No More 'George Bush Made Me Do It'

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/22/AR2005072201629.html

http://monaeltahawy.com/_wsn/page3.html

After London, Tough Questions for Muslims
By Mona Eltahawy
Sunday, July 24, 2005; Page B07

The July 7 London bombings did it for me. Perhaps it was because my parents moved us from Cairo to the British capital when I was 7 years old, and so London was my childhood "home." Or maybe it was because our route to work and school every morning crisscrossed those same Underground stations that were targeted.

I'm sure it was also those dog-eared statements that our clerics and religious leaders read out telling us that Islam means peace -- it actually means submission -- and asking us to please forget everything they had ever said before July 6, because as of July 7 they truly believe violence is bad. Their backpedaling is so furious you can smell the skid marks.


Some are not even bothering to put their feet on the pedals, such as the 22 imams and scholars who met at London's largest mosque to condemn the bombings but who would not criticize all suicide attacks.

Sayed Mohammed Musawi, the head of the World Islamic League in London, insisted "there should be a clear distinction between the suicide bombing of those who are trying to defend themselves from occupiers, which is something different from those who kill civilians, which is a big crime."

In a classic example of laying blame everywhere but at our own door, Musawi actually criticized the Western media (for supposedly confusing frustrated young Muslims) rather than those scholars who had blessed suicide bombings as long as they targeted Israelis.

Suicide bombings are the Muslim weapon of choice not only in London and Israel but in Iraq, Saudi Arabia and Turkey. They are killing Muslims and non-Muslims alike, and yet our imams and scholars cannot condemn them.

As I said, the London bombings did it for me. Or maybe it's the knowledge that the more these faceless cowards strike, the more Muslim men in the West like my brother are pushed onto the stage of suspicion. After the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, Ehab -- who spends virtually all of his time caring for his cardiology patients or fulfilling his role as husband and father -- was one of the 5,000 Muslim men questioned by the FBI; two years later he was among the thousands more who had to submit to being fingerprinted and photographed as part of a special registration.

But most of all, the London bombings rid me of all patience with the excuse that "George Bush [or Tony Blair or take your pick of Western leaders] made me do it." We don't know who was behind Thursday's explosions, but an Arab analyst told a satellite channel that if Blair hadn't learned the mistake of the Iraq war, these new attacks were a firm reminder.

I never bought the explanation that U.S. foreign policy had "brought on" the Sept. 11 attacks, and I certainly don't buy the idea that the Iraq war is behind the attacks in London. Many people across the world have opposed U.S. and British foreign policy, but that doesn't mean they are rushing to fly planes into buildings or to blow up buses and Underground trains in London.

I was against the invasion of Iraq and would not have voted for George Bush if I were a U.S. citizen, but I'm done with the "George Bush made me do it" excuse. We must accept responsibility for this mess if we are ever to find a way out.

And for those non-Muslims who accept the George Bush excuse, I have a question: Do you think Muslims are incapable of accepting responsibility? It is at least in some way bigoted to think that Muslims can only react violently.

We all must ask a host of difficult questions. How about beginning by acknowledging once and for all that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is not a Muslim issue? It is a dispute over land that too many clerics and religious leaders, radical or otherwise, use to flesh out the victimized-Muslim scenario.

Yes, Palestinians deserve a state, and, yes, Israel must end its occupation of the West Bank and Gaza.

But rather than dwelling endlessly on these issues, we would do well to spend time encouraging our young people to become more active members of their communities and to not live caught between two worlds: a Muslim one at home and in the mosque, an "infidel" one outside.

And what about assimilation? It is not bigoted to ask Muslims if they are integrating into the societies they are living in. Just as the British government has responsibilities toward its citizens, immigrants included, so too do those immigrants. Muslims ask for time off work for prayer, for example, and they often get it. But are they truly living in Britain or are they perpetuating an existence that even their relatives "back home" long ago left behind? Domestic policy is too often ignored by many Muslims who are more concerned with Palestine, Iraq or any other place where Muslims are believed to have suffered injustice.

