Skip to main content

and that's why people don't talk to us very much

scene :: dom and me in our living room, each occupying a sofa and being occupied by at least one cat. dom gets up [annoying the cat] and places blu-ray in blu-ray disc player, because dvd's are so 2002, although to be honest, i had to stop myself from typing "video", which i think is now considered an archaic term, like mickel or hende. [shut up, spellcheck, they are so english words because middle english totally counts.]

me :: are you putting in a movie? [as opposed to "are you sliding a ham and cheese sandwich into the blu-ray player to see what happens"? -ed.]

dom :: yes, i thought we could watch casino.

author's note- we'd been talking about doing this for a long time, because we've been re-watching seasons of the original csi, which is the only csi you need to be bothered with and it definitely owes a debt to casino in its portrayal of las vegas. i'd never actually seen it and dom had never seen csi, so we thought of it as a sort of cultural exchange. insofar as las vegas can be seen as "culture".

dom :: you'll love the look of the film. it was shot by the guy who shot jfk.

me :: oh he's amazing!

it's sort of understood between us that he was referring to robert richardson, who was the cinematographer/ director of photography for the oliver stone film jfk, but it did occur to me afterward that people overhearing us, assuming there had been people in our apartment to overhear us at the time, where they had no business being, so they pretty much deserve anything they get, might have been a little confused by the exchange.

we have conversations like this in public all the time, using our own private mental shorthand. i think it's a healthy sign for a couple. plus, it's an excellent way of making sure that we get a section of seats to ourselves on the metro.

and casino is a very good film, as long as you don't mind lots of gangster violence and occasional joe pesci sex scenes. but you probably knew that since it came out twenty years ago and i think i was the only person in north america at least who hadn't seen it.

robert richardson also shot george harrison, but you don't hear as much about that one.

Comments

as long as you're here, why not read more?

don't speak

you might think that it sounds dramatic, but linguistic genocide is something that happens. people in power will go to great lengths to eradicate certain languages, not just for the sheer joy of making the world a lesser place, but as a way of beating down the culture that's associated with it. language has a unique reciprocal bond with culture, and every group that has attempted to break down another has recognised that forbidding a cultural group from communicating in their own language is an extremely effective way to tear apart their culture.

there are lots [and lots and lots and lots] of examples of this sort of thing, some successful, some not, but far too many to cover in one blog post. however, i thought it was worth looking at some languages that have been the subjects of active repression, and what the political consequences of that have been.

devastation :: the native north american languages :: it should come as no surprise that the largest genocide in history [by a ma…

losers?

just a short time ago, i waxed prosaic about trump supporters who felt betrayed by their candidate pursuing in office the exact things that he said he would. short version: i have no sympathy.

today is a bit different. in the wake of america's bombing of a syrian air strip, in response to a chemical weapons attack by the syrian government, my facebook and twitter feeds were peppered with plaintive shades of "we believed you". these are the people who heard trump say that he wanted the united states to step back and focus on defending its own. indeed, trump did say such things, over and over; america cannot be the policeman of the world. even arch-liberal cynics like me had to admit that this was a refreshing argument to hear from someone outside the paul family, and, could easily have been turned into trump's greatest argument against hillary clinton. [he chose to go another way, which also worked.]

trump also said, repeatedly, that america needed to invest heavily …

long division

after the united states election last year, there were the usual calls for the country to unite behind the new president. that never happens anymore, because, since george w. bush scored a victory in 2004, having launched the country into a war in iraq for no reason, the people on the losing side of a presidential election have been pretty bloody angry about it. democrats hated bush 43. republicans really hated obama. democrats really hate trump.

it didn't help that trump didn't make the typical conciliatory gestures like including a couple of members of the opposite party in his cabinet, or encouraging his party to proceed slowly with contentious legislation. barack obama arguably wasted at least two and as many as six years of his tenure as president trying to play peacemaker before he felt sufficiently safe to just say "screw you guys" and start governing around the ridiculous congress he was forced to deal with. not-giving-a-shit obama was the best president in …