The Official Record
HOME
ARCHIVES
A blog by someone who doesn't like or understand blogs.
A major theme of this blog is the love affair between the blogger and the city of New York.
Email me at david @ danzig . com. Close up the spaces there, if you are a human being and not a spammer.
Bloggers with whom I am personally acquainted, in real life, in alphebetical order by first name:
Blake N.
Dav C.
Jessica D.
Lauren P.
Sean S.
Steph T.
If you know me in person, and I forgot to put you here, definitely, please email me, and also please accept my apology!
Take a look at some of my nearby neighbors by clicking this button: 
.
Tuesday, April 29, 2003
NOT COOL, DUDE.
Sean S. directs us to cool-2b-real.com, a Web site that is brought to us by Cattlemen's Beef Board, National Cattlemen's Beef Association, Circle 1 Network (a company that "specializes in marketing to kids and tweens"), and KidsCom ("for kids ages 8 to 15").
You can go to the site, and "keep it real," by voting in a poll about "What type of beef do you most like to eat with your friends?" Get some "Nutrition-To-Go" by eating some chilli, pizza, tacos, or barbecued beef. But it's not just about eating, it's also about keeping fit-- which apparently consists largely of eating beef.
I'd say something here about ethics and marketing to kids, but, you know, what's the point?
link to this item: http://www.creamy.com/blog/2003_04_01_daviddanzig_archive.html#200216570
Sunday, April 27, 2003
BOOK REVIEW: DON'T KNOW MUCH ABOUT HISTORY (REVISED 2003) * * * 1/2 (3 and a half stars out of 4).
Don't Know Much About History: Everything You Need to Know About American History but Never Learned by Kenneth C. Davis was recently revised to include the Clinton scandals, the 2000 election, and the events of September 11, 2001. The book is a fabulous, enjoyable discussion of history that brings it alive and makes it as fun and interesting as any novel. I recommend it highly. My two complaints are these. First, the discussion of the most recent events in the book lack the historical perspective necessary to view them objectively. This is particularly true of the events of September 11. My second complaint is this. Davis claims that the Perot candidacy in 1992 helped Bill Clinton to defeat George Bush, the elder, and may have been responsible for Clinton's victory. This is not my recollection of what happened. The way I remember it, Perot dropped out of the race during the Democratic National Convention. The democrats made a huge appeal to Perot voters during the convention, and gained the lead over Bush at this time, never to lose it again. When Perot re-joined the race, polls showed that he siphoned votes from Clinton, by more than two to one, over Bush, and this was presumably the case during the general election. No doubt, the timing of Perot's dropping out of the race was helpful to the Democrats. But ultimately, the success of his candidacy was more a testament to the strength of anti-Bush sentiment than it was a boon to Clinton. I say this, in such detail, not because I want to make such a fuss about this particular issue. Rather, it is because it makes me wonder, if he might be wrong about this, how many things is Davis wrong about that I don't remember from my lifetime, and for which I'm taking his word? I especially wonder this about things that are still politically charged, such as the Vietnam War and Watergate. But still, it's a really wonderful, great book.
link to this item: http://www.creamy.com/blog/2003_04_01_daviddanzig_archive.html#200207471
Wednesday, April 23, 2003
DON'T USE A CONDOM. UM, UNLESS YOU HAVE SEX.
I was thinking, it seems like a lot of the religious and conservative groups that won't urge people to use condoms when they have non-marital sex, say that this is because they believe it to be an endorsement of non-marital sex. I wonder whether someone could put it this way: when I say that if you have non-marital sex, then use a condom, I mean it in the same sense as when I say, if you jump off a five story building, then try to aim for the bushes. That is, whatever you do, don't jump off a five story building. But if you're definitely going to do it anyway, which you shouldn't, then you might be slightly better off if you don't land on concrete. And in exactly the same sense, don't have non-marital sex. If you do, even with a condom which is used properly and remains intact, you can still get most sexually transmissible diseases, including some fatal ones. And if the condom breaks or is used improperly, then you can still get pregnant or get HIV. But if you're definitely going to have sex, no matter what I say, then better that you use a condom.
