mccain yard signs within a stone's throw and not one obama sign for miles? why doesn't the democrat club and the UAW hall have signs of support up for all to see? i saw a poll that had mccain up about 20 points in the metro area outside of detroit itself, which only makes sense when you confront the reality of racial prejudice in the region. no big surprise considering the [former] mayor of detroit is now a convicted fellon who used millions of taxpayer dollars for hush money. he's pretty much everything suspicious white people fear obama will become: a power-abusing, blacks-first ruler who flaunts more than he works. there's even a commercial floating out there trying to link obama with this d-bag.



(click on mug for slimy ad)




my car is pretty dirty right now. i have an obama sticker taped to the inside of my rear window. i was in the township of delhi earlier in the day which boarders lansing. somebody in delhi wrote "yes" in the dirt above my obama sticker on my car, which was more exhilirating than it had any right to be. when you're in a close race you'll take any little thing to feel better about your chances. of course, i'm demoralized daily at the sight of a mccain headquarters located in the bottom floor of the building a do work for. and why is there a relatively attractive blonde girl working inside at the front desk inside his office? for the most part it's old folks and stiff white kids coming in and out. but her? like i said, it's a bodysnatchers sort of deal. that's all i can figure. i'm sure she's been convinced obama is a baby killer.

the ladies i know up in the corn fields of tuscola county didn't take too well to obama at first. they took the button off my bag and laid it on the floor, in fact. but we've talked...i've preached the gospel as best i could, even in the face of "i think the president should be from america" ignorance. i can't say for sure if they will all vote for mccain now, but they at least don't seem to hate the young messenger of Hope anymore.

i have no idea what's going to happen in this state. if rock-o can keep railing on this economy thing i suspect he has a chance. and he just about has to win michigan if he wants to be president. but if he can't win these lunch pal types down here then there's no telling where all this is headed. what does it mean when the blue-collars stop voting for democrats?

to be continued...

who needs ears?

coming soon

blue collar blues

dear mr. obama,

i felt compelled to write you the day after the pennsylvania primary to let you know why i didn't vote for you.

it's not that i was enamored with hillary. in fact, i think we can both agree she's sort of loud and that her voice is something like an alley cat being ground to death by a wood chipper. of course i like bill a whole lot. life was better in the 90's than it is now, and he was president for a lot of those years, so i think having him back in the white house could make times good again. we didn't talk about terrorists and the economy as much back then. it was more about oj simpson and tonya harding and so forth. times were simpler and i liked that. plus bill was just flat out cool, which i'm sure you'd agree with.

but this goes beyond my love of bill. frankly, mr. obama, if i might cut to the chase, i didn't vote for you because i'm afraid of your black skin and your funny name. while i'd be uncomfortable calling myself a racist i do know that i wouldn't want my daughter dating no black. why? they're disruptive in groups at the movie theater for one. second, they'd rather take a check from the government than work. and tell me this: why do so many black folks have handicap parking passes? lazy i tell you.

do you like tyler perry's body of work? i'll bet you do.






another thing: your middle name is hussein. as far as i can tell, that's an arab's name, just like saddam who's hopefully rotting in a pit of fire as we speak. how do we know a black arab like you won't blow up the white house your first day on the job? you'd probably be too lazy to do it on the first day.

of course those are jokes. i don't exactly believe all of that. but i am worried black people will over take the white species and you know they're dying to enslave us for a change. so that's something that lingers in the back of my mind about you.

also, i was told that you're an elitist and i don't like the thought being bossed around by some high-brow know-it-all champagne-drinking black arab. i'll bet the french just love you, don't they? you seem french to me, and i don't like that. senator clinton seems more american to me than you do. i'll bet you drive a prius, too. that just dawned on me.

fact is, i love guns, beer, bowling and The Lord. you seem like you don't, and therefore i'm afraid you won't represent my best interests if you become the president. i guess that's what it really boils down to for me.

i don't like you're pastor either. he thinks america's evil and i think the opposite is true. warrants mentioning.

in short, i don't trust you and therefore you didn't receive my vote. i can't quite put my finger on why that is, but if i figure it out i'll be sure to let you know.


mr. obama, i wish you all the best, mostly, and i thank you for your time.


sincerely,

anonymous blue collar male who's catholic and making less than $50,000 annually with no college education

mcdonald's fights culture

i want to talk about coffee & mcdonald's for just a minute.

here's the scene: two women are sitting in a bookstore cafe sipping coffee by a fire. think liberal arts grad students. not exactly mcdonald's bread and butter clientèle.

they break away from their NY Times and Dostoevsky and have an exchange similar to the following:

blond white girl: "Hey, so i heard mcdonald's makes lattes now."

jewish girl: "Well that's...that's...fantastic," she says, social consequences be damned.

and then they say things like i don't have to listen to jazz all day long! i can read gossip magazines again! i can watch reality tv! i don't really know how to speak french! i don't even know where paraguay is! what's paraguay?

