Recently, there has been interest in the new art form of Amazon customer reviews.  The greatest of these weave pop-culture knowsits humor and downright insanity into a compelling tapestry which transcends both the item reviewed and the E-commerce inanity of Amazon. 

One of the greatest practitioners is “vnggh”  who gives his location as Kenya, Getmeapepsi.  vnggh's command of the language and the pop-culture idiom surpasses all other Amazon reviewers.  Take, for example, his review of Dylan's Blonde on Blonde:

Approximate to what Milan Kundera dubs "the lyrical phase" in LIFE IS ELSEWHERE, and not incommensurate with recent studies concerning myolin in the human adult and how it relates to language centers in the brain, there seems to be a phase which many young artists go through which, in simplified terms, goes from (a) in love with language and too explodent therewith to really be controlling it, to (b) in touch for the first time with mortality and therefore momentarily bereft of language (because it expresses the living but seemingly cannot go past our ends, to (c) returning to life with some conscious inkling of death and thereby a far more prudent way with language (i.e., why say it, if you can't prove it at least to yourself?) -- stipulating that facility with the vernacular can be directly proprotional to ignorance of mortality might be a bit too heavy-handed for an amazon.com review (even if Bob's lyrics would probably somewhere vindicate me in this, just as they could probably somewhere vindicate just about anybody with anything), but I have to maintain that in my own scatterbrained opinion, "Blonde on Blonde" is the last outpouring of a man more in love with what words can do than with he himself can do (and the motorcycle accident would rear him out of that dilletante mindset forthwith). Above and beyond that, though, it's one of the most emotionally tweaking albums ever made, there's not a bad song on here, and I hope I'm never so broke again that I have to sell my copy.  

vnngh's breadth is also amazing:  He reviews books with equal aplomb:  Take his review of Pynchon's Vineland:

 Not as awful as everyone said..., April 11, 2000
...or perhaps all those years of amyl nitrate poppers have compromised my sense of smell. But I don't think so. The 70s and 80s were in many ways defined by their ambiguities, their polylayered deceits which hid still more deceits, and the pertinent sense that a sort of cultural rubicon had been crossed -- people were supersaturated, viewing the ten million options for What To Do Next from the rictus of a rec-room sofa

Poetry does not escape him either.  Here he review's a translation of Rimbaud:

Though her translations are flawed and somewhat dated, Louise Varese still has not been topped as a the bringer-into-English of lil' Arther R.'s thorny prose-poems. Her versions remain closer in spirit to the originals than any of the later translations, most of which (if you'll pardon my French) suck, from the bland lazy word-for-word of the Penguin Classics edition, to the innumerable "interpreters" (Paul Schmidt and his shameless ilk) who make of his poems what they will (sometimes to further lengths than JR Ullman did with "The Day On Fire") and then call their work "translations."

vvngh's best work however, is in his rips--his review of The Apple Dumpling Gang is a case in point:

A gut-wrenching tour de force of latterday film noir, February 11, 2000
Like being kicked in the head by the Budweiser Clydestale team, one at a time, then stretched out on a makeshift rack and tattooed with the indisputable evidence of one's own sins ala Franz Kafka's "In the Penal Colony." Knotts is, literally, among the cinema's most spine-chilling villains in his role as the pederasst/rustler kidnapping innocent young boys from the rustic frontier town and selling them into brute harem slavery aboard a renegade Chinese junk, then slinking home to the seedy Burroughsian morph habit which is the only thing keeping his oily, tortured conscience at bay... Small wonder that John Cassavetes numbered this film among his Top 5, despite the weak supporting cast who seem, to a one, unable to do ought but pale and shrimble in the long dark shadow cast by Knotts. That said, I cannot call this film a pleasurable viewing experience -- but an educational one, undoubtedly, it remains, even unto the brave new century in which we all suddenly find ourselves.

I tried my best to continue in vnngh's footsteps.  My review of the JL421 Badonkadonk Land Cruiser/Tank is below:

22 of 27 people found the following review helpful:

Saved My Job, January 14, 2005

Reviewer:

Don "Don H." (Washington D.C.) - See all my reviews

Been having some problems lately. Seems a lot of people are criticizing me for not having provided enough armor or thinking through things generally. But we're sort of tapped out, having given all of our money away to our rich friends. So Con suggested that I try Amazon. So I said what the hell.  I was surprised. "These things are so cheap Dick!" I said. So I bought 1500. [...] They'll be so happy, and I'll get to keep my job.

