Peace to Dirt Dog. I'm Back like Deja Vu.

Last night I saw a preview screening of "Iron Man" with K-Dogg. The movie comes out this weekend so I can't claim great exclusivity like when we saw "Spider-Man 3" last year a few weeks before it came out. But I've always held Iron Man as one of my favorite comic book characters so I've been looking forward to the movie since it was just a rumor.

In the grand thrust of movies based on comic books coming to the screen, there are a select handful including the original X-Men movie, "Batman Begins" and "Spider-Man 2" which encompass the upper eschelon. Those are movies which are good enough to stand up on their own irregardless of genre in the same way "Star Wars" is more than just a sci-fi film.

The next level down from that is where "Iron Man" belongs. It's a good movie and I was thrilled as a comic books fan to see they stayed faithful to the character. Like the first "Spider-man" movie or the Thomas Jane "Punisher" film, it's really good for the genre and should do a good job satisfying both the fans of Iron Man and the general public who is properly meeting the character for the first time.

One thing which did stick out for me about the movie was the enemies in the movie were Taliban-esque warlords in Afghanistan. And for the first time since our Global War on Terrorism began, it didn't feel heavy-handed to have them be the enemy. Perhaps it's because it's the last year of GWB's presidency and perhaps it's because the "with us or against us" rhetoric has died down since Rumsfeld resigned.

I think a bigger part of it is the movie's self-awareness showing that it's not guys who live in caves and warm themselves around woodfires who are making the guns being fired at our military. In a way, it is both literally and metaphorically our own imperialism being fired back at us. That little extra is what distinguishes making an Iron Man movie from making a movie about a man in a flying metal suit.

FREE JASON KUBEL!!!

One of the great disadvantages to living so far from home is being a sports fan deep in enemy territory. You're out of synch with the people around you and that can be a lonely feeling. When your hometown team's rookie wide receiver or rookie running back runs like a goddamn gazelle with its ass on fire through the defense of the team representing your temporary home, you will hardly find a sympathetic ear for your cries of triumphant joy. You simply become That Guy, i.e. the out-of-towner who shatters the "my team is actually superior to yours despite the fact I only cheer for this team because of where I was raised." Noone wants to become That Guy.

Your love for that which has mattered to you since you were old enough to sit with your dad in front of the TV or pick up and read the sports page becomes a chaste love. Like a war widow, you follow the travails and victories of your chosen via dispatches and report. It is a quiet place where you live and it is a quiet fandom you follow. Until the day your beloved visits you in your far off temporary home. Then it's on like Donkey Kong.

Last summer I had a co-worker who bought season tickets in the upper deck at Comiskey. Since they're a family with small kids, they put more than a few of the tickets up for sale and I snatched up the Twins games. Not a few here and there. All of them. I saw a lot of live baseball last summer between the Twins-Sox games and on two occasions ending up with the company seats at Wrigley.

This summer that same co-worker is now pregnant and not a season-ticket holder, I decided it was well worth it to just splurge on a pair of good seats for one game and not need to force my baseball addiction upon those I love. I am also eyeing a trip up to Milwaukee in June for the Twins-Brewers games, especially now that I know the gals from Yeah Buddy! are planning to make the sojourn. But let me digress.

An evening trip to Comiskey Park in April requires a little bit of planning ahead. All White Sox night games begin at 7:11 (and, yes, it's for that reason). This means the sun is going down as you enter the park and most if not all of the game will be played under cover of night. Since it's an outdoor ballpark, you will need to wear your winter jacket and plan on bringing a blanket for your legs. I hope these are the nights all of the proponents of an outdoor stadium in Minneapolis decide to mosey on down behind the Target Center. The elements are cold and cutting this time of year which made the crowd thin and sparse in even the most relatively dense sections.

The main question I had attire-wise was whether I should wear my authentic Johan Santana jersey. It was going to be either underneath my workshirt (where it had been all day) providing me warmth or it would be out in the open drawing the ire of White Sox fans around me. I was already wearing a Twins jacket and I already almost died once this week and figured I'd push my luck. One of my first trips to Comiskey in 2006 involved another Twins-attired fan seeing my jersey and giving me daps and I wanted to feel that fanly comraderie again, briefly no longer stuck on an island. Susie got to the park a little after me and we settled in for the game.