And then the pitch: Try mcdonald's McCafe coffees. all the coffee, hold the attitude.

and i wonder aloud: who is Ronald McDonald appealing to with this ad?







possibility #1 - they are appealing to starbucks nation

maybe this commercial is on to something. maybe people across the country don't really like starbucks at all. maybe they're just trying to look cultured and intellectual. perhaps it will only take a few brave souls to stand up and break the chains of oppression that starbucks shackles us with. no more pretending. no more jazz or literature or notebooks. no more double roasted beans with italian names. no more! we can be ourselves. we CAN drink cheaper, less flavorful coffee at mcdonald's and chit-chat about non smart things. sweet.

maybe.

possibility #2 - they are appealing to wal-mart nation

assuming possibility #1 doesn't happen, then who else might this ad appeal to? might it be the very people who resent starbucks nation? people who see the starbuck elites as phony liberals and want nothing to do with them? people who revel in being quote-unquote less cultured than other's of us and will stake their superiority flag in the moral high ground of unpretentiousness?

leave it to mcdonald's to pick a culture fight in order to galvanize its base by uniting it against a different type of culture. no other restaurant chain is so self-conscious as to concern itself with the culture level of its customers (except maybe arby's). just advertise your product like burger king does. be proud of your cheap price and guilty pleasure appeal.

this is a classically political tactic, though. imitate your nemesis (hey, let's sell lattes like starbucks does!) and then destroy them for the very qualities that you admired and wanted to steal in the first place. this is like clinton or mccain killing obama on his message of hope and then ripping him off moments later (mccain: "i'm fired up and ready to go!" clinton: "yes we can!").

the final bit of crap here is that most people don't completely fit into one category. who doesn't go to both starbucks & mcdonald's from time to time? why do entities like mcdonald's and/or politicians always try to divide people against themselves in order to galvanize allegiances? i guess i just answered my own question there.







i can speak freely on these things since i'm impartial to the issue. i prefer dunkin' donuts.

when the trilogy was king

yesterday, i watched the new Indiana Jones movie trailer. at first, i wasn't sure it was even legitimate since homemade trailers run rampant on the net these days. but sure enough, it was the real thing. there he was, harrison ford in his 50's or 60's swinging around with his whip like spider-man. there were explosions. there were tribal warrior people complete with blow darts and grass skirts. and most surprising, it seems that some of the action takes place in the warehouse where the ark of the covenant was stored. all in all, it looks like an indiana jones movie, which is about the best thing we could hope for after a 19 year absence. (i will say one negative thing about the trailer: it starts on a very strange, overly grandiose note, with scenes from the last three films set on a bed of dramatic music saying things like, "he protected the power of the divine" and "he triumphed over the armies of evil." eventually, it settles down and plays the fun indiana jones music, showing us a silhouette of the fedora-wearing adventurer and the real preview begins. the serious nature of the opening doesn't fit indiana jones very well, but clearly paramount wants to hype the indiana jones mythology to lay the groundwork for the new film, which is completely unnecessary. it's gonna make zillions-upon-zillions of dollars.)





so this is a trend, officially now, of old characters being brought back for awkward, tacked-on episodes to box-sets that have long since appeared complete, with no greater offender than sly stallone and his recent rocky & rambo entries. completing the Planet Hollywood Trilogy, we have bruce willis in another "die hard" movie and schwarzenegger in an after-the-fact and entirely forgettable "terminator 3" a few years back.

although i disapprove of how recklessly these franchises are being closed and reopened and pulled into eras they never belonged, and despite the fact that it's embarrassing to see the likes of arnold and stallone shamelessly showcasing their has-been action hero status, i take greater umbrage with a another epidemic of which indiana jones is now a victim: the quadrilogy.

growing up in the 80's, i came to appreciate the triple movie set - aka. The Trilogy - as the gold standard for movie storytelling, none better than, of course, the Star Wars Trilogy. the first film was triumphant, the second tragic, and the third a finale of Good vs. Evil. good movies, good formula, and it set a high precedent for multi-movie stories. three is just right, as it is for many things in life: three meals a day (and three courses at dinner); the holy trinity; three-pointers in basketball; other things.

