246 items found for your search. If no results were found please broaden your search.
(05/24/04 8:22pm)
An off-campus house fire Saturday morning killed three IU students and left one student severely injured.\nMonroe County Coroner David Toumey said juniors Jacob Surface and Joseph Alexander, both 21, died Saturday in Bloomington.\nSophomore Nicolas Habicht, 20, died Sunday afternoon following continued critical condition status while on life support at Methodist Hospital in Indianapolis.\nHabicht and junior Paul Dayment, 21, were flown by Lifeline from Bloomington Hospital to Methodist Hospital Saturday morning. \nA hospital spokeswoman said Dayment had improved from serious but stable condition Saturday night to fair condition Sunday afternoon.\nPreliminary findings by the coroner's office indicate Surface and Alexander may have died from carbon monoxide intoxication. Final determinations will take four to six weeks pending the results of the toxicology testing, Toumey said.\nAlexander was pronounced dead upon arrival at 6:04 a.m. to Bloomington Hospital. Surface, who was a sports writer for the Indiana Daily Student, was pronounced dead at the scene by Toumey at 6:55 a.m. Habicht died at 1:45 p.m. Sunday. The final determination as to the cause of his death will be made by the Marion County Coroner's office in four to six weeks.\nBloomington Fire Chief Jeff Barlow said firefighters received a call around 4:55 a.m. Saturday and were immediately dispatched. They arrived at the house within two minutes, found the four men in rapid succession and extinguished a small fire on the first floor.\nSurface was found on the first floor. The other three were found in the second-story bedrooms.\nThe house, located at 719 N. Indiana Ave., near 11th Street, sustained little exterior damage, but had significant smoke and heat damage internally, Barlow said. Neighbors reported seeing very little in the early hours. Initial reports show the fire appeared to be electrical.\nBarlow said the home had smoke detectors and investigators will try to determine whether the alarms sounded.\nAlexander, Dayment and Habicht were roommates in the house. Surface lived with junior Heath Johnson and sophomore Michael Beck in another house near campus.\nThe cause of the fire remains under investigation. Barlow said the process would be very deliberate and methodical and said he hoped they would know "sooner rather than later."\nThe four men grew up together and maintained their close ties at IU. They were all graduates of Center Grove High School near Greenwood, Ind.\nThe deaths are the first fire fatalities involving IU students since a graduate student died as a result of a fire at his off-campus apartment in December 2002.\n-- Contact opinion editor Tony Sams at ajsams@indiana.edu .
(05/20/04 1:26am)
Sen. John McCain wants you to know he does not want to be your vice-president.\n"I have totally ruled it out."\n"No, no and no."\n"I will not be a candidate."\n"It's not going to happen -- end of story, period, exclamation mark."\nAnd most recently, when he was asked on NBC's "Meet the Press" Sunday about a May 15 article in The New York Times in which some say they see him as Sen. John Kerry's No. 2 in November: "I will not, I categorically will not do it."\nBut of course it hasn't stopped us from talking about it.\nThe media blizzard began months ago when McCain, the senior Republican senator from Arizona and A-list media darling, commented offhandedly that he and presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Kerry are good friends and if Kerry called him for consideration to run as his vice-presidential nominee, McCain would "entertain it."\nCue the opening of the flood gates. Cue the incessant daydreaming of political junkies, reporters and moderate independent voters everywhere. And then cue the inevitable disappointment, because it'll never happen. The motivation behind such a campaign falls victim to vicious partisanship, ironically the Washington problem a Kerry-McCain ticket would supposedly heal.\nBut there are still many reasons we keep dreaming.\nFor independents, the dream involves what might have been and what could be. McCain's "straight-talking" presidential bid spawned national media attention. It attracted a variety of independents and moderates from both parties and became the go-to guy for bipartisanship in Washington.\nIn the days of fiery-brand partisanship, they're looking for someone who can help bridge the canyon-width gap between the parties. \nAnd in an NBC-Wall Street Journal poll released two weeks ago, McCain was viewed more favorably than President Bush, Kerry or Vice-President Dick Cheney.\nStill, while McCain says he's loyal to the Republican party, he doesn't let it go without saying he's a "Teddy Roosevelt Republican," an endangered species in American politics. \nAfter all, he did lose the Republican primary for president -- overall, they liked the other guy more. From time to time, McCain makes the Christian right quite angry. He doesn't exactly fit the ideal of Generic GOP Joe. He'll work with anyone to get it done right, and sometimes that includes crossing the aisle and burning his own party. \nUndoubtedly, he's not the only one in Congress who does it, but he's caught in an excellent triangulation which amplifies his position: he has name-power, media-power and public approval-power. McCain's bucking is more noticeable for those reasons, and more than any Democrat, because his party is the one in power. His maverick status is symbolized by his ability to tell his party no when he thinks they're wrong and everyone in it thinks they're right.\nBush ran as a "uniter, not a divider." He's proven himself to be anything but. This is a real chance for politicians to be united.\nMcCain has leadership experience. He has credibility. He's trusted and candid. And Americans -- at least those who don't live on the fringe wings of their parties -- know we can't afford more polarization and rancor in the coming years and it's going to take some cooperation to get things done.\nI don't agree with McCain on everything. In fact, we disagree on many issues -- he supported the war in Iraq, I did not. I am pro-choice, he is not -- only to name a few. I imagine some of his stances will be a bane to some voters, but if he comes to the middle, so will they if they are serious about getting something changed.\nYet all this though is written in vain. Kerry-McCain, the bipartisan dream ticket as it has been called, will turn out to be just that: a dream. But to those of us who are tired of taut party lines and the incredible shrinking political tents, it's a dream we don't necessarily want to wake up from soon.