The Twins came out of the gate like a shot. The White Sox starter John Danks looked shaky from ball one through four to Carlos Gomez. Gomez got picked off but Danks didn't settle down. Brendan Harris singled to right, Mauer singled to left, Morneau walked and Delmon Young singled in Harris. Then strode to the plate the once and future king of the franchises' potential, Jason Kubel. He only flew a sacrifice fly out to Nick Swisher in centerfield driving home Mauer. But, like the clockwork of baseball's inner narratives, the scene was set.

Let's fast forward through some solid pitching by Yeah Buddy!-endorsed Scott Baker and some equally shaky pitching by Danks to the top of the third inning. Harris singled to center, Mauer went monkey-see, monkey-do to left and Morneau also went to left to make it three in a row. Young struck out swinging and again the Twins needed Kubel to come through with men on base. A lot of sweat and perspiration is expended in baseball thinking about the top of the batting order which is probably justified since those batters hit most often in a game. Still it's the teams who can drive men in with their sixth through ninth hitters who really excell. There bestrode Kubel to break the levee and let loose the vaunted Big Inning. He only singled to right scoring Harris. But Danks was shaken and, after a bases-loaded walk of Craig Monroe, he was pulled for Nick Massett. Add on a Mike Lamb single scoring Morneau and a Carlos Gomez double scoring Monroe and Lamb and the Twins had batted around to a 7-0 lead.

When Susie and I were settling at the beginning of the game, some White Sox fans with beers in their hands sat down in front of us. Who knows if those were their actual seats but it was were they were going to sit. Not to say that all White Sox fans are like this but these guys lived up to the cliche. So when Nick Swisher hit a solo homer with two outs in the bottom of the inning, the most rowdy of them made sure to pop up out of his seat to give me a high five. Way to follow the game, Ramanujan. I made sure to share a running-"How many runs ARE still you behind?" tab with him as Paul Konerko and Joe Crede hit solo homeruns in each of the next two innings.

The top of the sixth began with Gomez grounding out to short. Harris doubled to center, Mauer advanced him to third on a fielder's choice, Morneau took his base on an intentional walk and Young watched a fourth ball on a 3-2 count to load the bases. Guess who came to the plate. It was our man, Jason Kubel. You can probably guess what happened next. I'd held out sending texts to my White Sox fan friend Dave during the early run-batting-in extravaganzas. This warranted a "Put it on the board. YES!"

The evening was getting late by now and I was starting to lose feeling in my toes. During the seventh inning stretch, Susie and I decided to bug out and take the long train-ride home. I gave some high fives to fellow Twins fans on the way out, Susie took a picture of me to represent Danks' performance and then I talked about the emerging greatness of Mr. Kubel with some fellow fans on the train. All told I don't know how the evening could've gone any better.

We Were Inverted At the Time

I wish I could find the clip from Wayne's World 2 where Del Preston is finishing a story as Wayne and Garth walk up and says, "... and that's why Keith Richards cannot be killed by conventional weaponry." Because that's exactly how I feel right now. Because early this morning just north of Milwaukee, Scott and I walked away from a car accident completely unscathed.

Susie is back in Minnesota for an extended weekend visiting her family and attending our friends' wedding. I couldn't afford the extra days off and I stayed behind in Illinois. I didn't want to spend the entire weekend in my apartment though. So with a little coaxing and the promise we could be back in Chicago before his 8:00 am shift Saturday (this) morning, Scott and I drove up to Green Bay after work yesterday. It was a good time and we saw a lot of people we hadn't seen in a long while. On the way home, I kicked the seat back and slept.