Am I just dreaming here, or do you think maybe some Republicans and preachers could get behind this idea?
link to this item: http://www.creamy.com/blog/2003_04_01_daviddanzig_archive.html#200185923
Sunday, April 20, 2003
MOVIE REVIEW: BULLETPROOF MONK (2003) * * * (3 stars out of 4).
I was disarmed by the charm of this thrilling action movie. It is witty, intelligent, funny, and sexy, with plenty of great action scenes and delightful special effects. I'm left with a few questions about the plot that don't feel satisfactorily addressed, but that is a flaw that is easily overlooked.
link to this item: http://www.creamy.com/blog/2003_04_01_daviddanzig_archive.html#200173559
Saturday, April 19, 2003
NOTES FROM ONE OF THOSE LAZY TTS NUTS.
I'm the "one of those lazy TTS nuts" referred to by Dav C. fascinating the author of this blog article. TTS stands for text-to-speech, and in this case, it refers to my preference to have a computer voice read an article to me on my MP3 player, instead of sitting in front of the computer reading it.
To answer the author's questions, he's hit the nail on the head exactly. The two reasons why I prefer listening to books on tape to reading them are first and foremost, that it allows me to do two things at once, so that I can "read" while I am walking or cooking or shopping or exercising or what have you. And second, because listening is more natural and intuitive way of getting information. Numerous studies have shown that people are better at retaining facts that they hear than facts that they read. Understanding spoken language is something we are genetically wired to do, without having to practice or be formally taught. Reading is an artificial invention that you have to learn and study.
On this last point, I always find it striking when people tell me they aren't interested in books on tape, because they would nostalgically miss the old-fashioned feel of holding a book and turning the pages. Of course, these people have it exactly backwards. Books are the new technology, and story-telling is the lost and dying art.
link to this item: http://www.creamy.com/blog/2003_04_01_daviddanzig_archive.html#200170789
REALITY BITES.
I've got an idea for a reality show: "The Oncologist." Every week you have someone come to the oncologist with some sort of tumor. Sometimes it's nothing. Sometimes you can treat it with radiology or chemotherapy. And sometimes it's untreatable cancer. But every time, the drama is real, not manufactures by some arbitrary rules. You don't get kicked off the island or out of the game; you get kicked off the planet Earth. every week, some cancer victim is crying hysterically. And if they're not, then their spouse or their parent or their child is.
And here's the game: if you have cancer, then the show will pay for your treatment. And whether you do or don't, then our sponsor will provide you with $250,000 of life insurance, either way.
Come on, that's a show!
link to this item: http://www.creamy.com/blog/2003_04_01_daviddanzig_archive.html#200169293
Friday, April 18, 2003
FREEDOM WHINE.
I saw this politician on TV who I didn't recognize the other day, complaining about the French again for their opposition to the war. Mangling the cliche, he said "If it weren't for us, they'd all be speaking French." Of course, he meant to say that if it weren't for us, they'd all be speaking German, and that's probably true. But it occurred to me that there is way too much truth in his misstatement. If it weren't for us Americans, they would all be speaking French, instead of English.
And, then again, if it weren't for the French, we Americans would all still be British subjects, so what about that?
link to this item: http://www.creamy.com/blog/2003_04_01_daviddanzig_archive.html#200164683
I'M BEGGING YOU.
I have been noticing more and more, the misuse of the phrase "begging the question" or "that begs the question" to mean "that raises the question," as in, "I understand that you were on an airplane recently. That begs the question: how was your trip?" This is an incorrect usage of the phrase.
"Begging the question" means proving something that is already assumed by your premises, and thereby arguing in a circle. It is a logical fallacy. An example is to say "Going to a university will make you distinguished, because universities have distinguished professors who teach there. The professors are distinguished because they went to universities." In other words, that proves that going to a university will make someone distinguished, only if it's true that going to a university makes someone distinguished. This circular reasoning is what it means to beg a question-- We're begging the question of whether going to a university make people distinguished.