(05/13/04 4:00am)
Did you hear the bad news? The sitcom died -- again.\nOf course it has died a number of times, and each time we mourn like our favorite pet has just been run over by a truck with "long live syndication!" stenciled onto its side. \nIn the past twenty years or so, the sitcom first died when "M*A*S*H" went off the air in 1983. The sitcom kicked the bucket again when "Cheers" and "The Cosby Show" left in 1992 and 1993, respectively. And once again, in 1998 the sitcom bought the farm when "Seinfeld" took an exit at stage left on top of its game. \nThe situation comedy, you could say, is the walking dead of network television.\nNow, with "Frasier," "Friends" and "Sex in the City" leaving this year, and the mind-bogglingly popular "Everybody Loves Raymond" most likely on the way out next season, we once again rue the death of a sacred television institution. \nTo be sure, the media is still awarding all the ratings-driven fanfare to sitcom finales, with the "Friends" meeting up with Jay Leno, being interviewed on "Dateline" in lieu of serious news and popping up on magazine covers for the umpteenth time. \n(Remarkably, not much attention is being paid to "Frasier," a spin-off of "Cheers" which no one thought would succeed -- which won Outstanding Comedy Series at the Emmys five years in a row and which on the whole was consistently smarter, wittier and funnier than any season "Friends.") \nCritics seem to be standoffish this time around, unwilling to declare the sitcom's death, as if they're trapped in some media criticism Skinner box and pulling the wrong lever one more time will deliver a wicked shock. \nI say embrace it. They'd be right this time -- because this time ain't last time. The difference now is there's no plausible sitcom successor to "Friends" or "Frasier." \nWhen each major network sitcom left TV, there was another one right behind it, quietly waiting to replace it. "M*A*S*H" bequeathed "Cosby" and "Cheers," which bequeathed "Seinfeld," "Frasier" and "Friends." Same security, different blanket.\nThis time, as we say goodbye to the Central Perk and the Doctors Crane, we have no other comedies we can rebound on. Don't put all your eggs in the basket for "Will & Grace," which seemed like NBC's heir apparent with its cushy Thursday slot. But it peaked far too early. The writing has been stained with monotony and repetition, and now the characters are stuck in the rinse cycle. ("Oh, you mean Jack is flamboyantly gay and Karen is an elitist bitch? Huh. After five seasons, I still hadn't picked up on that.") \nIf general impressions don't convincingly show the dire situation that sitcoms are in, the numbers surely will. So far this season, only five comedies are among Nielsen Media Research's list of top 25 shows, compared to nine dramas and nine reality shows ("60 Minutes" and sports fill out the list).\nThe number of people who tune into the finales is also dwindling, perhaps a sign indicating the number of people who actually care is less and less each time. Television's most popular series finale ever, "M*A*S*H," was seen by an unprecedented-for-that-time 105 million viewers. The last "Cheers" was seen by 80.4 million people; "Seinfeld" had 76.2 million. \n"Friends" had 51.1 million people tune in. "Frasier" will have less -- much less.\nTrends conquer television, and you don't need a soothsayer to see where TV is going. Mature dramas, especially those involving the tracking down of criminals, and reality shows are pulling in the numbers that matter to execs. \nComedies are being shoved off onto cable and premium-channels, which depending how you look at it could actually be a great thing for the quality of programming. There, in the oasis of television, they are allowed to be edgier and more independent, less accountable to the millions of devotees, and have the ability to retain formats based less on rigidity and more on amusement. Shows like "Monk," "Curb Your Enthusiasm" and "The Office," all of which would have most likely failed on network TV, are given a chance at life on cable and premium.\nBut as for now, cable comedies will never capture the sizable audiences that network television is capable of grabbing. Network TV is still a safe haven for programming and is just more visible than cable can be.\nIf there is any scrap of good news, it's that there is an exciting opportunity buried within the stark reality that there are no sitcom successors. It does provide a chance for the networks to dream up something new, which in TV-land means taking an old formula and putting it in a different location. \nProducers are hoping "Joey," the spin-off of "Friends," will encounter the same success as "Frasier." But it won't -- "Frasier" worked because it was the direct opposite of "Cheers" and was able to stand on its own. "Joey" will have to be entirely dependent on "Friends" life-support if it has any chance to succeed.\nCritics who are expecting audiences to make new friends with a sitcom soon are mistaken. There are no prominent network comedies out there. Soon viewers will migrate toward other genres, which will most likely spawn more awful reality programming.\nThe sitcom as we knew it, it seems, may have really died this time. There will be other comedies. But for right now, anyone unwilling to concede the demise is still stuck in the first stage of grief: denial.
(04/30/04 3:07pm)
Tony Scott's "Man on Fire" is the kind of movie you've probably already seen somewhere along the line. It's about a man who, because of some personal and emotional attachment, turns into a vigilante when that attachment is harshly severed. He goes after the bad guys, it's predictable but we cheer him on so when credits roll, we've met our revenge quota for the month. \nOpen and shut, right? Well, not so much. You may have seen this kind of movie before, but nothing like this. "Man on Fire" might be too cliché if it wasn't a guilty pleasure waiting to be confessed.\nThe vigilante here is played by Denzel Washington, who has been good in almost everything he's done since 1987, even if the particular movie is not. His John Creasy is a Bible-quoting alcoholic, a wash-up and an ex-CIA specialist (all in one!), and is now working as a bodyguard in Mexico City. \nHe's been brought on because of a string of kidnappings, and his protect-ee is a button-cute, nine-year-old girl played by Dakota Fanning. When she herself is abducted, Creasy becomes the titled man on fire.\n"His art is death, and he's about to paint his masterpiece," says Creasy's buddy Rayburn (played by Christopher Walken, who this critic always welcomes into any movie). \nThe film has, well, a look which is hard to describe but pleasant to watch. Most of Scott's films (like "Spy Game") have compelling visual elements and dazzling cinematography. The camera is often hand-held and shaky, almost paranoid and Mexico City is filtered through as grainy and dirty. The soundtrack is startlingly appropriate and easily catches the film's mood. It all might not work in any other movie, but here, it's almost like an extension of the plot.\nReliable screenwriter Brian Helgeland penned a script which unfolds slowly, and at times drags a bit too much. At nearly two-and-a-half hours, it could have been told in a little under two. I imagine much will be said about the film's sudden right-angle turn at the midpoint, when with the utterance of a simple line -- "I'm going to kill them" -- the film goes from bonding to bloodshed. (Hey, I think it still works.)\nThere's a great guardian-chemistry between Washington and Fanning, who both give strong performances here. Scott, as usual, is able to intrigue his viewers with his visual presentation. It all makes "Man on Fire" the kind of film you might have already seen, but can't do wrong seeing again.
