Running

In my dreams, I'm running again, and so happy, loving it.

I don't know when it started, within the last few weeks, I suppose; lately, when I wake up, it's after dreaming about running a cross-country style race. Any fledgling psychologists out there would be wise to hold their tongues; these dreams aren't about running from something, but maybe about running toward something. I'm inclined to take them literally, though; I think I just miss running, and it's finally making it's way to my conscious mind. Unfortunately, I don't currently have good running shoes, and I hate running on roadways. London is not a convenient place to go for a nice, satisfying run. I may have to look into this some more, though, and see if I can find a proper solution.

Maybe I should re-name this blog "The Sleep Runner" in the meantime.

Martin Luther King Day

I have nothing particularly profound to write here, except to note that Dr. King, like President Obama, won a Nobel Peace Prize. Unlike President Obama, he had spent his life working for non-violence and opposing war, to the extent that other leaders in the black community worried his opposition to the Vietnam War would make it more difficult to pass civil rights reform. Of course, Henry Kissinger won a one, too.

Anyway, happy birthday-ish, Dr. King.

Governor Rell not running in 2010

Gov. Jodi Rell has decided not to run for re-election in 2010. Whoever wins the that job will receive all the blame for the state's budgetary woes (the Gold Coast turns out to be Tin, still struggling to get going again after the banks crashed) and will have an incredible uphill battle. If a Democrat wins (looks like Susan Bysiewicz is the Dem front-runner), it'll take an incredible amount of success and skill to avoid tarnishing the party in CT for the foreseeable future. If a Republican wins, it will be much harder to blame Democrats for the state of the state's finances (though not impossible by any means), and the success or failure of the Republican party/governor will be based mostly on their ability to shift the blame to the legislature. I also don't think I'd approve of the choices a Republican governor would make, but, frankly, I don't think I'll like many of the choices the next governor is going to have to make. It's going to be an interesting few years to be a nutmegger.

Maine

Last night the voters of Maine decided to invade the privacy of millions of citizens of their state to tell them that they had decided to rescind the marriage rights that had so recently been granted by the state's government. There are so many ways in which this is frustrating and offensive, but only a few worth mentioning. At its broadest, the idea that a majority of citizens can decide that another group of otherwise law-abiding citizens cannot get married is incredibly offensive. The idea two people in love who want to get married should be unable to because of their gender just doesn't sit right. Does it demean marriage? Can an institution which fails 50% of the time be demeaned? Not so easily. Can an institution which has historically been used to further careers, both political and non-political, be demeaned by people who love one another? Surely that's a joke. On the same level, then, the vote against allowing gays and lesbians to have the same rights as straight couples has nothing to do with the institution of marriage at all; it is all about homophobia, whether weak or strong. Weak homophobia says "I don't really like seeing two gay guys kiss... I've got gay friends, though, I've just never seen them with their boyfriends." Strong homophobia says "I hate gays, they're disgusting and they should all be killed." Although one is slightly softer than the other, they both end up voting the same way, to deny their brothers and sisters the rights they themselves have.

In the long run, though, gay marriage will win. At one point during the night, apparently, polling data from the University of Maine area was flashed on-screen showing 81% of the votes from the campus in favor of gay marriage (in opposition of the referendum question). That hatred is centered primarily among the older and aging populations, so it is inevitable that their movement will peter out. The broader curve of history is toward greater, not lesser, equality regardless of sexuality.

James Bond

I don't think I mentioned this previously, but a few months ago I read my first James Bond books. Specifically, I read a Penguin Modern Classics book containing Casino Royale, Live and Let Die and Moonraker. They were actually very interesting, although as a reader you have to remain constantly aware of the fact that the novels were written and published in the 1950s. In particular, the novels contain casual racism and sexism but, interestingly, they also move away from the stereotypes occasionally. Perhaps that is only as a nod to what Rudyard Kipling considered "the White Man's burden," but either way, they hint at a social enlightenment one might not expect from Ian Fleming or James Bond.

Reading the novels also reminds me of the age-old debate over the best Bond actors in film. In my opinion, you can only have this discussion if you leave Sean Connery out of it, since he essentially created the role and ought to be the touchstone against whom the rest are judged... not that I will entirely follow through on this. So, my ranking would be something along these lines: (Connery), Dalton/Craig (tie for best non-Connery), Brosnan, Lazenby and finally and worst, Moore. What Timothy Dalton and Daniel Craig did was to take the role of James Bond fairly seriously and Dalton, at least, had read the books and was a great fan of them. The James Bond of the novels doesn't have a one-liner or a quip ready for every occasion; rather, he's a serious guy who does what has to be done and, though he's willing to die for Queen and country, would really rather not. Roger Moore turned James Bond into a camp joke. Moore hadn't read any of the Bond novels and never really cared to. By the end, with his man-boobs and flopping, protrusive stomach, he simply had no credibility for the role.

As for my opinion of Lazenby, I thought he was actually a pretty decent Bond in On Her Majesty's Secret Service. He wasn't spectacular, but he outshone his successor by actually taking his character reasonably seriously and attempting to act. He did come off as a bit clumsy, but he was an interesting half-way between the Roger Moore silly/campy Bond and the incredibly serious and focused Bond of Timothy Dalton and, more recently, Daniel Craig. At the end of the day, in fact, I think Lazenby is the most underrated Bond actor, as most casual fans won't even have heard of him or his movie. I've also just read a bit about OHMSS on IMDb, because I was curious about Lazenby's story, and I learned that OHMSS is one of the most faithful adaptations to film of a Bond film, for which I give it quite a bit of credit. For those wondering why Lazenby was only in one film, IMDb says:

The main reason for George Lazenby refusing to reprise the role of James Bond was because he considered the tuxedo-clad secret agent to be out of touch with the newly liberated 1970s. Lazenby had been offered a seven picture deal and had signed a letter of intent to star in Diamonds Are Forever (1971). He had even been paid an initial fee installment which he later refunded.

The film came out in 1969.

Final note: I think Brosnan could have been higher on the list as he was a talented actor and took the role reasonably seriously, but every single film he was in was such incredible dreck, a holdover from the Moore days, that his reputation as Bond was forever sullied. However, we do owe Pierce Brosnan a debt of gratitude for being the caretaker for the character of Bond during the silly days that allowed for the franchise to be reset with more serious films and a more serious Bond.

Whoops

One of Roman Polanski's biggest defenders in France, Culture Minister Frédéric Mitterrand, admitted in a 2005 autobiography that he paid for sex with young boys in Thailand.

Bank of America Screws Me Again

It seems as though all Bank of America really exists for these days is to screw people, whether or not those people are customers. After all, they were heavily involved in the collapse of the world economy not too long ago, for which they were punished by having billions of dollars handed to them by the government. I guess they've already burned through that money, though, since they have now decided it would be a good idea to charge for bank accounts... unless you open your account online. I've had an account with Bank of America (and Fleet prior to the takeover) for 6 years or so, but the fact that I opened my account before they changed their rules doesn't exempt me from them. No, rather, I have to pay their $8.95 fee to have a bank account every month or, after paying the first month's fee (I received no warning of this change in policy), I can close my account and open a brand new account. What the fuck's the point of that? It seems pretty damned idiotic to say "ok, now we're going to charge you for having had an account with us for 6 years... or, you could close that account and open a brand new one for free!"

On a moderately related note, apparently Credit Default Swaps, which were the nuclear bomb that blew up the world economy, are back! Because, really, how could anyone think they're bad?