I'm calling a Time Out for Sheboygan

I read a really lame review of Sheboygan, WI today in Time Out Chicago. Not that the review was negative; it was just plain shoddy and superficial. As I began to bitch, I realized it was written by the editor-in-chief, Frank Sennett. Well, this guy should know better. So I wrote my first letter disapproving of a review:

Jesus Christ, man. If you're going to do a review, you might have to actually get out of your car/condo and do something. You made Sheboygan sound like the most boring little town ever. And it is, but in a really weird, interesting way. I don't usually send letters like this, but it makes me sad when a fellow journalist falls down on the job. And such a simple job it was! Were you hungover or something? Next time, hand the job to a hungry intern or newbie. They would probably love to get a free vacation to a funky, albeit dusty little Midwestern town. Thanks for once again reminding me why I'm not renewing my subscription to your lazy and increasingly elitist mag.

Meg White

P.S. In case you were wondering, I'm not from, nor have I ever lived in, Wisconsin or small-town America.

I'm mostly just posting this because I know this one won't make it into "Letters to the Editor."

Indy rock: A review of Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull

After seeing Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, I was torn. The anthropologist in me said, "no," but the Karen Allen look-alike in me said, "yes, yes, yes!"

It was certainly more National Geographic than Indiana Jones that enticed me to get my bachelors in anthropology, but I did grow up loving the unlikely romance of action adventure and lost cultures I found in the trilogy. Sure, the less-than-soothing bedtime story of the ignoble savage irked me some, but I've always been a sucker for ruins and a good rickshaw chase.

Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull is a workable update of the last three movies in the Indy saga. Much is familiar to fans (evil fascists who want to use ancient knowledge for personal gain, protective native peoples, improbable but entertaining whip maneuvers) but something else leapt out as I watched the movie. Steven Spielberg was ripping off a nut job from the sixties.

Erich Von Daniken wrote "Chariots of the Gods?: Unsolved Mysteries of the Past" in 1968 to prove, using misunderstood artifacts from ancient times, that aliens sparked human development. One of his ideas gets top billing, that the Nazca Lines, pictograms created on valley floors in Peru which can only be appreciated from the sky, were veritable landing strips for alien visitors. His theories have been widely debunked, but he still makes appearances for wacko groups like the Archaeology, Astronautics and SETI Research Association who no doubt want to be on the right side of the coming alien invasion.

The problem with Von Daniken is not that he's a crazy writer and pseudo-soft scientist. It's the implication of his theories. He maintains that Mesoamericans weren't smart enough to have accomplished all that they did, and must have mated with aliens to gain their current human status.

I'm not saying Spielberg is necessarily culpable for revisiting Von Daniken's skewed view. Spielberg dutifully leaves intergalactic sex out of the equation and makes a point to say his funny green men are from "another dimension" and not outer space, no doubt to distance himself from Von Daniken's overt racism and Area 51 fanatics alike.

Would it have made for a better movie if the writing team included that fact that Mesoamericans bound the skulls of royal babies so that they would grow in an elongated, alien-looking way? I mean, I find that stuff fascinating, but I don't suffer under the illusion that erudition translates to box-office bucks.

Putting aside the fact that she's the only celebrity anyone has ever said I resembled, Karen Allen conjured a charmingly believable older version on Marion (if only I were 56 and had a dimple on my chin! Sigh). The rest of the acting in the film was charmingly unimpressive (Harrison Ford looks tired, Cate Blanchette's accent was a disappointment, etc.).

The writing was paltry, but above average for an action film. The writers shone brightest when mocking Cold War ethos and nukes.

The special effects varied widely. An exceedingly cheesy scene where Shia LaBeouf swings through the jungle with anthropomorphic monkeys is immediately followed by a gut-wrenching fire ant scene which left me curled up in my seat, brushing away imaginary insects.

Overall I enjoyed the newest edition to the Indy family of films. Go see it. Just be sure to bring popcorn, and leave your BA and sense of indignation at home.

Countdown to cancellation

I've tried to cancel my Sun-Times subscription several times, but those darn call center people are so persuasive. So, in preparation for my phone conversation tomorrow, I thought I'd organize my thoughts (don't think this means I'm switching to the Chicago Tribune, either. The New York Times will have to do, at least for the summer).


Top ten reasons I'm canceling my Sun-Times subscription:

10. Pointless pictures of other people's pets.

9. Commuter newspaper for some reason obsessed with cars (pothole patrol, Autotimes, continual gas price coverage).

8. Richard Roeper pretending he's better than Michael Sneed. Really they're separated by Roeper's use of complete sentences. Stick to the movies, bucko.

7. Mary Mitchell disguising her prejudices by exposing other peoples' prejudices.

6. Talk Back: the section for readers who are too crazy/illiterate to handle writing a letter or email.

5. Robert Novak's mere presence.

4. Paper only makes it to my door 57% of the time, though I pay for daily delivery. Funny, the delivery problems started occurring after the Sun-Times farmed out the service to Tribune Co. Coincidence?