(04/29/04 4:00am)
Tony Scott's "Man on Fire" is the kind of movie you've probably already seen somewhere along the line. It's about a man who, because of some personal and emotional attachment, turns into a vigilante when that attachment is harshly severed. He goes after the bad guys, it's predictable but we cheer him on so when credits roll, we've met our revenge quota for the month. \nOpen and shut, right? Well, not so much. You may have seen this kind of movie before, but nothing like this. "Man on Fire" might be too cliché if it wasn't a guilty pleasure waiting to be confessed.\nThe vigilante here is played by Denzel Washington, who has been good in almost everything he's done since 1987, even if the particular movie is not. His John Creasy is a Bible-quoting alcoholic, a wash-up and an ex-CIA specialist (all in one!), and is now working as a bodyguard in Mexico City. \nHe's been brought on because of a string of kidnappings, and his protect-ee is a button-cute, nine-year-old girl played by Dakota Fanning. When she herself is abducted, Creasy becomes the titled man on fire.\n"His art is death, and he's about to paint his masterpiece," says Creasy's buddy Rayburn (played by Christopher Walken, who this critic always welcomes into any movie). \nThe film has, well, a look which is hard to describe but pleasant to watch. Most of Scott's films (like "Spy Game") have compelling visual elements and dazzling cinematography. The camera is often hand-held and shaky, almost paranoid and Mexico City is filtered through as grainy and dirty. The soundtrack is startlingly appropriate and easily catches the film's mood. It all might not work in any other movie, but here, it's almost like an extension of the plot.\nReliable screenwriter Brian Helgeland penned a script which unfolds slowly, and at times drags a bit too much. At nearly two-and-a-half hours, it could have been told in a little under two. I imagine much will be said about the film's sudden right-angle turn at the midpoint, when with the utterance of a simple line -- "I'm going to kill them" -- the film goes from bonding to bloodshed. (Hey, I think it still works.)\nThere's a great guardian-chemistry between Washington and Fanning, who both give strong performances here. Scott, as usual, is able to intrigue his viewers with his visual presentation. It all makes "Man on Fire" the kind of film you might have already seen, but can't do wrong seeing again.
(04/26/04 4:28am)
Here's what I was able to gauge about Ralph Nader during his weekend presidential pit-stop on campus: There's a fiery honesty in his beliefs, and he's willing to do absolutely anything to keep that flame burning for one more election cycle.\nNader is always looking for a way to spread word about himself. And he's always looking for a way to pass it down the line. But it seems like he's genuinely concerned that if for some reason he leaves the public stage, all of his causes will also evaporate.\nIt's almost enough to make you feel bad for him. There aren't many people currently living we can honestly say have changed the way the world works, and Nader is one of those few. As a die-hard consumer advocate, he has been a driving force behind many safety standards and environmental programs from the government. His citizen accomplishments are undeniable.\nSo why does he keep running for president? As far as I can tell, Nader's presidential runs don't enhance his image. If anything, they tend to play down his past accomplishments in exchange for promoting him as a decent third party alternative (read "decent" in whatever way you want).\nIt's tough to keep your cause blowing in the wind. Nader keeps his alive by running for president. And whoever he punishes is the process -- from one politician to the entire country -- is beside the point.\nChagrined Democrats are up-in-arms about Nader's independent bid for the presidency this year. They blame him solely for Al Gore's loss in 2000. (Gore failed for many reasons that year; of all the hurdles he failed to clear, Nader was only one of them.)\nRepublicans, on the other hand, are elated. The Dallas Morning News reported nearly 10 percent of Nader contributors who gave at least $250 have a history of supporting President Bush. They cheer that a vote for Nader is a vote for Bush.\nBut this time, it won't matter. This time isn't last time, and partisan allegiances, those who want Bush out at any cost versus those who want Bush to stay, are just too polarized. There will always be the protest-vote option, but in the end, Nader is in no way so alluring that the populace won't be able to pass him up.\nHis campaign is essentially a one-note song. Americans, he says, should not have to vote for the lesser of two evils because, in the end, you still get evil. It's a nice politician catchphrase because it twists and distorts and doesn't add up.\nHis image has been built on the idea that he is above the rest of Washington (where he's been for the majority of his career), and that he's pure, clean and unsoiled by money, power or fame.\nWhatever -- he still frowns at any implication he's a politician when, by literal definition, he is. He's become guilty of the same charges he throws at others. His best role in his service was as public defender; his worst role is his incessant desire to join what he thinks is the problem. To be sure, it's funny that "Saint Ralph" would never admit that, if we saw politics the way he wants us to see them, he'd be the "least of three evils."\nNader's trip to Bloomington was part of his ongoing grassroots attempt to collect enough signatures (29,552 are needed in Indiana alone) to get him onto the ballot for the general election. I don't question whether he deserves a place on the ballot; for a healthy democracy, he most certainly does. But I won't be voting for him.
(04/19/04 4:29am)
They're called the Jefferson Muzzle Awards. You don't want to win one.\nI'd never heard about them until last week, but the idea is really quite brilliant. Reserved for a handful of the most egregious violators of free speech, each year since 1992, the Thomas Jefferson Center for the Protection of Free Expression has issued the Muzzles as a way to "censure the censors." (Jefferson famously said freedom of speech "cannot be limited without being lost.")\nAnyone is eligible -- politicians, school boards, judges, media outlets, etc. The honors are awarded without regard to ideology under the wise and correct standard that suppressing any speech from any point on the political spectrum is wrong. Winners receive a complimentary T-shirt with a picture of the third president and a black censor bar covering his mouth. \nThis year's recipients were an eclectic bunch. CBS Television garnered its third Muzzle award in nine years for applying a double standard to the commercials purchased for Superbowl time. Although CBS allowed a number of public service announcements, the station denied liberal advocacy group MoveOn and People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals the chance to purchase airtime.\nAdditionally, TJC cited the mishandling of the controversial mini-series "The Reagans." After criticism that the mini-series was unsympathetic and unflattering to President Reagan and his wife, the network moved the series to Showtime, a premium cable channel owned by CBS parent company Viacom.\nAlso recognized was the U.S. Secret Service, deserving of a Muzzle on two different occasions. Over the past few years at rallies and speeches, protesters of President Bush and his policies have been restricted to remote and ironic "designated free speech zones." Recently, a retired Pennsylvania steelworker was arrested and detained after refusal to move to the protest zone. (Similar incidents have occurred in 11 other states.)\nSecondly, the Secret Service investigated conservative cartoonist Michael Ramirez of the Los Angeles Times. Ramirez drew a cartoon in the summer of 2003 based on a famous photo from the Vietnam War in which a South Vietnamese officer is seen shooting a Viet Cong officer in civilian clothes. In the update, Ramirez, an avid Bush supporter, indicated the men are in Iraq, and a man with "politics" written on his back is aiming the gun at a caricature of Bush.\nAstute enough not to realize the cartoon was supporting Bush and claiming the president had become, in Ramirez's words, a "target of political assassination," the Secret Service believed Ramirez might have threatened the president's life.\n(Rep. Christopher Cox, R-Calif., accused the Secret Service of showing "profoundly bad judgment" and insisted Ramirez deserved an immediate apology.)\nThese are only two of the many Muzzles given out this year and only a few of the many examples of suppressed speech. In a terrorism world, battles over speech are more precarious and contentious than ever, but a fine line must be observed in order to protect freedom and balance safety. \nTJC's mission statement is to see the Muzzles "are awarded as a means to draw national attention to abridgments of free speech and press and, at the same time, foster an appreciation for those tenets of the First Amendment."\nI'm unsure how much national exposure the Muzzles will get (an unsatisfactory amount is my guess), but I hope they do create more of an appreciation for our freedoms.\nIn its creation of the Muzzle awards, outing free speech violators on the left and the right, the Thomas Jefferson Center has done an important service for America.\nA complete list of Muzzles can be read at the TJC Web site, www.tjcenter.org.