I raise these questions because London might have done it for me, but I'm not done with Islam. The clerics and the terrorists will not take it away from me. God belongs to me, too.

Mona Eltahawy is a New York-based columnist for the pan-Arab newspaper Asharq al-Awsat.

Top Comic Book Movies

The guys on the Cinecast Podcast to which I listen shared their Top 5 Comic Book Movies of all time. I got a little too much modern day graphic novel stuff in this and not enough real comic stuff.


(1) Superman

(2) X-Men
(2) American Splendor

(3) Batman (1989)

(4) Ghost World
(4) Sin City (on guy loved, one guy hated)

(5) Spiderman 2


Brock's Bytes:
* I enjoyed Batman (1989) and appreciated Jack Nicholson and even Michael Keaton's under-appreciated performance...but, there is NO WAY that Tim Burton's 1989 version trumps Batman Begins. I've got no problem putting them both on the list...but

* I think that they got Spiderman 2 correct as I think that it was a more complete film that Spidey 1. They are dangerously close to too much Mary Jane & Peter Parker and not enough Spidey. I think the next one will pull back from some of that.

* X-Men 2 deserves some consideration...if for no other reason that Nightcrawler. Maybe you can comprise and just log X-Men and X-Men 2 together.

Life Expectancy and Median Statistics

You have a say in what age you reach.

The Living Test --- the unwritten exam that shows how many years we'll manage to squeeze out of our lives. Some will squeeze out more, some less. While much of the score is in our genes at birth, choices we make can increase or decrease how many years we live. They may also determine whether we have the health to enjoy those years.

The Living Test is more important than any wealth score. It gives us an idea of how much life we may "leave on the table" by chance or negligence. We can measure this by looking at the statistics of life expectancy in a slightly odd way.

One of the most common population number sets is called a "Life Table." It shows the long trail of losses from birth to age 100, expressed as the number surviving from year to year.

Beginning with an original group of 100,000 people, the table shows that 83,789 live to begin their 65th year and 82,607 finish it.

Median is 81.

It also shows that 52,178 of the original 100,000 begin their 81st year, but only 49,173 finish it, making it the median year of life. From there, the attrition continues until only 2,851 of the original 100,000 begin their 100th year and 2,095 finish it.

As we all know, no one gets out alive. While life expectancy in America, broadly speaking, was 77.3 years in 2002, the brute fact is that many don't live that long. Many others, however, live much longer.

•The top 2 percent live to be over 100.
•The top 10 percent live to their 94th year or longer.
•The top 25 percent live to their 89th year or longer.
•The top 50 percent live to their 81st year or longer.
•The bottom 25 percent live only to their 71st year.
•The bottom 10 percent live only to their 57th year.
•The bottom 1 percent live only to their 16th year.


Other Resources: www.agingresearch.org for life expectancy calculator

Movie: Criminal (7 of 10)

7 out of 10

...INCOMPLETE...

Rotten Tomatoes gives it a 75% freshness.

Snappy performances

Remake of Nine Queens (which I never saw)

Movie: Charlie & The Chocolate Factory (7.5 of 10)

7.5 out of 10


We liked this movie. Jennifer liked it slightly more than I.In the spirit of some other recent reviews, this might get an upward revision as I get my hands around the general magnitude of the scale.

Impact of Expectations?
I wanted to love this movie from the first day I learned that it was going to be made, but I had a lot of trepidation created by Tim Burton and Johnny Depp. Recently, I had decided that I was going to hate the androgenous, Michael Jacksonesque Willa Wonka portrayed by Depp. I think that these low expectations ultimately helped me accept Depp's Wonka better than I thought that I would.

What Worked?
Omitting Charlie & Grandpa Joe's misstep by drinking the soda in the "Bubble Chamber". I never liked that. I never understood who EACH of the kids (including Charlie) ignored Wonka's rules, but Charlie was rewarded simply because he ignored the rules with the least harmful product.

What Didn't Work?
Willie Wonka's backstory proposed by Burton.

