Art (as in painting, sculpting, etc) has always been somewhat lost on me especially as it moved into the modernist and abstract eras. The tone of this indicates that I may have been alive before such art existed, but, of course, I was not. Point being: I don’t get what a lot of it is all about. I enjoy still lifes and landscapes, more abstract photography I can sometimes get because it’s still a picture of something that is out there in the real (so to speak). But I am continually getting off point. What I don’t get is stuff like this dude Daniel Edwards is making.  He’s the guy who did Britney Spears nude on the bear skin rug with her baby crowning (it’s a sculpture, not some bizarre sex act).  Now he’s done a sarcophagus of Oprah.  Sure I understand that it’s some sort of commentary on popular culture and all that, but I don’t really understand it’s purpose.  I am just simply like “Why?” and then more like “Why the fuck do people care?”  Then again, I’m just an ignorant writer/paralegal/blogger hybrid of sorts that in all likelihood cannot breed (much like the mule).

Best part of the whole thing though, down at the bottom in the comments John from London notes, “Oprah will be President of the U.S.A. - it’s only a matter of time.”

At my graduation (my small portion of NYU that is) we didn’t have a real graduation speaker. Like a famous person graduation speaker. We had a pretty funny student get up there and give a damn good speech but we didn’t have famous writers or political figures or anything. I’m sure there was someone at the main Washington Square one as well as CAS and Stern and Tisch, but Gallatin was small and honestly I didn’t really care. I had a good high school speaker, but it was really nothing compared to this. It’s Will Farrel delivering some sort of speech at something called a Class Day at Harvard. It’s good. Take my word. Also, a December graduation speech from Scott Van Pelt which I found amusing. I think it’s always interesting to listen to speakers who never really expected to be chosen as speakers. I’m sure Will Farrel knew at some point someone would ask him to give a speech at a school, even if he didn’t really think it was Harvard (though it was class day, whatever that is). But Van Pelt? He’s an ESPN anchor. I don’t know how often they’re asked to anywhere but communication schools and even then rare I’d have to think. But what do I know? I didn’t even have a speaker.

If you’re talking about Charlie Wilson’s War, then yes, I think you can. I saw C Dubs Dubs last night and came away pretty thoroughly entertained. I wouldn’t say that it knocked me on my back, floored me one might say, but I was most definitely entertained. The New York Times Review got part of it right in saying that despite the seriousness surrounding the subject of the movie (not Wilson himself but escalation of covert operations in Afghanistan), the movie succeeds in being quite humorous and lighthearted. Sure, it shows the atrocities of the refugee camps and of the war itself, but they’re bookended by cocktail parties and hordes of pretty secretaries.

So in the end, you basically have a movie with a simple plot (SHOOT DOWN HELICOPTERS - this is repeated endlessly I think for the sole purpose of reminding you there actually is a simpler goal other than END THE COLD WAR and not as endless as KILL RUSSIANS) held together by the power and momentum of some fabulous scenes. Fill Up See More Hoff Man kills it as usual and his dynamic with Tom Hanks is incredible (punctuated by the scene where the two initially meet). Those two pretty much make the movie along with aforementioned hot secretaries. Julia Roberts is also in this film, but her role is sort of minor and she didn’t really do it for me (here, I disagree with the Times - “Julia Roberts, as golden as an Oscar statue, incarnates Ms. Herring as if paying tribute at once to Barbara Stanwyck and to the legions of anonymous Julia Roberts impersonators toiling in drag clubs across the land. I mean this entirely as praise: Not many movie stars have the wit or the moxie to embrace the camp elements of their own personas, and the character is clearly something of a performer in her own right.” Yeah, didn’t really see it that way). This is not to say that she doesn’t do a good job. I think she does a perfectly serviceable job, but I think it was somewhat hard for her to shine when she was following up the intensity and insanity purveyed by Hoffman and Hanks in the other scenes. She does well as a sort of foil for Hanks and Hoffman, the straight woman with an evangelical, alcoholic twist, but the two men seemed to embody their parts like no one else could while I could have seen other actresses in Roberts role (unlike say, her role in Mystic Pizza, or Erin Broccoli). Maybe this speaks to the specific scenes given to Hoffman and Hanks as well as their real-life rolls in the actual events portrayed in the film. Either way in the end, she does a fine job, Hoffman and Hanks steal the show, and I felt good for spending $11.75 on a 97 minute film.

1. I have been to China and back.

2. The Knicks have a three game win streak going (without Stephon Marbury, I might add. Coincidence? I think not.).

3. I learned about the half man, half tree thanks to Deadspin’s NBA Closer.

EVERYTHING IS OKAY THERE IS NO NEED TO PANIC. That’s basically what Isiah has to say about his self-evaluation as coach of the Knicks. This is why coach-GM combos can be troublesome (though I would say that they sometimes work out beautifully as the coach can get the players he wants for his system - but when there doesn’t seem to be a system in place and the coach has loaded up on large contracts of me-first players then there’s a problem). Also, it seems that Isiah is convinced that players similar to his own playing style are best. That is shorter guards with a knack for scoring. Isiah wasn’t exactly a shoot-first point guard (he averaged over 9 assists/game), but he will be remembered more for his scoring than his passing (including a game were he scored 16 straight in 94 seconds). If you look at his career averages, they’re similar to Stephon Marbury’s. Here’s the problem with trying to build a team that way, you have to have guys surrounding that scoring guard who are willing to run through a wall essentially, to bust their ass, to get the garbage buckets and do the small things so that it doesn’t fall on that one guard. Philly never really got it right with Iverson and it seems that no one got it right (maybe can’t get it right) with Marbury. Isiah’s Detroit teams had Rodman, Lambeer, Mahorn, Dumars, and on and on. Guys remembered for their hustle as much as anything. Sure the Knicks have a couple of people like that (Lee, Balkman perhaps), but other than that it seems like they’re surrounded by quite the opposite - guys clamoring for the ball, PT, and shots without wanting to really work at it.

Another thing: Isiah was a motivator. As a player, he was able to motivate his team and inspire confidence in them. For some reason, he doesn’t seem to be able to do that from the bench with these Knicks (Chuck Daily may have had something to do with it in the Detroit days, too) and there’s no one on the floor doing it.

But hey, at least Isiah himself thinks he’s doing a passable job. Uch, ug, ach, mleh, mshesh, huch, hlech, bah, beh.

Well, I have no idea what it’s electronic power is (the usual measure for a monitor), but I do know that it can take a crossbow shot to its face and not even get scratched. In fact, it bent back the arrow.