The behemoth that is Wal-Mart is now being hauled to court by three women in Massachusetts; if Wal-Mart loses, it will be a victory for women and women’s health advocates.

At issue is Plan B, an emergency contraceptive pill that can prevent pregnancy if taken within 72 hours of sex. Pharmacies in Massachusetts are permitted to sell the pill, which is generally issued by prescription, over the counter, although none are required to do so. State law requires its pharmacies is to stock and provide “commonly prescribed medications in accordance with the usual needs of the community.” The three plaintiffs in Massachusetts are contending that Plan B falls within the usual needs of the community.  

Wal-Mart cites low demand for its refusal to stock the drug; however, the AP refers to a letter attributed to John Delaney, a Wal-Mart lawyer, stating that it was the company’s policy — and not a lack of demand or poor sales — to not stock emergency contraceptive pills. The only state in which Wal-Mart stocks Plan B is Illinois, where federal law mandates that it do so.

Should Wal-Mart lose this case, it will be a victory for women and women’s health advocates and a clear message to the corporate monstrosity that it cannot overrule the genuine needs of the community on the basis of its own political motives.

Mimi Hanaoka

I generally like to give new TV series time to settle in before giving them the once over because it’s hard to judge from a single episode, especially a pilot.  Some potential series have killer first shows and then go down hill faster than Bode Miller.  Others are like fine wine and require time to breath before easing into big hits.  Then there are shows that fall somewhere in the middle like CBS’s new dramedy Love Monkey, starring Tom Cavanaugh, and which could have easily been called Ed In The City.  

Love Monkey is based on the best-selling book of the same name by Kyle Smith which was touted as an American version of Brit Nick Hornsby’s High Fidelity, which, in turn, was Americanized for the film version staring John Cusack and Jack Black.  Both book and TV show are about four thirty-something males living in New York, all at different stages of life, who hang out together and discuss the idiosyncrasies of their existence, which in most cases involves women.  The title stems from the idea that single guys in the jungle of the big city swing from relationship to relationship, looking for the right woman to settle down with.  The show veers from the book by changing the main ape, Tom Farrell, from a newspaper writer to a recording industry A&R man who gets fired from his cushy major label job because he cares more about the music than the bottom line.  He downgrades to a friend’s independent label where he can make more of a difference in helping undiscovered talent hone their craft and head towards stardom.  Tom’s trials and tribulations with musical artists are interspersed with his trials and tribulations with the opposite sex, which so far have only involved a few.  He breaks up with one romance at the start of the pilot, and after a few episodes, the embers are smoldering on another with one of his colleagues at work.  Along for the ride are three male buddies and a platonic girlfriend, who seem to act like the devil and angel on Tom’s shoulders, dispensing advice that may be well-intentioned but not always the best route to take.  It’s Tom finding his own path and his life revelations that make the show entertaining and meaningful.

Upon seeing the pilot, I was pleasantly surprised to find a show that doesn’t overtly try to make an audience like it.  It’s not a Desperate Housewives jumping up and down and waving in hopes of attracting your attention, but it’s also not dull pabulum for tired folks who want nothing but to sit and watch programs that hardly even use up one brain cell.  The characters are all interesting, likable, and flawed — which means that you want to find out what happens to them.  And that is what will make the show successful, if the writing stays fresh.  

Though, Tom Cavanaugh is the star, the show feels more like an ensemble piece, and if the rest of the cast is allowed to shine, I believe Love Monkey will turn into a big hit.  The writers need to take advantage of Judy Greer, who plays Tom’s platonic friend Brandy, a very astute actress who has great comic timing, charm, and a lot of chemistry with Cavanaugh.  One part of me wants them to build up the Brandy-Tom relationship, but another part wants there to be a good platonic relationship on TV that doesn’t involve one of the characters being gay.

Tom Cavanaugh takes his Ed character and fine tunes it, giving his screen Tom a little more edge and cynicism, which makes him not only more real than Ed but adds a lot more charisma, without losing the sweet charm that has been the actor’s appeal.  Jason Priestly (Beverly Hills, 90210) grows up to play the married buddy who is about to become a Dad and perhaps may not be grown up enough for the challenge.  Larenz Tate is Shooter, the rich playboy who works for the family business that allows him more time to entertain the ladies in the bedroom than attend meetings in the boardroom.  Christopher Wiehl is the not-so-enlightened ex-jock sports announcer who’s keeping his personal life secret for good reason.  There’s a lot of room for the characters to explore life in the big city much like their uptown counterparts who made it fashionable for ladies to talk about sex.  Perhaps Love Monkey will make it okay for men to talk about their emotions, though I can’t see Tom Cavanaugh ever appearing on the cover of GQ anytime soon. But you never know, he may one day become a Gap spokesman.