steadily, the list of great trilogies began to grow. there was star wars. then indiana jones and back to the future came along. alien turned into a nice trilogy as did die hard. and lest we neglect the likes of the karate kid, the naked gun, and the vacation movies.

at this point in history, there was an unspoken understanding that the notion of completing a trilogy was the equivalent of reaching the top of mount everest in the world of movie franchises. it was vindication.






and then something happened.

suddenly reaching the summit wasn't good enough. the studios hadn't made enough money. these seemingly completed franchises could, in fact, be milked for more gold, and before long ripley, who died heroically in alien 3, was brought back in alien ressurection in a nonsensical romp with winona ryder, thus ending The Trilogy's reign in hollywood. go ahead and google "quadrilogy." you'll see that the alien franchise embraces this awful word.

a floodgate opened. the rules dissolved. the role of daniel larusso was being played by a girl in "the next karate kid." chris rock was brought in to add hilarity to "lethal weapon 4." and most egregious of all, word spread that george lucas would write and direct a new star wars trilogy. three plus three equals six, which means star wars was becoming a sextilogy. at least the actor who played C3P0 was happy.





these beloved trilogies were supposed to set an example in Three Act restraint. instead, they've led the stampede toward untidy, greedy, never-ending excess. only "back to the future" and "indiana jones" stood as bastions of the old order. and come this may, only one of them will remain.

yes, it's true that recent trilogies have come to restore some decency to the world, namely, the lord of the rings and matrix movies. but pretenders to the Trilogy Throne have also come along with a false sense of vindication, driven more by gold and an expectations-reduced entertainment-hungry populace than by quality, bastardizing even further the once great notion of a trilogy. movies about pirates and green ogres come to mind. i'd mention x-men and spider-man, but there's no way they hold at three, and even if they do, it's only because they thoroughly ran out of steam by their third installments, respectively. oh yeah, anthony hopkins has improbably reprized his role as hannibal lecter twice now.

so in other words, i have mixed feelings about Indiana Jones & the Overly Long Titled Part 4 Something Something Crystal Skull. but it's helped me understand something. i must accept that most great franchises will not stop at three anymore. basically, the trilogy is dead. instead, it's time i learn how to pronounce the words quintilogy, septilogy and decatilogy. i must prepare for an eventual pre-trilogy of matrix movies in the year 2025. worst of all and most certainly, i must prepare my mind for the eventual Back to the Future Part IV. christopher lloyd will reprise his role as doc brown and he will again return to 1950's hill valley in order to steal the flux capacitor blue prints from his 1950's self. he does this to avoid ever having to live during the 1800's because that was a stupid idea in the first place. two marty mcfly's will be hovering about and getting into trouble per the first and second films, but michael j. fox will not be asked to participate in the fourth installment (well because, ya know). instead, doc will always be saying things to marty - who's in another room - like, "marty, you just stay in the garage. i'll be right back. we'll go over the plans for your Enchantment Under the Sea Dance and subsequent plans to catch lightening just after i answer the door," and so forth. they can perhaps use michael j. fox soundbites from other movies to fill in certain plot holes.

before you know it, the movie will be complete, the hype machine will get started, the advertising blitz will have us all worked-up to see it, i'll write a blog disparaging its existence, we'll all pay to see it, and by the next morning it'll be the furthest thing from our minds. of course, someday thereafter i will mistakenly refer to the films as a Trilogy and my kids will say aloud, "what's a trilogy?" and i will excuse myself to "get something out of my eye" in the bathroom. there, i will weep openly on the cold bathroom floor without shame or pride, naked and alone, longing for days gone by.

Redrum

~INTERMISSION~

something to contemplate during this break in the action:

ever settle down on the toilet bowl for a nice "sit" and let your imagination run wild? to be more specific, have you ever imagined you were one of the Independence Day spaceships taking aim over one of the world's great landmarks? there's all that suspense as the giant laser cannon lines up with its target and then the cannon starts to shift and squeeze right before the big blast? and then - boom - destruction occurs.

yeah. i've thought about it.

the theory of love & proximity

alright alright. let's just get right into it.

it seems to me that most people want to believe in the notion of destiny. and i can't say i'm any different. it's nice to think that there's something bigger at work in the universe. it's nice to imagine that our lives are fulfilling some greater purpose, that every day is another fallen domino playing out in the grand scheme of things.