Movie: The Wedding Crashers (8 of 10)

8 out of 10

Loved it. Jennifer loved it. Would like to see it again to catch some of the jokes that flew by so quickly. I think that some comedies intentionally cut their movies to facilitate this -- you know it is funny because you picked up on some of it. But, you need to hear the line a few times to grap the whole thing.

I can't wait for the uncut version to come out on DVD. Will be a great fit.

It was interesting to see a little 80s-style, gratuitous nude shots.

I don't think that I liked Wedding Crashers as much as Old School...but there is no doubt that Crashers is the best comedy since Old School.

The rating may get adjusted upwards as I think through how this ranks with other movies.

[spoiler] I was proud of myself for an early prediction in the movie. Early in the movie, Vince Vaughn was refering to his mentor and master "crasher" in a conversation with Owen Wilson. I immediately turned to Jennifer and commented that this master would either be Will Ferrell or Ben Stiller. I was betting on Ferrell. I was right. I thought the character failed to live up to expectations. But, that was inconsequential as his presence and the little spice that it added was enough.

If Not Islam, Then What?

Kathleen Parker of the Orlando Sentinel identifies massive global denial in our unwillingness to frame the terror issue the way we should: demanding answers of Islam.

If Islam is not the problem, then what, pray tell, is?

By KATHLEEN PARKER

As Brits stiffen their upper lips and politicians hustle to reiterate that Islam is not the problem, cognitive dissonance grips the planet.

If Islam is not the problem, what is? And are we not inviting self-defeat by refusing to recognize that Islam is at least part of the problem?

Now that xenophobes are licking their chops, let me offer the requisite disclaimer. Most Muslims despise the barbaric tactics of radicals who have hijacked their religion in order to justify killing innocent civilians. The majority of Muslims don't deserve contempt from non-Muslims any more than infidels deserve "justice" administered by maniacs.

To their credit, Muslim organizations are swift to condemn each new terrorist attack. They also are quick to point out that fanatics are a tiny minority and account for only about 1 percent of Muslims worldwide.

These are comforting thoughts unless you happen to be riding the bus with a constituent of that 1 percent. Or unless you're mathematically inclined, in which case you easily see — as Arnaud de Borchgrave recently pointed out — that 1 percent of the world's estimated 1.2 billion Muslims is 12 million Muslim fanatics who consider the U.S. and other Westerners operatives of Satan.

That's roughly the population of Ohio. If everyone in Ohio adhered to radical Islam, we'd likely conclude that we have more than a small problem, and we also might observe that Islam is closely associated with that problem.

For our second disclaimer, we note that Islam doesn't have a corner on fanaticism. Sometime next year, South Carolinians can look forward to an influx of "conservative Christians" who intend to migrate and saturate the state with voters whose aim is to replace the U.S. Constitution with the Ten Commandments. Or urge secession.

Leader Cory Burnell (christianexodus.org) has conceded that "People are going to call us crazy," and he's right. But so far, he's only urging that followers adhere to the Ten Commandments, which among other things forbids killing other people. When he starts urging teens to strap on bombs and blow up children, we'll get back to you.

Meanwhile, he's unlikely to have much effect as Americans — even South Carolinians who, admittedly, have a higher-than-average threshold for eccentricity — don't hesitate to call a wacko a wacko.

"Sit down and shut up" rolls off the tongue in our self-correcting culture, especially when the targets are white Christians.

We seem to have more difficulty speaking up when other religious or ethnic groups are involved.

Our diversity training, our cultural predisposition for tolerance, our heritage of immigration and America's characteristic good nature make criticism of minorities and minority beliefs unpalatable.

Which is why moderate Muslims must be unrelenting in eliminating — not just condemning — Islam's bad actors.

When a Muslim cleric urges jihad against infidels, it falls to fellow Muslims to clean out the mosque, to rid Allah's kingdom of radicals. Otherwise, it becomes increasingly difficult for non-Muslims to wrap their minds around "Islam isn't the problem."

It's not enough to assert that 12 million hate-filled zealots who advocate murdering Americans and Europeans are a minority and then, feeling virtuous, return to the business of registering Muslim voters and issuing press releases about insults to Islam.