3. Michael Sneed's overuse of "to wit," "translation," and "Obama drama."

2. The new "How I'm Saving Money" segment: a pandering distraction from a deeply troubled economy which goes largely uncovered.

1. Drew Peterson and R. Kelly's rotating front-page coverage.


...to The Watchdogs, Mark Brown and Abdon Pallasch: check you online, homies.

For the Nina Totenberg in you

There's a whole slew of code phrases put out by presidential candidates to hint at their potential impact on the long form institution of the Supreme Court: litmus tests, constructionist judges, legislating from the bench, etc. McCain, in his search for a base, however, doesn't mince words.

He's said he believes in "judges who enforce, and not make, our laws; the social values that are our true source of our strength; and, generally, the steadfast defense of our rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, which I have defended my entire career as God-given to the born and the unborn."

Also, the "Maverick" seems content to tow the party line when it comes to approving whomever Republican presidents nominate for the court. He even went so far as to vote in favor of the doomed nominee Robert Bork.

However, McCain made somewhat of a surprising announcement about his judicial views on Monday. Maybe it was just because he was addressing journalists at the annual Associated Press luncheon, but he offered tentative support for a federal shield law protecting journalists and the right to maintain confidential sources. He said that, though he's had a "hard time deciding," he "would vote yes" if the proposal reaches a vote in the Senate because it has a provision for national security.

"This is why judicial appointments are so important," McCain said.

Well, that's why journalists think judicial appointments are important. I'd bet Gloria Steinem and Pat Robertson would say there's a more important judicial issue...

Anyway, McCain didn't seem to feel like he was overstepping his bounds in legislating to judges, saying he thought the bill "gives them the guidance most judges would like to have."

His support puts him at odds with the President, who threatened to veto the bi-partisan legislation. I guess that's what distinguishes a senatorial candidate for president from a gubernatorial one. McCain seems happier to hand down legislation to "guide" judges that he is to pick out the actual judges himself.

Speaking of senatorial candidates for president, Obama and Clinton are already sponsoring the bill. So, no matter who makes it to the White House next January, us journalists at least have some lip service coming our way. I wonder if that's contingent on us behaving ourselves during the rest of the election cycle?

Flogette

What if I were a Meghan whose dad was running for president? What would my blog look like if I had a professional photographer and producer working on it? What if, instead of a career in journalism, I was hoping to create my own line of couture fashion?

Me, my blog and I might look a little more like John McCain's daughter, Meghan and her online venture.

Even though we have the same first name (hey, most people spell it Megan!) she and her blogettes declined to answer my request for an interview. Or even an email. Here are my impressions anyway:

I could live without her music recommendations. There are too many photos and her captions leave much to be desired ("Zack Pack has the best name ever" or "We ate Chick-fil-A for lunch (My fav!)" or "I've always loved swings at a playground").

On March 10th, Meghan's post started like this:

"As you may have noticed, I seldom use the Blogette as a medium to discuss social or political issues unless I feel particularly compelled to do so. This is one of those times."

OMG!! What is she going to talk about? Maybe she's going to talk about an actual issue like abortion or the war or immigration or something besides fashion and make-up tips? Is she finally gonna call out the New York Times for what they said about her dad?

[the night the NYT story broke she wrote, "Having grown up in politics, I know it's an industry that, for all intents and purposes, is known for being dirty and cruel," and did not mention the story specifically...unlike me]

No. She was upset about people on the campaign trail criticizing her weight. The last straw was someone handing her a business card for a liposuction professional. Honestly, I agree that such behavior is disturbing. Kudos to her pride in her curves. I just wish she hadn’t announced it with such gravity. Her self image is not a “social or political issue;” it’s a personal one.

Politics is a cruel "industry." And if you don't give people something substantive to criticize, like your policy views, people start making fun of your pantsuits.

How about a war on inanity?

This is old news for Chicagoans, but I've been bitching about it so constantly that one friend finally said, "just blog about it so we don't have to have this conversation again."

Maybe I miss Wednesdays at city hall. But this new indication of legislative applesauce gave me an eye-rolling strain.

Alds. Bob Fioretti and Ed Smith (aldermen I usually agree with)recently championed banning the sale of little ziploc baggies in Chicago in an attempt to curb illegal drug sales.

Lt. Kevin Navarro, commanding officer of the Chicago Police Department's Narcotics and Gang Unit, addressed the Health Committee that moved the measure forward earlier this month. He said the baggies are important because buyers can use the baggie names as code so that they don't have to say the drug's actual name.

Sorry, Navarro, but when is the last time you heard a user request "twenty dollars worth of methamphetamine?"

And I'm sure dealers would absolutely balk at putting a dime in a regular-sized baggie:

"Hey! That's for sandwiches, man."

I'm also positive there's no way dealers would stop in Evanston on their way back from Canada or Evergreen Park on their way from Mexico to pick up some "marketing supplies."