people are especially guilty of this when it comes to a phenomenon called "falling in love." lovebirds are always destined to be together in their minds. the stars were aligned and all that crap. what's more, these Couples of Destiny are often looking for serendipitous signs to confirm their presumptions of destiny are true.

for example, there’s this mailman who has a rocky relationship with a girl. they used to date and then they broke-up. but now they’re back together again and the mailman is convinced this girl is his destiny.

heaven's way of confirming this to the pair of would-be lovers came in the form of...

dimes. as in small silver coins representative of .10 US cents.

you see, once the mailman and the girl started dating again the mailman started to find dimes everywhere he looked. dimes on the ground. dimes behind the dryer. dimes in his car. dimes in boxes, dimes with foxes. dimes here, there and everywhere. funny thing is, this happened last time the two dated. dimes. lots and lots of dimes. clearly they should get married immediately if not only for the free money their love creates.







i love this notion of destiny. it makes about as much sense as ghosts moving random household objects and slamming doors shut to make their presence known.

but i digress.

the idea of destiny is perfectly nice and all. but i do think there's a more reasonable approach to understanding why people find each other and experience the so-called "falling in love" phenomenon. dump the word "destiny" and replace it with "proximity."

do you have a favorite restaurant? you do? great. OK. now imagine you're eating at this favorite restaurant. look around the place. ask yourself: was this destiny? did fate lead me here? or am i here because it's near my house and the food tastes good?

the answer can only be one or the other. and if you had to bet your life on one of them, which one would you pick? i'm betting on proximity.

it works like this: you meet someone who lives near yourself. they offer you companionship the way a restaurant offers food. and like different restaurants offering unique menus, each person offers an individual brand of companionship. some will be appealing to you, some won't.

the thing is, just about anywhere you go you'll find at least a couple of restaurants you like eating at. and i ask you, is this not also true of people? you think if i packed up my bags and moved to nebraska tomorrow i couldn't find one decent girl there? i'm sure i could. people are "falling in love" all over the world, every day, in every time zone, and they're getting married and having kids and blah blah blah. can that be destiny at work all over the world? is cupid working over time? or is it simply that people want companionship and have plenty of options to choose from?

yes, but what about the dimes? none of this explains away the dimes.

true. very true.

all i can say is maybe there is such a thing as destiny. and maybe destiny sends us extraordinarily subtle / seemingly irrelevant clues to assure us that we are indeed following the path that was paved for us before time began. it's not at all likely that people fantasize about the notion of destiny in order to feel protected in a world that tends to be cruel and unforgiving, right? or to rid us of the pressure of making decisions for ourselves?

some people might read this and conclude that i'm too realistic, that i should cool down and not be so negative. why can't i just let people fall in love in peace? why must i suck out all the romance from such things?

well, to you i say this: my point-of-view is just as romantic as yours if not more so. because at the end of the day i'm choosing my restaurant/companion because they make me happy. simple as that. there's no illusions, no make-believe fairy tales. there's no "we were made for each other" sap. no dimes anywhere. just boring old truths such as "i enjoy your brand of companionship" and "i'm glad we live in proximity to one another." (those are free, boys. you're welcome).

so here's a final note for the lonely hearted out there: don't complain to the heavens about your plight. rather, relocate your business and revise your menu. and lastly know your clientèle. if you're a truck stop don't expect Grace Kelly or Cary Grant to walk through the door. it's okay to lower your standards if you aren't worth much.

re-run: the new holiday

note: this essay originally appeared 7/29/06


Let's just cut to the chase here. Ladies and gentlemen, Shark Week begins tomorrow night. Break out the champagne and the noisemakers, for this is no ordinary week. After 18 years, this annual summertime Discovery Channel staple has hooked itself to our hearts, and it's time that we celebrate it properly.

When else are we given the excuse to openly worship the carnage-driven bloodmongers that lurk under the sea? Obviously never. You see, the shark is unlike any other villainous animal on the planet. Take another hated creature - like the spider - for example. Although we all fear spiders, we would never participate in Spider Week. Why? Because spiders are too ugly, frankly. They are undoubtedly fascinating beasts, what with their calculating and secretive ways. And those webs; how could such an ugly creature knit such a beautiful thing? Yes, spiders are probably our most beloved animal to hate. But perhaps they are too scary?

Sharks, on the other hand, are the lions of the sea. When they aren't killing, they're sleek and sort of appealing to the eye. Of course at other times they are fierce aggressors who kill with a pathological lack of concern for their victims. It's what they do. They just kill stuff until their stomachs are full.