Fifty years ago when American "radicals" burned crosses and lynched blacks in organized, choreographed acts of terror, the Ku Klux Klan was only a tiny minority of white Christians. The vast majority of whites, like the vast majority of Muslims, would never do such a thing. And yet for too long, decent whites weren't activist enough in purging the evildoers from their midst.

Zero tolerance is what we're looking for here.

After the bombings that killed some 50 in London, the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) issued a statement that said in part: "These vicious acts of terrorism deserve the strongest possible condemnation by all civilized people."

That's nice, but we've heard these words before. At this point — after 9/11, 3/11 and now 7/7 — they are background noise, providing no comfort and little assurance other than that cliches are indiscriminate.

We also know that in Muslim nations around the world — as well as in mosques elsewhere — the susurration of prayer is often silenced by the sound of celebration when a terrorist takes out another busload of "infidels."

Until the hatred that breeds that kind of cultic dementia is eliminated by the moderate Muslims who insist on the West's understanding, Islam has a problem.

Parker is a syndicated columnist for the Orlando Sentinel. She can be e-mailed at kparker@kparker.com.

Movie: The Story of Us (4.5 of 10)

4.5 out of 10

Chick movie 'recommended' to Jennifer from a co-worker show marriage we now fear is in trouble.

Starring Bruce Willis & Michelle Pfeiffer, so it had some star power.

There was just enough star power, good writing, and emotion here to keep it from a 4 out of 10. If I wasn't married, however...it probably would have gotten a 3 because I wouldn't have been able to understand 75% of it.

Rotten Tomatoes pretty much panned it.

New Rating System

At the blog's inception I posted an entry to describe the ratings system that I will/am using.

Scratch that; I don't like it. We're going to a new scale. That's too much hassle. We're going to a traditional, 1 to 10 scale where:

10 is a Hall of Fame "Classic". It's as good as it gets and probably won't ever be used on anything current as a current movie (or whatever) will need to "age" into a classic.

5 will be average. 5 will be just barely to the point that I still endorse it as an acceptble use of time. Depending on the current supply of alternatives and of the amount of time with which you have on your hands, it may or may not be the best use of time.

4 will be the minimum standard for a "rental". Depending on the current supply of alternatives and of the amount of time with which you have on your hands, it may or may not be the worth your time. I have elected to use 4 as the threshold for "minimum" to give me enough room between 5 & 10 to differentiate ratings; especially since I will attempt pre-screen junk to the point that I don't have very many ratings below a 4.

Anything below 4 will vary on the scale of bad.

This scale will serve to be much more comparative in nature than the old one. I found it too challenging to try to squeeze movies/wines/whatever into the labels that I had built around the star system.

With the new system, the ratings become more relative and comparative and therefore include a different kind of subjectivity. Here, my personal preferences can differentiate what I like more without having to try to make Garden State something it wasn't because it was a unique genre. If I happen to like comic book movies than quirky angst-filled flicks, then so be it.

Lastly, you will occassionally see a .5 thrown into the mix. This will be done very selectively and used just to differentiate certain things. For example, if I am rating two similar movies at about the same time and I just barely liked one better than another, then it may be made a 7.5 instead of a 7 just for differentiation.

Over time, I will probably go back to the old entries and modernize their ratings.

What it Costs to Live Well in the South

"What it Costs to Live Well in the South" does a commendable job of analyzing what it takes to be upper-middle class in today's South.

Forbes was "not looking at an opulent lifestyle--no private helicopters, megayachts or castles in France--but, instead, at what many Americans would consider the upper middle class American dream: private schools for the kids, a large house in an upscale neighborhood, a weekend retreat, a pricey night out once a week and a couple of very nice cars." Text at the bottom of the linked article further explains Forbes' methodology.

Results Summarized
The slideshow available in the article shows detail for 12 cities in the South, including Houston, Atlanta, Charlotte, and Charleston.