Rolling Stone, which is one of my all-time favorite magazines, says it won’t carry an ad for a new version of the Bible being published by HarperCollins. The ad would have pictured a man gazing at the sky and these words:

“In a world of almost endless media noise and political spin, you wonder where you can find real truth. Well, now there's a source that's accurate, clear and reliable. It's the TNIV -- Today's New International Version of the Bible. It's written in today's language, for today's times -- and it makes more sense than ever.“

I’m sure Rolling Stone’s decision had to do with its overall format. An issue of Rolling Stone typically runs ads for new music, technology, fashion and adult products, among other things. So how would an ad for a Bible fit Rolling Stone?

Music is described by many people as a nearly religious experience. It is ecstatic and passionate and even at times inspires questions of belief. Many artists in their music and as they are quoted in Rolling Stone do make references to God, spirituality, faith, biblical texts and so on.

Such an ad would simply show a product to people who may very well want to know more about the Bible. It’s not proselytizing. It’s just an idea. Rolling Stone, in its vocabulary and subjects, has long been on the forefront of free expression. This, however, is a step backward.

Art and music often enough bring up questions of faith. They’re just questions, and attempts to address those questions should not be censored. I am disappointed that Rolling Stone won’t run this ad.

--E.K.

BUSH AND FIRST WIFEY TODAY IN CHURCH (FOR A CHANGE). DO THEY LOOK JUST A LITTLE OVERSTRESSED?

 

--E.K.

“Just because you do not take an interest in politics doesn’t mean politics won’t take an interest in you.”

--Pericles, 430 B.C.

Reaches out to ruin George W. Bush's inauguration.

 

Update: Although this is not Indiana Jones level biblical wreaking, it at least qualifies as a sign from God.

Last week Slate's Charles Pierce wasted nearly 1200 words ripping the career and retirement of Michael Jordan.  Why were his words a waste?  Because the real story of the NBA is turning out to be the Chicago Bulls.  Not a misprint, the Bulls.  The young team from the West Side started out the season a pathetic 0-9.  But once they started winning, they started winning.  They are now 17-18.  That's 17-9 in their last 25 games.  They won their seventh in a row this evening in Madison Square Garden.  That makes them the hottest team in the NBA.

And not a moment too soon.  The secret?  Like the Bulls of old, it is defense and plenty of it.  The Bulls lead the league in opponent's field goal percentage and haven't given up 100 for 21 games.

   

“We're a good team” remarked Bulls' point guard and new star Kirk Hinrich.  This Chicagoan hopes it continues.

During the Watergate scandal, the two reporters at the center of the storm, Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein coined a term for any Administration denial of facts which did not come out and say the story was abjectly false: the “Non-denial denial.”  When you get one of these in response to a story, you know you are on to something.

Case in point--Sy Hersh's new piece in the New Yorker magazine which claims that U.S. Special Forces have been operating within Iran in preparation for taking out Iranian nuclear production facilities.  Our old buddy Larry DiRita, who last graced the Iron Mouth during the Al Qaa Qaa scandal responded today to Hersh's piece:

Hersh's article, published on Sunday, was "so riddled with errors of fundamental fact that the credibility of his entire piece is destroyed," DiRita said.

Hersh reported that President Bush (news - web sites) had signed a series of top-secret findings and executive orders authorizing secret commando groups and other Special Forces military units to conduct covert operations against suspected terrorist targets in as many as 10 nations in the Middle East and South Asia.

DiRita did not comment on that assertion.

Instead, he said, Hersh's sources fed him "rumor, innuendo, and assertions about meetings that never happened, programs that do not exist and statements by officials that were never made."

Asked whether U.S. military forces had been conducting reconnaissance missions in Iran, Defense Department spokesman Lt. Col. Barry Venable said, "We don't discuss missions, capabilities or activities of Special Operations forces."

Looks like it will be a long three years before the impeachment proceedings.

The European Space Agency has just announced that its Huygens probe has landed on the surface of Titan, the largest moon of Saturn, and was still transmitting at least two hours after landing.  This means that it landed on dry land and was not destroyed on landing or by Titan's atmosphere. 

Follow more here and here.

Scientists confirm that any life on Titan is liable to be smarter than George W. Bush.

Really?

During a round-table interview with reporters from 14 newspapers, Bush acknowledged that his tough language "had an unintended consequence."

“Sometimes, words have consequences you don't intend them to mean," Bush said Thursday. "'Bring 'em on' is the classic example, when I was really trying to rally the troops and make it clear to them that I fully understood, you know, what a great job they were doing. And those words had an unintended consequence. It kind of, some interpreted it to be defiance in the face of danger. That certainly wasn't the case."