So where did the misuse come from? I contend that there is a single human being responsible for this, and it is Late Night talk show host Conan O'Brien. When his show first came out, he misused the phrase, "that begs the question" almost every night for a month. I had never heard it misused before, ever, and even afterwards I didn't hear it misused for a year or so. But then, I started hearing this misuse more and more, over and over, until, today, the misuse of the phrase seems more common than the proper use.
In America, we don't have a queen or king to give us "the Queen's English" or "the King's English". We rely on newscasters and talk show hosts like Conan O'Brien to be the guardians of the language. Many of these people take this part of their job very seriously. I know that Tom Brokaw and British-born Ted Koppel famously regard this as a major part of their jobs. Conan O'Brien should take this responsibility no less seriously, even if he is a comedian.
link to this item: http://www.creamy.com/blog/2003_04_01_daviddanzig_archive.html#200164941
Thursday, April 17, 2003
MOVIE REVIEW: A MIGHTY WIND (2003) * * * * (4 stars out of 4).
I am so loathe to give out two four star ratings in a row, since I think they should be very rare, so let me point out that you'd have to go back to February for another four star restaurant review from me, and back to September of last year for another four star movie review. A Mighty Wind, the new where-are-they-now "mockumentary" about some fictional folk singers, was the funniest movie I have seen in a long, long time. This movie from Christopher Guest, the director of Best in Show and Waiting for Guffman surpasses both of them, and is, I think, the true sequel to This is Spinal Tap, which may be the funniest movie ever made. The bandsmen of Spinal Tap are reunited as "The Folksmen" and joined by a huge ensemble cast, almost all of whom have appeared in one or more of the aforementioned movies.
I was a little frightened for the genre after Harry Shearer's completely dreadful mockumentary "Teddy Bear's Picnic", but, well, I guess Harry Shearer is no Christopher Guest, and making these kinds of movies is harder than it looks.
link to this item: http://www.creamy.com/blog/2003_04_01_daviddanzig_archive.html#200161881
RESTAURANT REVIEW: LESPINASSE * * * * (4 stars out of 4).
Andy M., Sophie W., and I went to Lespinasse last weekend, because this restaurant, one of the most highly regarded in New York, is about to close next week, so we thought we'd give it a try. The food was exquisite, and the service was excellent. But it really was over-priced, and not worth its high cost. My own meal, a multi-course vegetarian prix fixe, plus a glass of Pinot Noir, cost me $140 including tax and tip, making it, by far, the most I've ever paid for a single meal for just myself. It was good, but it wasn't really that good. Andy and I were thinking about it afterwards, and we couldn't really agree about how long you could survive on the food you could buy for $140. He thought a year, but I thought it would be tough to go much more than six months. Either way, rice would be the main item of your diet. There was an excellent rice dish included in the vegetarian prix fixe.
link to this item: http://www.creamy.com/blog/2003_04_01_daviddanzig_archive.html#200161598
Saturday, April 12, 2003
I HATE DAYLIGHT SAVING TIME.
It'll be a week tonight since we've switched to Daylight Saving Time, and I'm still not right. I hate DST so much! PLEASE, go to standardtime.com, which I helped create, and sign the petition there to end changing the clocks twice a year.
link to this item: http://www.creamy.com/blog/2003_04_01_daviddanzig_archive.html#200137842
MOVIE REVIEW: ANGER MANAGEMENT (2003) * * 1/2 (2 and a half stars out of 4).
The main things you need to know to enjoy this movie starring Adam Sandler and Jack Nicholson are that 1) this is an Adam Sandler movie, not a Jack Nicholson movie or some kind of art movie; and 2) The ending is very unsatisfying and doesn't make sense. Armed with that foreknowledge, you might enjoy the various amusing moments throughout the film.
link to this item: http://www.creamy.com/blog/2003_04_01_daviddanzig_archive.html#200136606
Friday, April 11, 2003
THE OFFICIAL THE OFFICIAL RECORD.
Wow, after only a week and a half of having this name, if you look up "the official record" on Google, this blog is number two out of "about 79,500," after the Official Reports of the Scottish Parliament. Okay, my blog entries are getting way too self-referential this week.
link to this item: http://www.creamy.com/blog/2003_04_01_daviddanzig_archive.html#200130733
Thursday, April 10, 2003
THOUGHTS ON THE EVE OF THE APOCALYPSE.