(04/15/04 11:08pm)
Next week is the 10th annual national TV-Turnoff week. It's sponsored by the ironically titled TV-Turnoff Network, a nonprofit organization which encourages people to watch less television in order to "turn on life."\nI can turn off my television for one week. After all, I have TiVo.\nI personally hate the idea of a TV-Turnoff week. It's filled to the brim with holier-than-thou attitude. It's initiated by people who think they're smarter than you simply because they don't watch television, when in truth they may be smarter than you for a variety of other reasons (or vice versa, of course). Ideally when you turn off the TV, you'll see the light or something and, I don't know, throw your Magnavox out the window.\nMost importantly, these people miss the point entirely. Their hearts are in the right places, but their heads are cluttered. They want to ask a loaded question like "Why is television bad?," which would imply directly that TV is bad, when they should be asking a question like, "Is TV bad?" \nThe answer, of course, is no. It's not the TV that's the problem; it's the superfluous amount of low grade entertainment that's bad -- but the two have become inextricable.\nTelevision is simply one of those things you have to take in moderation, like religion. It's okay to go to church, but it's not okay to kill in the name of your God. Similarly, it's okay to watch television, but if you're skipping classes because an evil twin has shown up on "General Hospital," you have a problem. It's all about how you spend your time, get it?\nThe TV-Turnoff Network has a two-fold agenda, which seem to run disanalogous to each other. The first I've talked about. The basis there is smart: they want to promote action and movement and exercise by clicking off the boob tube because Americans are obese. But if you want to criticize our obesity, attacking television only addresses a fraction of the issue. It's not the TV's fault you're fat; it's your fault you're fat.\nThe second part is called More Reading, Less TV. The idea is to correlate lack of physical activity with TV-watching and promoting reading. According to Dr. William Dietz, the director of the Division of Nutrition and Physical Activity at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, "The easiest way to reduce inactivity is to turn off the TV set. Almost anything uses more energy than watching TV." \nI remember the last time I got winded from reading a book.\nDon't get me wrong. I still think when you compare the vast amount of intelligent reading material out there to the intellectual wasteland which constitutes the majority of television you will still spend your time more wisely with a book. But don't masquerade like it's a compelling physical alternative.\nSen. Robert Byrd, the most senior member of the United States Senate, advocated the week without TV a few years ago. "I do want to emphatically stress that there is much more to life than the boring, degrading, demeaning fare on the boob tube," he proclaimed.\nHis C-SPAN audience must have been thankful.\nCertainly you can see the illogic in it: the majority of TV is crap, but it doesn't necessarily follow that all TV is crap. In fact, there are actually many brilliant shows on television. You just have to know where to look.\nAnd it's becoming increasingly harder. The sitcom is currently suffering from a languished death, and many are heading out the door this season. Award-winning dramas like "The West Wing" are depreciating from a lack of inventive writing. There's an inane flood of "reality" programming.\nBut you can start with Comedy Central. On face value it isn't exactly a beacon of illumination, but it's home to two of the smartest shows on TV: "The Daily Show with Jon Stewart" and "South Park." Stewart and his crew of savvy satirists has transformed "Daily" into a pillar of media criticism and classy humor all while not being over your head. \nTrey Parker and Matt Stone's timely "South Park" is now in its eighth season and still going strong. Even non-fans have to admit that when Parker and Stone set out to lampoon something or someone, they hit the bull's-eye every time.\nThere are other smart outlets: perennial favorites like "The Simpsons" and "Seinfeld" in syndication. "SportsCenter" has lost its edge from the heyday of the dynamic duo of Keith Olbermann and Dan Patrick, but it's still the best sports recap out there. CNN's "Anderson Cooper 360" is a pleasant alternative to the typical newscast.\nFinally, Cartoon Network's "Adult Swim" packs a punch with a slew of irreverent programming, like "Family Guy" and the hilariously offbeat "Harvey Birdman, Attorney at Law."\nAll that's necessary is a balance. If there's nothing on, turn it off. It's about spending your time wisely. Watch only what you need. Get out and exercise when you're bored. Too much TV is bad; TV itself is not. It's time for a Develop-Some-Taste-and-Stop-Consuming-Garbage Week.\nIf you still think I'm wrong, you can make yourself a sandwich, pour yourself a soda and plop down in front of your computer for an hour or two to scan through the comprehensive TV-Turnoff Network's Web site at www.tvturnoff.org. I'm sure they wouldn't mind if you spend a sedentary hour researching their cause. Would they?