"I want justice," Bush said. "And there's an old poster out West, that I recall, that said, 'Wanted, Dead or Alive.'"

Recalling that remark, Bush said Thursday: "I can remember getting back to the White House, and Laura said, 'Why did you do that for?' I said, 'Well, it was just an expression that came out. I didn't rehearse it” 

No shit.

Dear Tony:

I see that the Bush Administration refuses to foot the bill for security and other parts of Bush's own inauguration.  Now I know that you must provide security for everyone--you can't protest by skimping on that.  But they also want you to spend $3 million on reviewing stands.  I sure think it would be funny if all of those Republican bigwigs had to stand on the sidewalk like the rest of us little people.

Sincerely,

The Iron Mouth

From the Comments section of Grammar Police, J. Scott Barnard offers up a terrifying view of moral ambivalence in a discussion of the “Death Squads“ option now being put on the table by the Pentagon: 

Negroponte is a hero of the Americas for his contributions in the struggle against murderous marxists. And if his contributions against terrorists are as effective, we'll all be safer because of his involvement in the middleeast.

I don't want to live in a world where communists who murder Mosqito indians indiscriminately or islamists who blow up men standing in line for a job are coddled by guilt-ridden liberals from the security of their desktops.

Negroponte. American Hero.

I reply with a rant:

J. Scott: I see you read Instapundit. Iran-Contra has everything to do with it. First off, the background briefer was the person connecting El Salvador to the new plans being thrown around.

As I'm sure you know, the death-squads program operated in both Honduras and El Salvador. Negroponte was U.S. ambassador to Honduras during this period. Honduras was where the Contras were being trained and where the money from Iran-Contra was going.

The problem with the program is that it doesn't work and pours gasoline on the fire. As we have already seen, locals "informing" on suspected insurgents in both Afghanistan and Iraq have used the U.S. military as an unwitting tool of revenge against people they don't like. Nothing will increase this problem like a Phoenix Project-style assassination squad program designed to eliminate suspected insurgents in Iraq.

Needless to say this doesn't help us combat what the Iraqi Interior Minister described this week as a 40,000 strong insurgency supported by 160,000 helpers, not to mention the many tens of thousands of others who look the other way.

Like all moral questions, at bottom it isn't in our interest to behave like the terrorists who attack Americans and Iraqis. This is exactly what they want: moral equivalence between themselves and the Americans. Then the argument gets real simple for them: "We may use bad methods, but so do they and they are foreign devils." We can't win against that argument. Ever. And if we don't have the support of the populace in Iraq, we cannot win. For all of your yapping about "guilt-ridden liberals," you fail to ask the first question needed: Will this work? The answer, of course, is no.

Finally, however we have to ask ourselves: Is it morally right to engage in torture and semi-random killing in order to reach our goals? Are we to be completely unmoored from our own values in order to subjugate another country? At some point, we must either acknowledge and follow our professed values or frankly admit that they are no longer the principles we follow.

Conservatism used to provide the country with important moral reminders about the fact that our exercise of power at home and abroad must be tempered with a thorough understanding of how good intentions can result in a human disaster. Now it merely consists of Liddy-style posturing to soothe the anxieties of those who dislike change and bad news.

I see now that J. Scott is heaping more effusive praise on the masthead of his blog, Burton Terrace.

 

Here they come, the parade of former Republican Hawks who are now saying that the war is unwinnable: 

Start with one Andrew Sullivan, who heaped bile and scorn on those of us who opposed the war from the start.  Now Andrew is posting snippets from Stratfor, (Subscription) “Your Source For Actionable Intelligence” which now tell us that the war is lost.

According to Andrew:

We have to hope and pray that a democratic miracle really will emerge. There have been darknesses before dawn in history before. And then there have just been darknesses.

Try “I was wrong.“  Works a lot better than the Lord of the Rings speech.

Following Andrew is Rep. Howard Coble, a former GOP hawk, now calling for a pullout:

Coble voted to grant Bush the sweeping war-making powers believing that the administration had a "post-invasion strategy." Apparently, there was none, he said.

"If there was, I wish someone would tell me what it is or show it to me," he said. "I'd like to see it."

Coble said that if he had known there was no post-invasion strategy at the time of the vote on the war-powers resolution he would have "insisted that we keep our powder dry while we do some probing and planning."

Coble said he simply assumed that the administration had a post-invasion plan.

Isn't it the place of pundits like Sullivan and Congressmen like Coble to ask the right questions before the war?  Guess not.