Hey, thanks to the blog Thoughts on the Eve of the Apocalypse for linking to my recent media bias article.
link to this item: http://www.creamy.com/blog/2003_04_01_daviddanzig_archive.html#200124895
Wednesday, April 09, 2003
MY SMOKING BAN RANT.
I posted my recent Blog article criticizing Penn & Teller's Smoking Ban episode on the Penn & Teller Message Board at Sho.Com, and started a 25 post thread.
link to this item: http://www.creamy.com/blog/2003_04_01_daviddanzig_archive.html#200122854
Tuesday, April 08, 2003
WELL, FAIR IS FAIR.
FAIR (Freedom and Accuracy in Reporting), an organization I respect very much, featured my media bias article, which unfavorably compares Fox News to Al Jazeera, on FAIR's Media Watch page, so I thought I'd return the favor. Definitely check out FAIR, and their frequent, insightful updates about the conservative, pro-corporate bias of the US media.
link to this item: http://www.creamy.com/blog/2003_04_01_daviddanzig_archive.html#200115712
Monday, April 07, 2003
AL JAZEERA IS VERY BIASED. BUT NOT AS BIASED AS THE U.S. MEDIA.
Al Jazeera's English language site displays an obvious pro-Arab and pro-Iraqi bias. But it is not nearly as strong as the bias displayed by most American media, such as, say, the absurdly right-wing Fox News Channel. Al Jazeera doesn't just make stuff up or only tell one side of the story or (unlike the U.S. media) merely parrot the claims of the local military as though they were fact. I'm not saying Al Jazeera doesn't have an "us and them" mentality, which identifies itself more with the Iraqis than with the Americans. But this bias is tiny compared to the "us and them" mentality of the American media that identifies itself with the "coalition of the willing". I mean, Al Jazeera's English language Web site is not running stories about some poor Iraqi guy who's off to war, and saying, "oh, we sure hope he comes back alive," like I've seen reporters say about American troops on CNN. They're not saying, "our prayers are with the Iraqi troops," like I've seen said by an anchorman on ABC about the American forces. They're certainly not saying the equivalent of "it's not a question of if, but when Baghdad will fall to American forces", like I saw a straight news reporter "report" on Fox News Channel. Face it: Al Jazeera's English language Web site is much more objective and much less of a propaganda arm of the local military than any US press.
Don't take my word for it. See for yourself. Look at Al Jazeera's page about the "War on Iraq". Now, look at Fox News's page about the same war, that it calls "The War on Terror". And just decide for yourself which is more biased.
Here are some of Fox's headlines right now: "On the Homefront: Base Town Is 'Cocoon' for Military Families: Lawton, Okla., next door to Fort Sill, has neighbors taking care of each other as spouses head to Gulf," which begins, "Sami Roberts saves her tears for work, where her 18-month-old son can't see them and her supervisor, a Gulf War veteran, understands."; "A Nation Speaks Out: Honk If You've Had It With Die-Ins," which begins, "Blocking traffic is the tactic of choice these days among anti-war protesters. But just how effective can it be, when it angers commuters and packs police precincts with arrested activists?"; "Fallen Heroes: America's War Dead: List of U.S. personnel killed in Operation Iraqi Freedom"; "The War at Home: War Can't Stop Story Time: Deployed parents read to their kids on videotape so they don't seem so far away"; "Weapons of Mass Destruction: Fox News' WMD Handbook: Fox News' overview of biological, chemical, nuclear, radiological weapons"; and, at this late hour, "Possible Chemical Weapons Found" (more on this below). I haven't listed every headline, and some of the ones I've left out do seem like objective news, but I've listed roughly half their headlines here.