And who knows? They might kill you or me someday. That's what makes Shark Week so great. We get to study one of our most beloved villains up close, like watching Hannibal Lecter work in "Silence of the Lambs."

The Discovery Channel has done such a nice job with Shark Week over the years, crafting it into the institution it's become, that I believe the annual tradition must be recognized as a national holiday. I mean honestly, Shark Week would instantly be more popular than a majority of our national holidays. Let's take a closer look:

National Holiday Power Rankings:

1. Christmas - still the undisputed champ. gifts and lots of time off work. what more do you want?

2. Halloween - there's something for everyone. kids get candy. men get to wear funny costumes. women get to show off cleavage. and it's all about paganism, which gives it that extra oomph of something.

3. Thanksgiving - lots of eating good food, followed by watching football and playing cards. great holiday.

4. The Fourth of July - the great mid-summer holiday. oh America, i wish i knew how to quit you.

5. St. Patrick's Day - an excuse to drink beer, wear green, sing irish songs and pinch people.

6. Shark Week - this seems a perfect fit. a little lower than those five, a little higher than struggling Easter and all the other disastrous holidays.

7. Easter - sorry Jesus, but Easter is weak. coloring eggs, hiding eggs, hiding baskets, the Easter Bunny? Somebody try to rationalize for me the absurdity of these so-called traditions alongside the observance of Christ's big comeback? i know not everyone believes in/ gives a crap about JC. but Easter, nonetheless, needs a face lift. there's nothing for adults here. nothing. maybe bumping Shark Week to #6 will act as a wakeup call.

8. Valentine's Day - i mean, in theory there's nothing wrong with taking your girl out on the town and having a romantic evening together. but to quote Homer Simpson, "In theory, communism works." this holiday always feels like an inconvenience, like "Oh $#!#, I forgot, Wednesday is V-Day. Sorry dude, I can't make it." and what about all the Eleanor Rigbys out there? What do they do?

9. Mother's / Father's Day - I don't know anyone who takes these seriously.

10. Labor Day - It marks the end of summer. That's strike one. and it stands for nothing. that's two more strikes. i hate holidays that don't stand for anything.


I'm probably forgetting some holidays, like Memorial Day and Columbus Day. But whatever. You see my point. Shark Week would be an instant hit, even as a rookie holiday. And don't worry. We still have time to work out the details. Like, for instance, although it's a week long series on TV, does the celebration need to go for seven days when one day might suffice? Should there be anything as random and absurd as a yule log? Should there be a mysterious figurehead, like Saint Nick?

I don't have all the answers yet. But here's what I do know: there must be at least one major gathering between friends where sea food is consumed and a movie about sharks is watched. Preferably this is done to kick-off Shark Week. Consider attending the party in makeup and attire that gives the illusion that you've been attacked by a shark. And we should all begin working on a song that could compete with any Christmas carol. "Beyond the Sea" or "Under the Sea" will do in a pinch.

In the days that follow, maybe you visit aquariums, maybe you go fishing, maybe you play games in a pool where someone plays the shark and everyone else plays potential victims. I don't know yet.

What I do know is that Shark Week begins tomorrow and I'm excited. Perhaps I'll celebrate by having an entire shark lowered into the roof of my home via a crane.

america is no longer a superpower (or why i hated "transformers")

if anyone needed final confirmation that a once great nation was nearing a flat line, it came in the form of a Bayian prophesy by way of dreamworks & paramount pictures called "transformers." i watched this societal indictment recently and, if i might quote Toole's Ignatius J. Reilly, it was an abortion.

now let me make my point, plain and simple: if you truly enjoyed "transformers" and you're over the age of 18, kill yourself. you're worthless and brainless.

you're the kind of person who regards your childhood toys with awe and reverence, like somehow plastic ninja turtles and he-men and transforming cars are somehow profound objects worthy to be praised. i hate to be a buzz kill, but uh, they're just toys. for children.





















but you people just couldn't wait to watch your little elementary school fantasy become reality on the big screen. WOW! the transformers are in a real live-action big budget movie!! i mean they're cars and they can switch into giant robots! and they fight each other! in a big summer movie!!

stop.

just stop.

please.

this all must end. really. i mean, really. it's time, boys. it's time for us to grow up. let me say it again:

it's time for us to grow up. it's time for us to become men.

it's time for us to play fewer video games. it's time for us to watch fewer superhero movies. more than that, it's time we stop enjoying these movies. because you see, i talked to a lot of people who spoke highly of "transformers," and for the life of me i can't understand where they're coming from. all i can figure is that these people wanted to like the movie because of their 80's nostalgia. and that's the part i can't understand.