The next thing I remember was a lot of swearing, the car spinning and then flipping over onto its roof. I asked Scott what happened, he said he'd flipped the car and my classic response is just to say "Shit." He later told me that during the crash he'd thrown his arm across me because he didn't want me bouncing around the cabin. It's kind of sweet in a way. I undid my belt and, as I did, really hoped we were off to the side of the road or somewhere out of the way. My fear was to be exiting the vehicle as another vehicle struck ours. My door was stuck and thus I followed Scott out the driver-side door. Our car was on its top in the mud on the side of the road.

Scott took it pretty hard. I won't go into it too much because I don't want to embarrass him. But he was pretty shook up because there had been another person (me) in the car with him at the time of the accident. I had to remember to remind him since I was okay and he was okay the rest of it was just being inconvenienced. The truth is he was going to have to try harder in the future if he wanted to kill me.

After getting checked out by the ambulance and giving our deposition of what happened, the cops gave us a ride up to the Brueggers Bagels and we had some breakfast. Scott's parents came to get us and they gave us a ride home. An original version of the plan had me staying in Milwaukee while Scott drove on to work but that got cancelled. I just got into bed and took a nap. Sleep may be the cousin of death. But it's not the same thing.

Obama-ama-eh-eh-eh

On Tuesday, I changed my status on Facebook to say, "All of the troops would be home from Iraq today if Obama were President" to reflect the date (3/31/08) the Senator's Iraq War De-Escalation Act of 2007 set as a goal to make a full withdrawl. Soon thereafter the debate was joined.

Gerry: Actually, all the troops would be exactly where they are since Obama said that if al Qeada increased violence after the withdrawal of American troops (which they would) he would send troops to stabilize the country. But who knows if he knew what he meant...he's pretty new at this. ;-)

Mike: It seems to me the violence is surging with our troops there now.

http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,23467708-5005961,00.html

If we wait until Al-Qaeda isn't violent, we're going to be in Iraq for a long time and we're going to keep on losing. Time for the troops to come home and time to stop wasting resources on a failed military objective.

Gerry: So you disagree with Obama's position? Since he clearly said that if al Qaeda threatened to destabilize the country after we left that he would send troops.

Also the spikes in violence recently have more to do with Sadr and the Iraqi government than alQ. alQ is in a mess right now in Iraq. Mostly because of the surge and Petraus. Hopefully we will have a government that will continue to destroy our enemies long enough for Sadr and Maliki to get their shit together. Then we can have a nice orderly, responsible shift from American control to Iraqi control. Instead of some neophyte recklessly withdrawing troops only to send them back when all the shit breaks loose.

If you really think a President Obama would have had troops home by now, I only suggest you look at the posturing of the Democrat congress since '06. Any objective person would conclude that they didn't want troops pulled out of Iraq. But if you want to keep your Obama fantasies, hope away.

Mike: You contradict yourself in your own retort. Which is it? Obama would have sent troops back to Iraq because of al-Qaeda or is al-Qaeda in Iraq in disarray? I'm unclear which position you're taking.

The surge was a temporary fix to a longer lasting problem. Like the man himself said, "I'm not against all wars. I'm against this war." He's got the executive perspective to realize the war in Iraq is a fool's errand. Our objectives there are impossible and no amount of resources will win the battle.

Pulling out won't destabilize Iraq. Iraq is destabilized. We're just there trying to fix what's irreparably broken. Our position is like a hand in a bucket of water. There may be a few drops when we pull our hand out and they'll create ripples for a few minutes. After those ripples subside, you'd never know we were there. Iraq will go on being as destabilized as we've made it.

So I actually agree with Obama. Our fight is not with the Iraqi people. It's with al-Qaeda.

P.S. Why would Congressional Dems send a bill to withdraw troops to President Bush? He's not going to sign it and they don't have a 2/3rds majority. So it's penalty-kill time until a Dem is President and then things will change.