"For the most part, the pattern in the South is comparable with that in the Northeast: The most expensive cities are larger and have more industry, immigration and growth. Miami and Atlanta topped the list, with Houston following close behind. The least expensive places to live well were Oklahoma City, Jackson, Miss., and Little Rock, Ark.--states that tend to be near the bottom when it comes to median household incomes, according to the U.S. Census Bureau.

What jumped out at us, however, was how pricey these cities still were for our fictional family. To be sure, while there is no city in the South that is as expensive as New York or Boston, anyone who has spent time in Miami lately--and gotten an eyeful of the local real estate prices--would not be surprised to learn that it ranks, by our estimates, as one of the most expensive cities in the South. Taking into consideration a range of factors, we determined that a family of four would need to earn about $310,000 (net of taxes) to maintain an affluent lifestyle--about the same as what it would take in Washington, D.C."

To be fair to the article...they explain their methodology at the end of it and the parameters that they use. They had to *standardize* something..and it doesn't seem as though what they chose was too far from what is true to live "well".

They took all of these components of a lifestyle - cars, vacations, private schools, vacation homes, etc - and calculated the costs of them and then added it all (+ 1% savings rate) to come up with "what it takes" to do all of these things (which are considered living well).

When I look at what they ended up with, these folks seem to be more "living well" than "rich". Additionally, someone who does live like this doesn't *think* that they are rich - driving a BMW 3 series is different than driving a 7 Series. They had median homes in their neighborhoods, not the most expensive. They don't have an apt in Manhattan, etc. It's all relative.

The article weren't saying/suggesting/offering that an "average person" lived this way. The income number was effectively the summation of all of the costs deemed necessary to "live well".


Some of their parameters:

* Family of four with one child in a private college and one in eighth grade and attending a private school.

* Fictional clan has two houses--one in a nice neighborhood and one in the country or at the beach. (More on how they chose the houses in article)

* Assumed the family made a 20% down payment on the home and took out a 30-year, fixed-rate mortgage. We did not factor down payments into our budgets, since they are one-time expenses. We used an interest rate of 5.61%, which the Mortgage Bankers Association says was the average rate for such loans at the beginning of June. Added in homeowners' insurance costs.

* We also wanted our imaginary family to have a weekend retreat. So we chose a likely location for a country or beach house (the Gulf Coast, Asheville, N.C.).

* Our family has two very upscale cars; a sporty BMW 325i sedan and a capacious Lexus RX 330 with front-wheel drive, both 2005 models.

* Since the Fictionals like to eat at nice restaurants, we figured out how much it would cost them to have dinner each week (including an appetizer, main course, dessert, a bottle of nice--though not amazing--wine and a tip) at an expensive local place. We then multiplied that figure by 52 to get the annual spending total.

* This high-income family also likes to travel. We had them take three vacations each year,

* Utility and health care numbers, which are spending estimates for households in our specified ZIP codes.

* We figured our family would send its children to private colleges, which could be anywhere in the country.

* Our "Other" number, which includes spending on clothes, cosmetics, pets and the like, is from the American Express Platinum Luxury Survey,

* Our family saves very little (1%) of its income. This may not be the most fiscally prudent way to behave, but it is the norm in this country. In fact, we were even a little generous, as according to the Department of Commerce, American households save less than 1% of their income these days.

* Finally, there were taxes.

Quran vs Bible; Hostile Hypocrisy

From Forbes Magazine.
June 20, 2005

"With the revelation that a copy of the Quran may have been desecrated by U.S. military personnel at Guantánamo Bay, Muslims and their governments--including that of Saudi Arabia--reacted angrily. This anger would have been understandable if the U.S. government's adopted policy was to desecrate our Quran. But even before the Newsweek report was discredited, that was never part of the allegations.

As a Muslim, I am able to purchase copies of the Quran in any bookstore in any American city, and study its contents in countless American universities. American museums spend millions to exhibit and celebrate Muslim arts and heritage. On the other hand, my Christian and other non-Muslim brothers and sisters in Saudi Arabia, where I come from, are not even allowed to own a copy of their holy books. Indeed, the Saudi government desecrates and burns Bibles that its security forces confiscate at immigration points into the kingdom or during raids on Christian expatriates worshiping privately."