was life so good when we were kids - were the toys so good? - that some of us still display them in our homes like decorations?

don't get me wrong. there is a time and a place for toys and video games and all the like. i just think its time we stop letting this shit define our generation. my grandpa's generation fought against a great evil in the world and prevailed. they are now called The Greatest Generation. in contrast, we are a generation of coddled adolescents in adult bodies who speak the language of pop culture. in fact, we should call ourselves Generation Pop Culture, because as far as i can tell that's the only legacy we're leaving behind so far, our universal love and understanding of all things pop.

it's junk food for the mind and if saying so makes me an elitist, so be it.

"transformers" was a horribly told story on every level, and if we as adults can't recognize this then maybe it's too late for us as a people. maybe we've crossed the pop culture point-of-no-return. maybe all the brain junk food has caught up to many of us and made our brains fat and useless once and for all. maybe "transformers" really does signal the beginning of the end.

soprano fans = stupid?

tony is dead, soprano fans. unfortunately you were too busy complaining about the finale to notice.

i'll be honest, i've never watched one episode of The Sopranos from start to finish, so i come at this as an outsider. I'm Not One of You. nonetheless, i find myself inexplicably fascinated by this show's finale.

i take that back. i know why it fascinates me: because here you have a critically-acclaimed show with a loyal fan base that's about to implode with anticipation for the final episode. the day after, no one seems happy with the show's unfulfilling, all-too-sudden curtain. it didn't make sense. a show with that pedigree couldn't possibly end on such a disappointing note.

well guess what? it didn't: http://www.bobharris.com/content/view/1406/1/

harris's blog explains with painful detail the number of clues that were packed in the last episode to suggest tony's death. he calls it a theory, but i'm ready to deem it a factual conclusion. tony is dead. plain as day.



















at this point i want to explain why i think soprano fans must be stupid.

plenty of the clues harris mentions would be easily missed if you weren't watching the show with a fine-toothed comb and a keen mind. for instance, the Last Supper image flies by much too quickly for any commoner to notice. or maybe you're like me and you didn't know that oranges were forebearers of death in The Godfather films and so you didn't notice them in The Sopranos either.

i want to forgive your foolishness, soprano fans, really i do. but how can i after reading the following:

The sensation of imminent death – “you probably don’t even hear it when it happens, right?” – was now-famously discussed in an episode called “Soprano Home Movies.”

This same episode was reportedly repeated, out of sequence, re-airing “you probably don’t even hear it when it happens, right?” the week before the finale.

And the same exact scene – this same discussion of how death would be experienced – “you probably don’t even hear it when it happens, right?” – was also apparently excerpted in flashback in the second-to-last episode.

in other words, you're telling me that once the show's credits started to roll, none of this dawned on you? really? none of this discussion played in your mind at any point? you really thought david chase intended to end his beloved saga with a gimmick? and then you all had the nerve to wake up the following day and complain about how unsatisfying the end was? really? did all of that really happen?

i know i'm monday morning quarterbacking. but i just can't believe it took this long for a more plausible interpretation of the conclusion to surface. how reactionary are we as people? how bad are we at interpreting art when it's not spelled-out for us? why couldn't ONE soprano fan put 2 and 2 together immediately after the episode was over?

that's the thing about this show i never understood. it's considered one of the greatest shows ever made, yet when i hear people talking about it, never do i hear anything of substance. all i hear is "who do you think is gonna get whacked next week?" like it was some sort of survivor-style reality tv show. this show had to be about more than killing, right?

well, yes and no. ultimately the finale is about tony's death, but it manages to make his death something more profound and more deeply felt than some third-person assassination. when the camera goes black, my heart is beating very fast and i get chills. death so sudden, so unexpected, and so predestined. you aren't just watching tony. You Are Tony. and then you die.

my point is that soprano fans should have given this show the benefit of the doubt. instead of complaining, they should have instantly started putting the pieces together. they should've been savvy enough to understand that david chase had something substantial up his sleeve, something better than a "did my cable just go out?" prank.

and now all we're left with is this collective failure. the blind leading the blind and whatnot.

tony soprano must've been rolling in his grave.

sometimes you're ethel

sometimes the story isn't about you. sometimes it's about something bigger and better than you. specifically, sometimes the story is about the one they call "the king." his birth name is lebron james. and the story is about him and not about you.