(04/15/04 4:00am)
Next week is the 10th annual national TV-Turnoff week. It's sponsored by the ironically titled TV-Turnoff Network, a nonprofit organization which encourages people to watch less television in order to "turn on life."\nI can turn off my television for one week. After all, I have TiVo.\nI personally hate the idea of a TV-Turnoff week. It's filled to the brim with holier-than-thou attitude. It's initiated by people who think they're smarter than you simply because they don't watch television, when in truth they may be smarter than you for a variety of other reasons (or vice versa, of course). Ideally when you turn off the TV, you'll see the light or something and, I don't know, throw your Magnavox out the window.\nMost importantly, these people miss the point entirely. Their hearts are in the right places, but their heads are cluttered. They want to ask a loaded question like "Why is television bad?," which would imply directly that TV is bad, when they should be asking a question like, "Is TV bad?" \nThe answer, of course, is no. It's not the TV that's the problem; it's the superfluous amount of low grade entertainment that's bad -- but the two have become inextricable.\nTelevision is simply one of those things you have to take in moderation, like religion. It's okay to go to church, but it's not okay to kill in the name of your God. Similarly, it's okay to watch television, but if you're skipping classes because an evil twin has shown up on "General Hospital," you have a problem. It's all about how you spend your time, get it?\nThe TV-Turnoff Network has a two-fold agenda, which seem to run disanalogous to each other. The first I've talked about. The basis there is smart: they want to promote action and movement and exercise by clicking off the boob tube because Americans are obese. But if you want to criticize our obesity, attacking television only addresses a fraction of the issue. It's not the TV's fault you're fat; it's your fault you're fat.\nThe second part is called More Reading, Less TV. The idea is to correlate lack of physical activity with TV-watching and promoting reading. According to Dr. William Dietz, the director of the Division of Nutrition and Physical Activity at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, "The easiest way to reduce inactivity is to turn off the TV set. Almost anything uses more energy than watching TV." \nI remember the last time I got winded from reading a book.\nDon't get me wrong. I still think when you compare the vast amount of intelligent reading material out there to the intellectual wasteland which constitutes the majority of television you will still spend your time more wisely with a book. But don't masquerade like it's a compelling physical alternative.\nSen. Robert Byrd, the most senior member of the United States Senate, advocated the week without TV a few years ago. "I do want to emphatically stress that there is much more to life than the boring, degrading, demeaning fare on the boob tube," he proclaimed.\nHis C-SPAN audience must have been thankful.\nCertainly you can see the illogic in it: the majority of TV is crap, but it doesn't necessarily follow that all TV is crap. In fact, there are actually many brilliant shows on television. You just have to know where to look.\nAnd it's becoming increasingly harder. The sitcom is currently suffering from a languished death, and many are heading out the door this season. Award-winning dramas like "The West Wing" are depreciating from a lack of inventive writing. There's an inane flood of "reality" programming.\nBut you can start with Comedy Central. On face value it isn't exactly a beacon of illumination, but it's home to two of the smartest shows on TV: "The Daily Show with Jon Stewart" and "South Park." Stewart and his crew of savvy satirists has transformed "Daily" into a pillar of media criticism and classy humor all while not being over your head. \nTrey Parker and Matt Stone's timely "South Park" is now in its eighth season and still going strong. Even non-fans have to admit that when Parker and Stone set out to lampoon something or someone, they hit the bull's-eye every time.\nThere are other smart outlets: perennial favorites like "The Simpsons" and "Seinfeld" in syndication. "SportsCenter" has lost its edge from the heyday of the dynamic duo of Keith Olbermann and Dan Patrick, but it's still the best sports recap out there. CNN's "Anderson Cooper 360" is a pleasant alternative to the typical newscast.\nFinally, Cartoon Network's "Adult Swim" packs a punch with a slew of irreverent programming, like "Family Guy" and the hilariously offbeat "Harvey Birdman, Attorney at Law."\nAll that's necessary is a balance. If there's nothing on, turn it off. It's about spending your time wisely. Watch only what you need. Get out and exercise when you're bored. Too much TV is bad; TV itself is not. It's time for a Develop-Some-Taste-and-Stop-Consuming-Garbage Week.\nIf you still think I'm wrong, you can make yourself a sandwich, pour yourself a soda and plop down in front of your computer for an hour or two to scan through the comprehensive TV-Turnoff Network's Web site at www.tvturnoff.org. I'm sure they wouldn't mind if you spend a sedentary hour researching their cause. Would they?
(04/12/04 6:02am)
Stabilizing Iraq is now reminding me of long car rides from my childhood. Even though the destination seemed wonderful, no matter how much time had passed and no matter how much terrain we had covered, it still felt like it took an eternity to get there. I fidgeted; buckled into the backseat I was uncomfortable. I wanted to know, are we almost there?\nAs for Iraq, the pictures and stories coming from the war-torn country in the last few weeks have been a startlingly stark affirmation we still have a long way to go.\nCivilians and innocents are being kidnapped. Radical clerics are exploiting anti-U.S. sentiments and are encouraging revolts against soldiers. Liberated cities are falling to insurgents.\nWith more than one year under our belt, more than $100 billion spent and more than 600 American lives lost, there is no safety in Iraq. We have disposed of an awful dictator (that's the defense I hear most often) whom we are told conducted unspeakable cruelties to his people -- I'm happy he's gone. But we must stand in err when we are unable to separate his presence and Iraq's safety. He may be gone, but that does not necessarily say Iraqis are safe.\nNow we are caught in a crisis. How, and when, do we leave? After all, we must leave sometime. Sooner is better than later, but leaving Iraq in tatters is worse than leaving a country to the citizens with which they can work.\nIt's doubtful we will make our self-imposed deadline of June 30 to hand over the sovereignty of Iraq to Iraq, even if we can figure out to whom exactly we're handing it over.\nThe goal of the June 30 deadline was political and not practical; to avoid Iraq becoming the Q-word: quagmire. This is the notorious word brandished upon the Vietnam War, the idea that, the merits of our presence aside, leaving would only make things worse. \nThere are sufficient differences between Iraq and Vietnam (one year versus two decades, just for one example), but the comparison is not unwarranted. We do run a serious risk of either becoming perpetually stuck in a country we can't fix or folding our cards and conceding there's nothing else we can do. And nobody seems comfortable with either.\nMy opposition to the war always laid in two facts: the administration did not provide substantial evidence to its real claims (the WMD, if you'll remember) of why we went to war, nor did it provide any sufficient exit plan strategy. If it had only answered my two concerns, I -- and many other Americans -- would have climbed on board.\nThe Bush administration needs to rethink this mess. Even if you can stretch your imagination and grant it the benefit of the doubt on WMD, you're still left with: why didn't the administration have a viable exit plan? If Bush thought rebuilding was going to be a cake-walk, that proves a serious breach of competence on his behalf. Now journalists and citizens are forced to attempt to fill in the blank space of an exit strategy the administration should have provided.\nI avoided writing about Iraq for more than a year. My mistake was I brushed off the war as merely inevitable, and wrote about other topics. I admit my mistake (it's not too late for Bush to admit his), and now write my concerns when the prospect of losing the peace is becoming more and more inevitable.\nI'm at the front of the line wishing and hoping someone pulls out some miraculous plan that will get us out of Iraq. But I can't help but feel like that helpless little kid fidgeting in the back of the car again. \nPresident Bush, are we almost there?