--Ali Al-Ahmed, director, Saudi Institute, Wall Street Journal

China & CAFTA

This is going to be my repository for relevatn information and articles on China & CAFTA

Washington's Knucklehead Economics by Steve Forbes June 20, 2005


CAFTA Comments

Historic Opportunity
Our domestic debate over Cafta is about much more than trade. The people of Central America fought and struggled, and many died, because they believed that democracy would bring not only peace but also a better life. Now the people of the region are asking the U.S. to help secure the work of democracy through a closer economic relationship that could provide a new foundation for building opportunity. Yet never has the gap between Central America and the U.S. loomed larger. Central Americans are talking about freedom, democracy and hope. Meanwhile, our domestic debate has been dominated by topics such as sugar and whether Cafta will codify international labor conventions that the U.S. has not even ratified itself.

Our domestic debate pays slight attention to the historic opportunity to stabilize and support Central America while promoting America's strategic interests and values. In short, we must decide whether to promote America's strategic interests--or its special interests. If we retreat to isolationism, Daniel Ortega, Hugo Chavez, and others like them--autocrats of left or right--will push ahead.
--Robert B. Zoellick, Deputy Secretary of State,
remarks at the Heritage Foundation


CAFTA: A Win-Win Case by Glenn Hubbard in July 4, 2005 Business Week.

"The economic case for CAFTA is compelling. First, the level playing field created by the pact would benefit U.S. consumers and businesses. Currently about 80% of Central American products enter the U.S. duty-free. CAFTA would provide some balance with reciprocal treatment for U.S. goods and agricultural exports, and all tariffs on U.S. goods would be eliminated over time. CAFTA would also require increased transparency in corporate governance, legal systems, and due process in the region, strengthening the local economies. For U.S. business, the newly expanded access to the region would benefit companies in financial services, telecommunications, entertainment, and computer services. CAFTA, moreover, would create jobs in Central America and make the region's economies more competitive with Asian nations...

...There are foreign policy reasons to favor the CAFTA accord. Since the 1970s, CAFTA nations have moved toward market economies and democracy, becoming commercial and political allies of the U.S. CAFTA's boost to economic growth and incomes in Central America would further bolster support for free markets and democratic institutions. Such logic has shaped U.S. policy for more than two decades, starting with President Ronald Reagan's 1983 Caribbean Basin Initiative, which was expanded in 2000 under President Bill Clinton. This commitment's credibility would be bolstered by the success of CAFTA. Conversely, failure to ratify CAFTA will undermine U.S. influence in the region."

Wine: Fetzer Valley Oaks 2004 Gewürztraminer (6 of 10)

6 out of 10

When I purchased the Valley Oaks Gewürztraminer at Sam's for about $5.50, I was very excited that I might have come across the newest Vintage of the Echo Ridge 2001 Gewürztraminer that I enoyed so much. Then, I looked at the bottle and realized that the "Valley Oaks" brand is different than the "Echo Ridge".

I have now learned that I was wrong (again) - Fetzer's website proclaims that all of their brands have been consolidated into this new "Valley Oaks" brand and the Echo Ridge no longer exists. That seems to be a pity, because this wine was nowhere close to as good as my previous experience with the 2001 Echo Ridge.

This wasn't a bad wine, it was average...and the $5.50 price tag is exciting when you realize that the average price on the internet is anywhere between $7 to $10 a bottle. Additionally, Wine Spectator listed the wine as one of its best values for summer with an 84 rating.

Liquorama says:

"The wine is a deep golden straw color, with a nose of dried apricot, spicy peach, with a touch of rose petal and honeysuckle. The crisp green apple, honeyed apricot and peach flavors meld with the traditional spicy flavors of Gewurztraminer. This medium-bodied wine`s off dry style strikes the perfect balance between its sweetness and bright crisp acidity. A versatile wine, it pairs nicely with spicy Asian cooking as well as grilled chicken and fish."