Gerry: I did not contradict myself. We messed alQ's shit up with the surge. Leaving would allow them to once again attack the country and the Iraqi government. We have our foot on the throat of the most destabilizing element in Iraq. Leaving would let them get back up kneecap the unprepared Iraqi government. Which is why Obama said that he would send troops in to stop that. Obama's position is amateurish. You're either in to win or out damned of the consequences. His position is hokey-pokey. We need to give the Iraqi people more time. They are not ready to protect themselves and their government.

p.s. Why wouldn't they send a bill to President Bush? That is what they were elected to do, wasn't it?
p.p.s. If you think a democrat president would change how those congressional votes went you are dreaming. "Withdrawing the troops" is a red herring democrats use to get people against the war to vote for them. They wouldn't actually do it because they know if they actually did that the consequences would turn large majorities against them. They would be rightly blamed for the massive widespread carnage and death that would result. We a force for stability in Iraq, like it or not. And we will be there until Iraq is ready for us to leave.

Mike: Less amateurish than "stay the course" though, right? In fact, I'd say that it verges on decision-making instead of simple "well, once this happens and it's politically convenient then we'll do this." You can't look at what's happened in Iraq over the last five years, 4,000 US soldiers dead and $500 billion sucked down the drain and declare that a success. The war in Iraq leaves us weak at home (Hello, Katrina!) and diminishes us abroad (proving our enemies right). To continue in the war at this point of dimishing returns and increasing violence is foolish. In fact, it might take some courage to stop it.

I like that you bring up that a Democratic presidential nominee is weak and waffles on his positions. I suppose if you say things enough times people will actually believe they're true. I'd also like to point out that Republicans are religious nut, crypto-fascists who are intent on stripping regular Americans of their civil liberties and creating a police state.

P.S. Congress's goal is to enact legislation. Why send something to the White House you know is going to be immediately shot down by a President who is more concerned with being right than doing what is right. His obstinance is not the same thing as determined leadership. It's more like childish petulance.

P.P.S. Having the same party in control of both the White House and Congress always leads to that party's agenda being advanced. Do you think Part D of Medicare would be run through private insurance companies if the Democrats had held the either branch in 2003? Do you really think a close margin holds up against a Presidential veto?

P.P.P.S. We destabilized Iraq and we're spreading carnage already. Even worse, we're taking blame just for even being there. So what's our gain for fighting Iraqis instead of al-Qaeda? The Bush-Rumsfeld-Wolfowitz policy toward stability in the Middle East has failed categorically.

Gerry: A few things, decision-making can be bad or good. Leaving now and dropping the middle east into chaos I would deem a bad decision. To say, as Obama does, that at that point we would send troops back in to clean up an even bigger mess, doesn't make any sense. I've never claimed the war was a success or even well handled. But that has no bearing on how we move forward. If you think the war weakens us at home and abroad watch what would happen if we let the middle east devolve into chaos and hand alQ a victory. Violence is actually down (aside from the Basra dustup with Sadr that has more to do with Iraqi politics; and since then Sadr has called a cease-fire, since ultimately he wants a table in government.)

I've only talked about what Obama said he would do. If I've mischaracterized it, please point out how. I haven't. A reasonable person wouldn't say that I sink to empty partisan-baiting. Don't accuse me of such.

We destabilized Iraq (if it was justified or in our interest is a different argument). And we completely botched the establishment of a stable government. And we are only now getting over those mistakes. It took a change of strategy and a change of personalities to do it. But there is clearly a path to a stable government if we only have the patience and foresight to give the Iraqi government the time.

You tell me what will happen when we leave Iraq. Because everyone who wants to just bring troops home never talks about it. Do you think everything will just work itself out? Do you think it will be consequence-free? Can you still pretend that we live in a disconnected world; that turning our backs on the world will lead to anything but dissaster?

p.s. retort: I only point out that the dem congress, after 2006 midterms, spent more money and send more troops to Iraq. Troops will not come out of Iraq until the Iraq government is established and ready. Plain and simple. Repub or Dem.

Mike: So a decision based on recognizing the sweeping failures of a previous tactic cross-referenced against the will of the people is NOT something the President should do? I'll have to go back to Civics class on that one.

I'll make a historical connection here and then I can lay off. The domino theory actually happened. When we stopped fighting in 1973 against the North Vietnamese, they took over South Vietnam. Then Cambodia and Laos fell to Communist regimes. Then nothing happened. The Russians and the Chinese crumbled under their own ascetic values and ressentiment and are now playgrounds for the American free market machine. Al-Qaeda will similarly crumble under its own ascetic values and ressentiment if people are drinking Coca-Cola in Saudi Arabia and making fair wages in Indonesia.