(04/05/04 4:23am)
Air America, a new all-liberal talk radio station, premiered last Wednesday in five markets, and already, commentators are prophesying its demise. Conservative commentators are on the attack, claiming there's no likelihood for the station's survival.\nThe thing is -- they're right.\nI should make clear right now that I don't think they're right for the same reasons they do. I see the idea of liberal talk radio as practically unrealistic for a number of reasons. Many conservatives, however, have a compelling interest invested in the failure of liberal talk radio. It's not only their prediction, it's their wish. It'll be all the proof they need to say liberalism is a complete failure.\nJeff Jacoby, a columnist for the Boston Globe, wrote last year that talk radio emphasizes words and arguments and, thus, liberals will fail because of an inability to engage critics and a tendency to write-off those that disagree with them. (Sure, because I've never seen a conservative do that.) \nJonah Goldberg, a contributing editor to National Review, highlighted a few reasons why liberal talk radio won't work, including: 1) Liberals are demagogues, and 2) Liberalism is wrong.\nSyndicated columnist Cal Thomas had by far my favorite reason: "Conservatism is optimistic and fun. Liberalism is pessimistic and dour." Fun, people! Fun!\nForget for a moment, if you will, the irony in those statements, and let's see if we can examine the real reasons liberal talk radio won't work.\nAir America's executives often point to "The Daily Show," perhaps one of the best shows on TV, as the type of programming they want to imitate. (In addition, "Daily Show" co-creator Lizz Winstead is hosting a morning program for Air America.) Above all, they say they want their radio shows to be funny. \nBut "The Daily Show" is only a half-hour of compact satire and humor with an entertaining cast and great writers. Most shows on Air America have two or three personalities at a time and are three hours long for five days a week.\nTalk radio is a business. Many liberals tune into conservative talk radio just for the anger factor, but I doubt conservatives will tune into liberal talk radio for the same reason. Of course there must be a market for left-leaning talk radio somewhere, but there's not the demand for it like there is for conservative talk radio.\nThere are many outlets in the media that provide debate: cable news networks, newspaper, magazines, the Internet and now Web logs. But many conservatives generally feel the mainstream media is slanted way to the left. For them, talk radio is a refuge.\nThere are other reasons why I think leftist radio will fail. Liberals are too nuanced for talk radio, which thrives on one voice talking at you rather than talking with you. Single-sided talk radio promotes intellectual laziness, framing issues as black or white and no in between.\nAir America runs the risk of defining itself as opposition to conservative talk radio rather than defining itself as a unique radio station. Its success will depend on how creative the station plans to be and how far it can distance itself from traditional talk radio.\nOh, and there's one last reason why I think Air America will fail. Bill O'Reilly told the Washington Post last week, "I don't think the enterprise is marketable at all. It's a one-trick pony. They're trying to emulate what Rush Limbaugh did. I don't think they have the people to do it."\nApparently, there's only room in talk radio land for one ideology to have a chance to foam at the mouth and yell into the microphone. Sorry, liberals -- I guess conservatives adapted that role first.
(03/29/04 4:28am)
Moisés Kaufman's "The Laramie Project," a play about Matthew Shepard and the town of Laramie, Wyo., is playing in Bloomington this week, and it has me thinking again about hate crime laws. \nIn October 1998, Shepard was beaten, tied to a secluded fence and left to die just because he was gay. His murder ignited a national debate on whether hate crimes (crimes specifically motivated by race, religion, sexual orientation or some other prejudice) deserve an enforceable place in U.S. law.\nAt the beginning of that debate, even after Shepard's death, I was originally opposed to hate crime laws. As I read more about them, however, I discovered much of my opposition was rooted in anemic excuses, and I came to my senses.\nThe chief goal for hate crime opponents is to prove there's no difference between hate crimes and other crimes. They've done this shrewdly and upon inherently false pretenses: if two men are murdered identically, one at random and the other because he is gay, then the claim is these crimes are no different. The rallying cry is often the clichéd "a murder is a murder is a murder."\nNo doubt, it would be a very compelling argument if it weren't so blatantly untrue. The U.S. justice system treats crimes differently according to its victim, its impact and its intent. Our legal system, therefore, can convict on varying degrees of murder and dole out varying degrees of sentences and punishments. Ideally, it'd all be the same because, in the end, someone is still dead, but under the complexities of the law, it is not.\nAdding hate crime charges to any case is not easy. You can't prosecute a hate crime depending upon who the victim happens to be -- there must be a clear, discernable pattern based on material evidence proving the prejudiced motivation.\nTaking motive and state of mind into consideration does not make a hate crime, as some portray them, some sort of chilling, Orwellian thought crime. Columnist George Will wrote in 1998: "Some motives for seemingly similar deeds are so much worse than others that they make some deeds different not only in degree of odiousness but in kind: Painting 'Beat Michigan' on a bridge is not quite the same offense as painting 'Burn Jews' on a synagogue. Surely the criminal law can take cognizance of such distinctions."\nOpponents come out swinging hard that hate crime laws violate the First Amendment because they punish people for their thoughts rather than their actions. But the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously rejected this notion in 1993 when it upheld enhanced sentencing for hate crimes. \n"A physical assault is not by any stretch of imagination expressive conduct protected by the First Amendment," Chief Justice William Rehnquist wrote.\nAdditionally, hate crimes are qualitatively different because the overall ending is different. Even if the damages to the immediate victims are the same, the total impact of the hate crime is not. In each hate crime, the message sent to the whole group to which the victim belongs is: "Watch out, or this could happen to you."\nThe American Psychological Association published a study that noted most hate crimes are carried out by otherwise law-abiding people who see little wrong in their actions. In some settings, some offenders actually perceive they have societal permission to engage in hate crimes.\nIt's the hate crimes themselves, not the legislation empowering the state to punish, that violate liberty to the greatest degree. A hate crime victim is certainly not the more important victim, but arguably he or she is the victim of a more important crime. Maybe Indiana (one of the last states without state hate crime laws) can reach that conclusion soon.