Now, here's the MOST pro-Iraqi biased things I can find on Al Jazeera's page: "Up to 14 killed as missiles strike residential area"; "Gulf states for UN role in post-war Iraq: Arab countries in the Gulf, crucial hosts to the US military, said on Monday that the Iraqi people should decide their future with guidance from the United Nations"; "Hard talk in Belfast: Bush and Blair, greeted by anti-war protestors, seek to iron out differences over post-war administration in Iraq"; "US police use force to suppress protests: Police used extraordinary force to suppress protests against the invasion of Iraq on Monday, firing rubber bullets, concussion grenades and arresting many in California and New York." "Huge gap between arms spend and relief: President Bush is spending 120 times more to topple the Iraqi government than the amount he's willing to devote to feeding and housing Iraqi victims."; and "WMD 'smoking gun' turns out to be pesticide: US alarm over weapons of mass destruction seems to be fading after false reports and orders to shed protective suits." Note that in that last case, ABC News is also reporting today that the suspected Iraqi chemical weapons are merely pesticide. The Fox News story headlined "Possible Chemical Weapons Found" waits until the twelfth paragraph to acknowledge that "Agence France-Presse reported that the substances had turned out to be pesticides".
Hey, this isn't a trick, and I'm not trying to brainwash anybody. I have absolutely no political agenda with regard to anybody's opinion of Al Jazeera. I'm just saying we've all heard a lot of things about Al Jazeera, and how they're much more biased than the American news, and I was shocked to learn that those things just aren't true, and I know that because I checked it out for myself. You should, too.
link to this item: http://www.creamy.com/blog/2003_04_01_daviddanzig_archive.html#200112658
Friday, April 04, 2003
SEIZING THE MIDDLE GROUND IN THE ABORTION DEBATE.
Everybody always talks about how even many people who consider themselves to be pro-life will make exceptions in the case of rape, incest, or threat to the health of the mother. But I really think, on account of modern technology, we ought to add to that list an exception that most pro-lifers would be willing to make: an exception for advanced knowledge of a serious birth defect to the fetus. I think the vast majority of people who consider themselves to be pro-life would make an exception for at least some serious birth defects. But the thing is, once they concede that, they've given up the whole game, because (as they love to ask) where do you draw the line? Is it okay to terminate a fetus with an IQ of 20? How about 50? How about 75? Is it okay to terminate a fetus who will be born deaf and blind? How about just blind? How about just deaf? How about significantly hearing impaired, but not completely deaf? Surely, we can all agree that it's okay to terminate a fetus who has Tay-Sachs disease (which causes severe pain and paralysis by age 2 and death by age 6). But what about a fetus that we are only 90% sure has Tay-Sachs? How about 50%? How about 25%? How about one fetus that is significantly hearing impaired, with an IQ of 75, and a 25% chance of Tay-Sachs disease? I ask these questions not because I'm trying to suggest what the right answer is. The point is that these are all difficult questions. Some are obviously more difficult than others, and some are more difficult to some people and others are more difficult to other people. So, who should get to decide what to do in each case? The legislature? A judge? You, the individual abortion rights opponent reading this? It seems difficult to argue for anything other than that it should be the decision of the prospective parents. But once the pro-life advocate concedes this, he or she has given up everything. What of the parents who want to terminate because their child will have an IQ of 95? What of the parents who want to terminate because there is 2% chance their child will walk with a limp? Leaving that decision to the parents is tantamount to simply legalizing abortion in all cases.
Describing my own views, if I had to pick as between pro-choice or pro-life, I'd definitely label myself pro-choice. But it would be more accurate to describe me as both. That is to say, I am deeply opposed to outlawing abortion, but in ordinary cases, I'm also deeply opposed to abortion. I wish that both sides could get together and try to reduce the number of abortions in the United States, which is, I think, what we all want, right? Whether we're pro-choice or pro-life, can't we all agree that we'd like there to be fewer people choosing to get abortions? To achieve this, there should be better options for making birth and childcare more affordable, especially for single mothers. There should be more done to make fathers responsible for their out-of-wedlock children. And (though some pro-lifers would object to this) there should be more education about and access to birth control. The ironic thing is that all of those things tend to be more associated with the liberal agenda, which, of course, is more associated with abortion rights advocacy.