My point in my status is this. A little over a year ago Obama introduced the Iraq War De-Escalation Act of 2007 to Congress which set the goal of having all American combat troops home by March 31st, 2008. Since that was two days ago, I thought I would point that out. Since President Bush and now Nominee McCain are in favor of extending the war, I think it's pretty clear who supports the position held by the majority of the American people.

Gerry: Too bad Obama isn't as clearly on the side of leaving and letting the chips fall as you. ;-) That position I can respect and understand, even if I have major disagrements with it. (I also know that the nature of politics in America probably won't let that happen.)

Have you read the De-Escalation Act? It had a bunch of benchmarks for leaving (similar to the ones we are using now with the surge), which if not met would suspend the redeployment (with congressional approval of course.) War power issues aside...again, do you really think the democrat congress would bring troops home before we are ready? Or even a dem prez?

Or troops will leave Iraq when Iraq is stable enough for us to leave. Not a day sooner.

Mike: You're right that it's unfortunate Obama is an American politician. He does have to leave some room for compromise instead of simply bullying his opponents a la Putin or Sarkozy. Still I'll trade a little waffling for not having to deal with a right wing police state. (Ha ha!)

I know that the De-Escalation Act had benchmarks. Chances are we wouldn't have met them since they were based on the Iraq Study group's recommendations and we only met half(?) of those. Still Reagan and Weinberger vowed to stay in Lebanon after the 1983 barracks bombing and our boys were home less than six months later. Though that area of the world remains in trumoil (Did they ever get those two Israeli soldiers back?), there are hardly Hezbollah members blowing themselves up on my train in the morning. So, yes, I do think a popular and charasmatic President would've had troops home, even if it meant leaving the Iraqis to their own civil war, regardless of whether or not he's Democratic or Republican.

Gerry: My problem isn't with Obama *saying* he would leave and go back in. My problem is with how shortsighted that policy is. Admitting you'd go back in pretty much says you know you can't let the area degrade past a certain point. The quickest way to ensure it never gets to that point is to stay now, continue providing security until Iraq can handle it, and then leave. It is just common sense. I don't understand someone that would draw this out by advocating leaving too soon, with the full intent of returning as soon as, what pretty much every expert considers the logical result, happens.

Iraq is a much bigger strategic interest than Lebanon. Ask members of the Cedar revolution if they appreciated that we cut and run and left them to Syria's whims for 20 years. It is all interconnected, dispite how hard we try to shove our own heads up our own asses.

Placing the Book Before the Movie

I saw a girl reading "The Other Boleyn Girl" at the train-station today. She was reading it because the movie was just out and there was a great big marketing campaign promoting it. It wasn't necessary to ask her if that was true or not. The cover of the book was the film's poster.

It made me think of that phenomenon. A movie based upon a book is approaching release into theaters. So places like Borders and Barnes and Noble place that book out on their browsing tables. People who have seen the trailer or the television commercials snatch the book up thinking, "I'll read this before the movie comes out." It's all quite silly.

What's the cliche about movies that are adapted from books? That the book was better. It makes sense too. If you want a dragon in a book, you write "There was a dragon." If you want a dragon in a movie, you have to budget for the CGI. In a book you can explicate a character's exact feelings and reasoning. In a movie you have to have that character declare those same things via conversation or monologue. Movies have be short enough to show four times a day at the theater while books can be as long as the author wants. Books have a few natural advantages in their potential to tell a more complete tale.

Don't get me wrong. I've read books before they were made into movies and there are movies being made from some of my favorite books. But reading the book before seeing the movie is foolish. You're reading the more complete version of the story before you watch a less complete version of the story. If anything you should see the movie first. Then, if the subject interests you enough, then you can go to the source material for greater depth.

Now who do I need to talk to if I want to see an adaptation of "The Shadow of the Wind"?