i'm writing this just after lebron's instant historic performance, the one that put the pistons down 3-2 in the series. you know, the one where lebron validated all of his years of hype, scoring the last 29 of his team's 30 points and leading the young cavs to an improbable victory in enemy territory.

when i was younger i would've been upset by such a loss, broken-hearted if you will. and don't get me wrong, i'm not happy that the detroit pistons lost today (a loss that almost guarantees elimination). but i understand something now i didn't understand when i was a kid, and that is this: i understand that sometimes it's your time to be the star, the belle of the ball, the main attraction, etc. but more importantly, there are times when it's your turn to ride in the backseat. you're not always gonna be the main star of the program. you're not always gonna be the one they're rooting for.

it can be difficult to come to terms with such a truth, which is why i couldn't do it as a child. with immaturity comes the belief that you are always the star of the show and the center of the universe.

to go a step further, this basketball contest playing out before us reminds us (particularly the piston fans) that sometimes the will of the people is what's most important. and the will of the people would prefer to see lebron james performing miraculous deeds on the hardwood. they don't want to see a boring, efficient piston team win another eastern conference trophy.

so maybe i can just enjoy the ride better this way? no longer worried about losing or failing. there's nothing else on the line for me. instead, i just need to fall in line with the people and enjoy the lebron show for all its worth and accept that my team is playing ethel to his lucy.

i don't want to be a talking head

note #1: this entry isn't funny at all. not that you come here to crack-up, necessarily. but just so you know.

note #2: this is about sports. so if you hate sports, you're wasting your time here. (see. nothing funny there.)

there's a chance the NBA FINALS this year will feature a rematch from two years ago. if you don't watch basketball, that's the dee-troit pistons vs. the san antonio spurs. granted, we're a long ways off from this being a sure thing, but the fact is that talking heads like bill simmons and the Pardon the Interruption guys have already deemed this potential match-up dreadful / boring / disastrous / awful / woeful ...and so forth.

i'm pissed off because these knuckleheads actually wield some influence over the public, and as long as they're telling people not to watch detroit v. spurs because it's boring, the longer the public will not watch because they've been told it will be boring. and then no one watches because the talking heads told people they shouldn't, and then the talking heads use the low-ratings to prove how boring the series was.

if you don't believe that the talking heads can create anticipation for a sporting event, then i present you with this past weekend's boxing match as evidence of the contrary. nobody i knew before a few weeks ago could've given three dumps about mayweather vs. de la hoya, but after being drilled with stories from the fickle sports media (re: talking heads) for two weeks leading up to the story, complete with the hyperbole of the match "saving boxing," suddenly everyone was talking about this match like they've been following non-heavyweight boxing for years. turns out the fight was so-so, which means it didn't live up to the hype, which means a bunch of people who didn't really give a crap watched anyways. i wonder if anybody had a mid-fight awakening along the lines of: "why am i watching this again? i don't even like boxing."

so i wonder what simmons/kornheiser/wilbon/barkley/paige/espn/fox sports/sports illustrated/free darko/etc. would rather see?

oh, right. the phoenix suns. obviously. PTI and simmons implied as much. sure their fun, freewheeling style of basketball never happens in the playoffs the way it happens in the regular season (i'm not saying it doesn't work; i'm saying it just doesn't happen at all). but the talking heads don't care. they made up their minds long ago. and because of that, if phoenix fails to reach the NBA Finals, you can forget about the sports media giving one dump about it (which is funny since they cover sports for a living).



ps. i'm tired of flabby sports writers complaining about which cities they might have to travel to. drew sharp - detroit free press columnist/contrived contrarian - pissed on the notion of potentially going between buffalo and san antonio to cover potential NHL/NBA FINALS series. and he's not the only one who's done this.

listen jerk-off, most people are stuck behind a desk all day, if they're lucky. don't act like you're some kind of king or something. you're a fat blowhard, lucky to have such a cushy job. just stop talking for a while, okay?

easter: still the worst

sorry Jesus, but Easter is weak. coloring eggs, hiding eggs, hiding baskets, the Easter Bunny? Somebody try to rationalize for me the absurdity of these so-called traditions alongside the observance of Christ's big comeback? i know not everyone believes in/ gives a crap about JC. but Easter, nonetheless, needs a face lift. there's nothing for adults here. nothing. maybe bumping Shark Week to #6 will act as a wakeup call.

those words were said way back on july 29, 2006 in a piece entitled the new holiday.