I'll go with that. I'll also stress the medium-bodied comment. Gewürztraminer is supposed to be medium-bodied, but whereas the Echo Ridge was full-bodied, the Valley Oaks is medium-bodied for medium-boidied and held on to a little more of an acidic after taste than I would have liked.

So, I am learning a little about my palate. I seem to like extremes - more sweet or more spicey; more full bodied or the most simple. For Gewürztraminer, it looks like I tend to gravitate to the sweeter taste which I think serves to mask some of the lower-end wine's after tastes.


Post script:
I wrote this entry and then came across this review at winegeeks.com. It made me very proud that I got so close their comments and their 5.75 out of 10 rating.

"Average -- Exactly what we'd expect to pay for a wine of this quality or stature."

Movie: Cellular (6 of 10)

6 out of 10

Laugh at me all you want, but we enjoyed this movie significantly more than we thought that we would. Additionally, Rotten Tomatoes gives it almost a 6 of 10 to support that it is an acceptable evening.

It's a perfect rental -- better than minimally acceptable but not as relevant as deserving a theater viewing.

Quick Hits:
* Kim Bassinger looks OLD in some of the camera angles.

* The cast is actually relatively 'recognizable'. William H. Macy is the other standout name (with Bassinger)...but the many of the faces you will recognize.

* This film had the chance to surprise. Deep into the story, the explaination of the whole premise of the 'bad guys' was still not evident. The writers/director could have thrown a huge curve ball and ended up making the people that we had been pulling for actually bad. That would have been too much intellect to try to get the high school crowd in the seats.

Wine: 2002 Torres Coronas (3.50 Stars)

We picked this up as a one-time buy at Sam's for less than $7.50 and decided to give it a try. I felt good about the purchase when I scanned some websites and found it generally sells for $10 from wholesale vendors and as much as $37.50 in this restaurant.

Torres' Coronas wine is from the Catalonia region of Spain and is based Spain's traditional Tempranillo variety (86%), blended with (14%) Cabernet Sauvignon. Torres website has a nice page that focuses on the grapes..

I picked up some blackberry and maybe some liquorice. We both wondered if we got some coffee taste, but I wonder if that was the truffles and our palates aren't refined enough to identify the truffles. I didn't get as much fruit and berry as the vineyard promotes. The tannins had touches of smoke and spices, but I felt some edge in the after taste of my first glass. After the first glass, the edge had evolved into a more enjoyable spice & pepper taste.

Torres wines has a great website with lots of information.

Additional Note:
===> The 1999 vintage received a great rating and was praised from Winesontheweb.com.

"A charming wine for its price. Torres Coronas Tempranillo has quite a healthy, mid-ruby colour and a slightly spicy bouquet with hints of cherries. These are confirmed along with summer fruits on a very smooth well-balanced palate, with well-integrated American oak before it leaves a lingering fruit-laden finish."

Movie: The Aviator (6 of 10)

6 out of 10

Disappointing after all of the hype and praise that I remembered this getting.

Di Caprio take a physical resemblence to the older Hughes.

Generally, this movie missed the mark with me. I would have rather watched a 2 hour documentary of Hughes on A&E or the Biography Channel.

I'm going to bump this to 3.00 stars from my original 2.75 based on the scale and strength of the art and cinematography.

Movie: Lemony Snicket's Series of Unfortunate Events (4.5 of 10)

4.5 out of 10

Disappointed...not because it was terrible...but, because I had higher hopes.

I appreciate Jim Carey's work even more after this...and enjoyed the neat casting that included Bill Connolly, Meryl Streep, Dustin Hoffman, and even Cedric the Entertainer.

I think the film probably suffers from not having any real home. It is certainly too dark and mature for children...probably too slow for teenagers and 20 somethings born of the MTV generation...and maybe too 'obscure' (for lack of a better term) for the general movie going public.

The only way this avoided a 4 of 10 was the general attractiveness of the cinematography, the artistic value, and the extensive nature of the sets built and used. (Similar to the impact that these virtues had on The Aviator)