It seems to me that the pro-life side, with its claim to cherish fetal life, ought to be taking this approach, at least in addition to its efforts to outlaw abortion and terrorize doctors who perform abortions. And this is precisely why I think that it's the pro-choice side that has the most to gain by seizing this middle position, that whatever the legal status of abortion is, we should do everything else possible to make childbirth an attractive option over abortion. Let us live up to that the name "pro-choice" and be able to say that pro-choice doesn't mean pro-abortion, but it really does mean giving women a genuine choice. I am convinced that whichever side takes this middle position will ultimately win the abortion debate, because that will be the side that most Americans will want to identify themselves with. And yet neither side has to give up any ideological ground to reach this middle position, except that some pro-lifers would have to give up their opposition to birth control.
link to this item: http://www.creamy.com/blog/2003_04_01_daviddanzig_archive.html#200098487
Thursday, April 03, 2003
MOVIE REVIEW: HEAD OF STATE (2003) * * * (3 stars out of 4).
This movie, co-written, directed by, and starring Chris Rock, was funny and clever. I know it's totally supposed to be just a light-hearted, silly, absurd comedy, but I was, nonetheless, a little bothered by some of the things in it. For example, why would a black Democratic Presidential candidate be campaigning in Texas and Nevada? It seems to me that those are the two states that most any Democrat who didn't happen to come from one of those states would typically write off, so that he or she could focus on the states that will be more closely contested. Yet, the only states where the protagonist is shown campaigning are those two, and the more sensible, in-play choices of Illinois and Florida. And it's not like everything in the movie made wasn't just silly and absurd, but this just didn't make any sense, yet it wasn't funny either. So, I don't want to seem nit-picky here, but it would have been just as entertaining to show real battleground states, like Michigan or Pennsylvania, and it wouldn't have taken me out of the story. This, of course, is just one example among many. But, all in all, I really did enjoy the movie very much, and laughed a lot. I recommend it.
link to this item: http://www.creamy.com/blog/2003_04_01_daviddanzig_archive.html#200094892
Tuesday, April 01, 2003
GOTCHA!
This conversation took place about fifteen minutes ago, between me and my brother Greg D. over the phone when I called him.
ME: Greg, are you watching the news?
GREG: No.
ME: Somebody just shot George W. Bush!
GREG: Really?
ME: Yeah, they think he's going to be okay. He's still conscious and talking.
GREG: Oh, my god!
ME: Put on the news.
GREG: Okay.
ME: Did you put on the news?
GREG: Yes, I just put it on.
ME: April Fools!
GREG: I didn't really believe you.
ME: I think you did.
GREG: Yeah, you got me. That wasn't cool.
ME: Sure it was. It's April Fools Day. That's totally cool on April Fool's Day.
GREG: Yeah, I guess.
ME: Okay, good, now I can go to sleep tonight, not thinking that I wasted the whole April Fool's Day.
link to this item: http://www.creamy.com/blog/2003_04_01_daviddanzig_archive.html#200080510
BOOK REVIEW: ACCIDENTAL PLAYBOY: CAUGHT IN THE ULTIMATE MALE FANTASY (2002) * 1/2 (1 and a half stars out of 4).
The book chronicles nerve.com columnist Leif Ueland's experience after he was "accidentally" thrust by circumstance into the position of chronicling Playboy's search for their year 2000 "playmate of the millennium" for the Playboy Web site.
So, early on, the book promises to be something of an expose of the shallowness involved in the whole liking-people-for-their-looks thing, by someone who thinks of himself as a deep thinker, who is working on the great American novel. But, the opposite turns out to be the case. It is, "accidentally" an expose of this so-called deep thinker who, as my friend Rob K. put it, "thinks he's a saint because he's one step removed from the devil himself." That is, because he's maybe 1% less shallow than the people around him, he thinks he's incredibly un-shallow, which he isn't. Almost immediately, he's dropped his idea of making his playboy.com column classy, and is obsessed with making it popular. And he keeps telling himself that, because he'll never have another opportunity like this, it's important that he have sex with someone once during this year of working for Playboy. And like a made-for-playboy movie, the book's climax comes when he sleeps with a random stranger who he met on the road, as though that resolved everything.
link to this item: http://www.creamy.com/blog/2003_04_01_daviddanzig_archive.html#200080480