with easter day happening tomorrow, i thought it would be fun to remind everybody how lame this holiday actually is. looking back on the words i wrote last year, it strikes me that i still stand by all those thoughts and feelings. in fact, after coloring eggs today my disdain for easter has only strengthened. add to that the fact that i had to work on good friday and that i go back to work on monday - i mean, what is there to like? you get no guaranteed time off! even certain government operations are open on good friday, which says something about how lightly easter is viewed. i mean, the government loves to take time off. if you can't get those guys to take a vacation then you must be doing something wrong.

yes, jesus is cool, as is his story. i like that side of easter. but this is all the more reason why the holiday fails so miserably. jesus in the eyes of most people is either: the Son of God; or one of the most (and to many The most) influential figures to ever exist. does his life and his potential resurrection not justify something better than easter eggs and bunnies and potato salad?

even the color scheme of easter is awful. pastels hurt my eyes to look at. while many women are able to enjoy and celebrate these colors, they leave men feeling uncomfortable and neutered. i hate pastels.

finally, i want to mention the easter bunny. i'll grant you that, as a child, the easter bunny was fun. he brings you candy and small toys and he hides them somewhere in your house in a basket. i don't think he's a particularly creative holiday mascot, and i would've certainly vetoed the idea if i worked for hallmark, but you've gotta give him credit. as ridiculous as he is, kids still fall for it, which really is a testament to how gullible kids really are. they'll believe in anything that nets them candy and toys. still, the point i want to make here is that the easter bunny's success has little to do with the brilliance of his creation but more so with the fact that kids want to believe mystical gift-giving creatures exist no matter how ridiculous it might be. the easter bunny ranks just above an inanimate object on the scale of good mascots.

i say all this to say that i'm not excited about easter tomorrow, and with any luck i've brought you down too.

maybe it should be mccain

**UPDATE** although this essay was written with half-serious intentions, it should now read as, at worst, a joke, and at its best it can be considered an exercise in critical thinking. as the final paragraph made clear, the onus was on mccain to show us the improvement in iraq. and then came THE Photo Op...the one where he talked about safer strolls through the market in baghdad than ever before...while being protected by the entire united states army. so yeah, he's pretty much dead in the water, which seems worth mentioning.















the '08 presidential election is a long ways off and yet john mccain finds himself in an early hole.

according to rasmussenreports.com:

Arizona Senator John McCain (R), now trails Giuliani by twenty percentage points. For the second straight week, the Rasmussen Reports poll measured McCain’s support at just 15%. That’s the lowest level of support measured so far for the man who began the campaign season as the presumed frontrunner. For the full month of March, McCain’s support has averaged just 16%, down from 18% in February and 21% in January.

at this rate, johnny mac will be down to 0% before the end of the year, which must be embarrassing for his campaign backers. of course, conventional wisdom says that mccain's faltering support is directly related to his iraq strategy: namely, that he wants to keep The Troops in the desert until things get better (also important: he wants to add more troops to the region, not subtract). the majority of the american republic tends to disagree with mr. mccain on this front, which is hurting his popularity.

but here's the kicker: what if mccain is right? what if staying in iraq is the right thing to do? i, like so many others, have refused to even consider this strategy to this point. for me it was simple: if we aren't stabilizing iraq then why are we there? let's get out.

down the line, the dems are telling us whatever we want to hear. they are speaking in terms of exit strategies. they are passing antiwar bills in the House. they are declaring bush a failure, and rightfully so. bush has failed. but still, there is a concern that the dems are overcompensating for bush's mistakes, like they want to leave iraq just to zag away from the president, to prove his war was a failure, to gain the fleeting support of a fickle public. but wouldn't it be foolish to pull the troops in spite of the president?

leaving iraq before it has legs to stand on could lead to seriously dangerous results in the region. yet i don't here the big-boy dems talking about this, which is troubling.

mccain, on the other hand, knows he's killing himself by siding with the surge. *he knows this!* yet he remains faithful to his conviction. and his conviction is based on the fact that he's been studying the circumstances in iraq on his own. his opinion seems to have little to do with focus groups and polling. mccain seems genuinely like he's just trying to do the right thing. and today on cnn he said that the new approach in iraq is starting to show some positive results, which helps secure him in his convictions.

as much as i like the idea of obama or the charm of edwards or the clintonness of hillary, i can't help but find the do-the-right-thing-know-matter-how-you're-perceived mccain to be honorable and also electable.

however, standing by such tough medicine makes this a hard sell to the general public. if he wants to regain favor with the polls, john mccain must explain to us in plain english the progress that is being made in iraq.