(03/25/04 5:00am)
To say "Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind," the new movie written by the audacious Charlie Kaufman, is incredibly original would be highly redundant. Kaufman's name has become synonymous with originality since establishing himself as the screenwriting golden boy behind such imagination-benders as "Being John Malkovich" and "Adaptation."\nSo, yes, "Eternal Sunshine" follows suit and is a highly entertaining dark comedy and, surprisingly, an often touching romance. \nLike all of Kaufman's works, this one deals with the mind, this time with specific focus on our memories. It's full of cinematic tricks, surprises, turns and twists. It's told in the dimensions inside and outside the human mind, partially in chronological order and partially in reverse, and, amazingly, is still not difficult to follow.\nKaufman usually teams up with director Spike Jonze, but this time the director is Michel Gondry, a great veteran of music videos including many for The White Stripes. A good music video looks great, feels fun and is creative but doesn't lose the essence of the song. That balanced approach is part of the brilliance of "Eternal." It has a very unique premise, but isn't so brainy that it drowns out all the heart.\nI knew very little about the plot going in, and I'm now convinced the less one knows about the actual plot the more one will wholly enjoy this movie. I'll be pithy: Joel (Jim Carrey) and Clementine (Kate Winslet) have a nasty break-up. To recover, Clem hires the services of Lacuna Inc., a company which specializes in erasing memories. When Joel finds out, he hires them to wash Clem out of his mind as well.\nHere's the problem: about halfway through the procedure, Joel changes his mind when he realizes the good memories of Clem are fading away along with the bad. What follows and unfolds is a complex, wonderful maze through Joel's mind, with Kaufman and Gondry holding your hands.\nThe cast is strong all around. Carrey has had his ups and downs with serious roles (up in "The Truman Show," down in "The Majestic"), but he's found one which is just perfect here. He brings a charming depth to this role, and while it won't get him that Oscar nod he desires, it's a role which feels very real for him. \nThe bottom line is "Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind" is one of the best movies I've seen in a long time.
(03/25/04 5:00am)
If you have never seen Steven Spielberg's "Schindler's List," easily and undoubtedly one of the best movies of the '90s, there will probably never be a better time now that the film is new to DVD. This is probably my fourth or fifth time seeing the film, and it still amazes me and it still makes me cry.\nThe story revolves around the true-life story of Oskar Schindler (Liam Neeson in a flawless performance), a greedy Nazi businessman who was far from sainthood. He used cheap Jewish labor to set up a factory in occupied Poland, but his motives shift from profit to a humanitarianism as he literally buys the lives of over 1,100 Jews and saves them from death camps.\nThe DVD's special features leave a bit more to be desired. "Voices from the List" is a nice featurette about the "Schindler Jews," as they're called. And although the film runs a little longer than three hours, after hour two the disc needs to be flipped over to side B to continue (I thought DVDs were supposed to prevent this nuisance?).\nNevertheless, the movie is perfect and looks magnificent. It is unlikely Spielberg will ever surpass "Schindler's List," even if he makes a hundred more films.
(03/24/04 9:17pm)
If you have never seen Steven Spielberg's "Schindler's List," easily and undoubtedly one of the best movies of the '90s, there will probably never be a better time now that the film is new to DVD. This is probably my fourth or fifth time seeing the film, and it still amazes me and it still makes me cry.\nThe story revolves around the true-life story of Oskar Schindler (Liam Neeson in a flawless performance), a greedy Nazi businessman who was far from sainthood. He used cheap Jewish labor to set up a factory in occupied Poland, but his motives shift from profit to a humanitarianism as he literally buys the lives of over 1,100 Jews and saves them from death camps.\nThe DVD's special features leave a bit more to be desired. "Voices from the List" is a nice featurette about the "Schindler Jews," as they're called. And although the film runs a little longer than three hours, after hour two the disc needs to be flipped over to side B to continue (I thought DVDs were supposed to prevent this nuisance?).\nNevertheless, the movie is perfect and looks magnificent. It is unlikely Spielberg will ever surpass "Schindler's List," even if he makes a hundred more films.
(03/24/04 8:38pm)
To say "Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind," the new movie written by the audacious Charlie Kaufman, is incredibly original would be highly redundant. Kaufman's name has become synonymous with originality since establishing himself as the screenwriting golden boy behind such imagination-benders as "Being John Malkovich" and "Adaptation."\nSo, yes, "Eternal Sunshine" follows suit and is a highly entertaining dark comedy and, surprisingly, an often touching romance. \nLike all of Kaufman's works, this one deals with the mind, this time with specific focus on our memories. It's full of cinematic tricks, surprises, turns and twists. It's told in the dimensions inside and outside the human mind, partially in chronological order and partially in reverse, and, amazingly, is still not difficult to follow.\nKaufman usually teams up with director Spike Jonze, but this time the director is Michel Gondry, a great veteran of music videos including many for The White Stripes. A good music video looks great, feels fun and is creative but doesn't lose the essence of the song. That balanced approach is part of the brilliance of "Eternal." It has a very unique premise, but isn't so brainy that it drowns out all the heart.\nI knew very little about the plot going in, and I'm now convinced the less one knows about the actual plot the more one will wholly enjoy this movie. I'll be pithy: Joel (Jim Carrey) and Clementine (Kate Winslet) have a nasty break-up. To recover, Clem hires the services of Lacuna Inc., a company which specializes in erasing memories. When Joel finds out, he hires them to wash Clem out of his mind as well.\nHere's the problem: about halfway through the procedure, Joel changes his mind when he realizes the good memories of Clem are fading away along with the bad. What follows and unfolds is a complex, wonderful maze through Joel's mind, with Kaufman and Gondry holding your hands.\nThe cast is strong all around. Carrey has had his ups and downs with serious roles (up in "The Truman Show," down in "The Majestic"), but he's found one which is just perfect here. He brings a charming depth to this role, and while it won't get him that Oscar nod he desires, it's a role which feels very real for him. \nThe bottom line is "Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind" is one of the best movies I've seen in a long time.
