Blog Grab Bag

I have a lot of post ideas, but not enough time to write detailed post on all of them. So I've decided to write a sentence or two on each in one post.

• Avatar: I agree with all the political criticism that's been written about Avatar (Brooks, Goldberg). But the thing that really bugs me about this movie is how the technology in the "future" hasn't evolved far enough to have unmanned aircraft, or unmanned robot warriors. Absurd.

• The Fugitive: I just realized that this movie has a ridiculously leftist plot, that as many times as I've watched doesn't really make complete sense. Still I watch this movie almost every time it's on TV.

• No Country for Old Men. Saw this on USA. Really bloody for cable. The story's seems simple yet I think there is some deeper meaning. There must be something to this "film making" talent. Have you seen it and do you think that it is a conservative movie? Also, what does it mean?

• Elders Quorum Moves: Do you think that church members should rely upon the elder's quorum to move them when they could probably handle it themselves? Is it abusing a church system to do so, or giving others a chance to serve?

• Conan v. Leno. I like Leno but  love Conan. (I've never liked Letterman, although I think he is edgier/usually funnier than Leno.) But I don't think Conan ever had the broad appeal necessary to make the Tonight Show work. I also don't think it's Leno's job to just get out of Conan's way either. Maybe Conan can partially blame the low ratings on the Leno Show's bad lead in. (Although there is still the local new in between.) But the Tonight Show is not Conan's entitlement. I do think this mess is Zucker's. He thought he could promise Conan the Tonight Show to keep him at the network and the day of reckoning would never come. He was right. It's going to be more like a month or reckoning.

• I have this compulsion to always make another blog comment. It's not that I necessarily want to have the last word, just that I always have some other thing to say or new way to make an argument that I dwell on until I put it down in a comment. In real life I just bit my tongue and the urge leave after the subject has changed. In blogging, the post is always out their taunting me. When do you say "when" when blogging?

• Art, it seems to me, is best when it combines something familiar, yet somewhat edgy. Music that pushes boundaries but is still melodic. Movies that have not formulaic plots, but still have plots. Does that mean that trends are necessary to keep art great?

• Being a lawyer is considerably suckier than I anticipated. I think this is for two reasons. First, you clients usually aren't happy. Frequently the kind of people that are involved in a lawsuit are shady characters. At a minimum they have sharp elbows. Also, they're not happy because almost all cases end in a compromise. Second, cases have real value, usually in the tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars range. It's not fun making close decisions when an errors can have huge ramifications.

Commenting

JB's comment had me laughing out loud.

My theory of comments: all comments fit into these basic categories:
1. pedantic comments
2. The holier than thou comment
3. The troll comment
4. The overly sincere comment
5. the snarky comment
6. the absurd comment
7. the joke comment
8. the praise comment
9. the insightful comment

Unoriginal Gansta

From TheMoneyIllusion:

I’m about to give you my pet theory for European supremacy after 1500. Keep in mind that whenever I think I have a clever idea, it either later turns out to be wrong, or else unbeknownst to me someone else got there first.

This is one of the reasons I find it hard to blog. Seems like someone else has said most everything that ever needed to be said, and I could just link to their post. But what's the point in that? No one reads this blog. The only reason then to blog is to post original thoughts. Original is hard.

Starting Over

Welcome to my latest blog.

This is the third time I've started a blog. I usually post faithfully for a few months, but then give up blogging for one reason or another. The two big reasons are that no one reads the blog and I start to feel like my posts are just a recapitulation of what others have already said.

And yet I'm going to start one more blog. Here is my plan to stay interest in this blog. First, this time I'm going to try and cast a wider net and blog about more than politics. I plan on blogging about religion and the law. Maybe I'll blog about culture, tv and movies too. Basically I'll blog about whatever I want.

Second, I'm thinking about inviting others to blog here too. Not sure who that will be. If you are reading this it might be you.

Third, I'm going to try and embrace the past. The more time passes, the more I find I'm embarrassed by my old blog posts and I don't want to think about them. The easy way to do that is to stop blogging. But I've decided there's no need to be embarrassed. With this blog I've incorporated all my old blog posts from my previous blogs. I know I've changed my mind about a few things in those old blog posts, but I think most of them hold up ok, and if they don't represent my current opinion at least they show my evolution.

Despite these changes, some things will stay the same. This blog is still mostly going be about ideas and debate; it's not a diary. To the exent that something autobiographical triggers an idea, then I might share it. However, this will not be a blog about what I had for lunch.

So, here goes attempt No. 3. If you're reading this, I invite you to join the conversation.