Sorry guys...it's been five whole days since I wrote anything here. Life gets exciting, or at least busy, and my blog gets delayed.
To add to my complaints and excuses, just as I was finishing this entry, my computer crashed. Why? too much music downloaded and not enough space for it.

So, just for the hell of it, here are some music and movie comments.

Music: I just got back from seeing "Sigur Ros." They were fine, very soothing, very easy. They almost put me to sleep in fact. As each soporific song ended, there was a burst of thunderous, wild applause. It was one of the strangest experiences I've had at a rock show. I couldn't figure out why everyone in the audience was so crazy for them, screaming and carrying on. I wondered if there was something I was missing. Were those harmonies complex in some ingenius way? I decided no. Sigur Ros is, as one internet critic it, the indie version of Enya."" But how could anyone muster so much enthusiasm? I could imagine cheering for The Cocteau Twins, but they have beats, and they don't pretend to profundity.
Amina, part of the band who also plays on their own, was more interesting. Both groups and the two together reminded me not only of Enya, but of some hippy puppeteers I knew in Minneapolis. They loved doing their work, and their friends loved it too. But it was kind of boring to me sometimes, and dare I say it?...self-indulgent.

More interesting than either of these bands, and in the same experimental vein, but weirder, fuzzier, and cracklier is Phil Elvrum aka, "the Microphones. He is to under-rated what Sigur Ros is to over-rated. I became a Microphones fan because of that beautiful "Cold, Cold Water" that Elvrum did with Mirah. Now that is a recording that exhibits pop genius.


Movies: I like horror movies, so this weekend, I went all a-quiver to "The Exorcism of Emily Rose." I was sad to see that even more so than the last "Exorcist" movies, t's red-meat for the Schiavo and "Intelligent Design" crowd. What I found so aggravating about this movie, was the defense atty's closing argument, which claims that the jury should consider the possibility of the religious interpretation of the events because essentially, "who can say what is right and what is wrong?" Yes, when it comes to debates between religion and science, especially when we're in a court of law, let's just treat them as equally valid alternatives. This is the sort of pluralism that I don't believe in one bit; it reminds me of those arguments for teaching "intelligent design" in school.
I see that someone at Slate agrees with me.
But don't take it just from us secular types. Even some devout Christians don't like its message, which is that people can discover faith in God through their belief in the Devil. Is this really a good way to become Christian, to believe that some scary being can take over a devout, innocent creature?
And...to at least acknowledge what's going on in today's top news stories..., other than the downfall of the idiot, Brownie. What kind of Christian is that John Roberts? Maybe, like the fictional Emily Rose, he's been too influenced by those stories of saints and martyrs, and that's why he's So A-Ok when it comes to coercive interrogation." especially if it helps him get a job.
blech. more later.