(03/08/04 4:39am)
The Religious Right is so strong the Republican Party can't help but pander to them. They're the strict conservative power structure that is pushing a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriages. They continue to engulf the GOP and to foster contempt for gays. Therefore, I don't blame the Republican Party directly for the amendment's support. I blame the Religious Right.\nThe commonly accepted idea is that the amendment will split the Democratic Party, but I say if the GOP isn't careful, it may very well split their own. Being an independent, I usually don't give advice to the political parties, but Republicans, you really need to lay off gay people. \nThey may be born gay, but they aren't born Democrats. A lot of gay people want to vote Republican but find the GOP asininely hostile, divisive and intolerant. However, the GOP can't afford to lose gay Republicans. The irony is that the Republican Party needs gay people more than gay people need the Republican Party.\nCNN exit polls in 2000 indicated nearly 5 percent of the electorate identified themselves as gay, with who knows how many more closeted. Bush got over a million gay votes, and in an election that close, I'm sure he appreciated every one. \nThe Log Cabin Republicans, the largest gay Republican advocacy group in the country, and perhaps one of the most patient advocacy groups, exists to tackle the radical right's bigotry head-on. But the members are fighting an uphill battle for inclusion in a party that would rather keep them at arm's length and handle them with rubber gloves. \nMark Brostoff realized this. Brostoff, a local precinct representative who is openly gay, left the GOP last week in protest over President Bush's endorsement of a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. \nWhen I spoke with him last week, he told me that, for him, it isn't a debate over whether you're for or against same-sex marriage. It's whether you're for or against amending the founding legal document of our country to limit individual rights. \nLog Cabin Republicans call it their "line in the sand." They are launching a cross-country television campaign to challenge President Bush's call for the amendment, but in the meantime, who knows how many low-profile gay people will decide not to vote for Bush.\nThis can't be explained to the Religious Right. They drop threats when they feel the GOP is straying too much into the societal norm. Bush probably doesn't even think the amendment has a chance to pass, but why lose an opportunity to kiss a little religious butt? The claim is that he's reassuring them and "energizing his conservative base."\nSo they weren't energized for him before? Who else were they going to vote for -- gay rights advocate John Kerry? Well, no. They're whining that if they feel betrayed by Bush's stands on social issues, they just won't vote in November. (Allow me to say: thanks, you won't be missed at the polls.)\nRepublicans should tread lightly. I'm not saying they need to abandon their commitment to family values, but they shouldn't start saying "my family is superior to your family." Bush will get the conservative vote and the religious vote anyway -- he needs to worry about the moderate vote that may find codifying bigotry into the Constitution a bit too extreme.\nI'm primarily concerned that it's morally wrong to use hate and alienate gay voters. But the GOP should be concerned they're being overwhelmed by corrupting radicals. If they're smart, they'll slowly try to divorce itself from religious zealots. If they're not, they risks placing themselves on the losing side of politics, or worse, the wrong side of history.
(03/04/04 5:00am)
The old story goes that when Robert S. McNamara, then the president of Ford Motor Company, was asked by newly elected President John F. Kennedy to join the Cabinet, McNamara was hesitant because he was unsure he had the credentials.\nKennedy responded, with typically dry Kennedy humor, he didn't think there was a school for presidents either.\nBut McNamara stood up, when asked by his government to serve, and became the Secretary of Defense for Kennedy and later Lyndon Johnson. He served during perhaps one of the most tumultuous times in the Defense Department's history. McNamara's own version of the seven years he served is captured by Errol Morris in an award-winning documentary called "The Fog of War."\nThe concept may seem boring and the film seems to run a little long, but McNamara's story is full of conflict and struggle. History has been mostly harsh to him, praising him as the "Wiz Kid" sent to save Ford then slamming him as the "architect" of the Vietnam War.\n"The Fog of War" is a combination of archival clips, showing a young McNamara at press conferences or touring Vietnam, and a current conversation with McNamara who was 85-years-old when interviewed, but still has the same or more youthful energy than he did in the old footage. When talking to McNamara, Morris used a device called the "Interrotron," which allows him and his subject to look into each other's eyes while also looking directly into the camera lens. \nIt's that one-on-one feeling which gives the film its real force and impact. Some critics have suggested the current administration would benefit from watching a film like this, and I would agree. Anyone can benefit from watching this film and learning from a wise man. (Morris has subtitled this film "Eleven Lessons From the Life of Robert McNamara," and loosely breaks up the movie into 11 segments, each one beginning with a simple truism.)\nThe film isn't trying to resolve the issues around McNamara's tenure. It's trying to understand how a person can work under such pressure with the threat of failure so imminent and still perform well. If there's one overlapping theme here, it's humans are fallible and make mistakes, and regular people need to be reminded of that just as much as someone high in the government. \nMcNamara looks back and regrets things during his stint as defense secretary; but he doesn't write them off and he doesn't dwell on them. He's very human, and this alone makes "The Fog of War" very engaging.
(03/04/04 5:00am)
Roy Waller (Nicolas Cage) continually reminds people during "Matchstick Men" that he is not a con man, but rather a con artist. "I don't take people's money," he says explaining the difference. "They give it to me." The sentiment works well. This isn't just a regular con movie; it's a clever and classy rendition of what could have been the same old song-and-dance.\nThere are nicely multilayered stories, which coalesce smoothly and pack tightly into a regular-sized movie. Roy is an obsessive-compulsive agoraphobe. His con artist protégé is Frank (Sam Rockwell), and together they are planning a gigantic con. And as if that's not stressful enough, Roy's daughter Angela (Alison Lohman) seemingly appears out of nowhere to become reacquainted with her estranged father.\nSo much of this movie is wonderful, and it's easily one of my favorites from last year. Offbeat roles show Cage's better side, like his work in the quirky "Adaptation," and he shines in this movie. \nThose particularly interested in cinema will enjoy a realistic "tricks of the trade" making-of documentary on the DVD. There are no other features, but that along with the movie is enough to suggest this as a must-rent.
(03/04/04 3:58am)
Roy Waller (Nicolas Cage) continually reminds people during "Matchstick Men" that he is not a con man, but rather a con artist. "I don't take people's money," he says explaining the difference. "They give it to me." The sentiment works well. This isn't just a regular con movie; it's a clever and classy rendition of what could have been the same old song-and-dance.\nThere are nicely multilayered stories, which coalesce smoothly and pack tightly into a regular-sized movie. Roy is an obsessive-compulsive agoraphobe. His con artist protégé is Frank (Sam Rockwell), and together they are planning a gigantic con. And as if that's not stressful enough, Roy's daughter Angela (Alison Lohman) seemingly appears out of nowhere to become reacquainted with her estranged father.\nSo much of this movie is wonderful, and it's easily one of my favorites from last year. Offbeat roles show Cage's better side, like his work in the quirky "Adaptation," and he shines in this movie. \nThose particularly interested in cinema will enjoy a realistic "tricks of the trade" making-of documentary on the DVD. There are no other features, but that along with the movie is enough to suggest this as a must-rent.