I recommend switching the channel over to CBS for Love Monkey after watching American Idol and House on Fox for a light but satisfying snack before bedtime.  It may not be issue-stretching material or shockingly thrilling, but with good writing and interesting characters, I think Love Monkey has the chance to become another Northern Exposure, quietly entertaining viewers for years to come.  You can catch Love Monkey Tuesdays on CBS, 10 p.m. ET/PT.

Rich Burlingham

A sound, alert and dull,
of a fruit, ripping itself from the tree,
amid the speech-like tuning
of the deep silence of the woods …

Звук осторожный и глухой
Плода, сорвавшегося с древа,
Среди немольчного напева
Глубокой тишины лесной …

~1908~

About the poem: In a famous essay, the Russian poet Marina Tsvetaeva makes a distinction between poets with history and poets without history. In poets with history, one can detect development over time—the voice matures, the idea grows. Poets without history, on the other hand, are complete from the first word they utter. To read Osip Mandelshtam’s earliest published poem, written when he was only seventeen, is to witness the birth of a timeless mind.

Jan Vihan Jan Vihan is a contributing writer for In The Fray.

“The fact is that liberty, in any true sense, is a concept that lies quite beyond the reach of the inferior man’s mind.”

— H.L. Mencken, Notes on Democracy, 1926

Way back when Mencken wrote this, it was a biting commentary by a powerfully intelligent cynic.  He thought the vast majority of people really were inferior sorts and that the Palmer raids, Scopes trial and Prohibition were pretty convincing evidence.  Probably most people believed it was an overstatement.

As polling techniques developed over the next 30 or so years, it turned out that maybe it wasn’t going too far at all.  It didn’t take long to find out that most Americans were perfectly happy with taking away the Bill of Rights for communists, atheists, and whoever else they considered bad.  Seminal academic works by Herbert McClosky and Samuel Stouffer established what would become rather widely accepted knowledge.  Most citizens simply don’t understand and have little attachment to the politics of rights, liberty, and law.  We depend on a narrow group of intellectual and political elites to maintain our freedom and form of government.

This is important to keep in mind as the hearings on NSA spying ramp up over the next few weeks. Glenn Greenwald, a civil liberties lawyer with an extremely well-written blog, is the best resource on this.  He’s been articulating the outrage so many of us feel at the administration’s theory that it simply does not have to follow any laws.  Recently, he created a list of questions for Alberto Gonzalez that will be forwarded to the Senate Judiciary committee. The theory of all this is that if we can just get the true story out, it will be possible to create public pressure.  If Americans only understood the outrageousness of what is happening, how the Bush regime is subverting our constitutional system, they would rise up in protest.

This theory is probably just wrong.  If Bush is unpopular enough, it might be possible to make a scandal stick.  This won’t happen because of the nature of the scandal, though, but from an emotional reaction.  No amount of reasoned explanation is likely to do it.

Mencken later would say that “if the American people really tire of democracy and want to make a trial of Fascism, I shall be the last person to object. But if that is their mood, then they had better proceed toward their aim by changing the Constitution and not by forgetting it.”  

Terrible as this sounds, it may end up being the best we can do.  As Tristero said on Digby’s Blog, “Another president like Bush and even the most cautious amongst us will be forced to conclude that the project of American democracy — or at least the version of it I learned about and, yes, admire — is over.”

I’m sorry to be so hopeless today.  But, as H.L. said, “The fact that I have no remedy for all the sorrows of the world is no reason for my accepting yours. It simply supports the strong probability that yours is a fake.”

Pete DeWan

Brokeback Mountain, Ang Lee’s film about two gay cowboys who fall in love, leads this year’s Oscar nominations by contending in eight categories, including the prestigious triumvirate of best picture, best director, and best actor awards. And unlike TV’s recent superficial and flitting obsession with all things gay and metrosexual, the film’s multiple nominations lends gay issues a visibility and conversations about them a weight that it hitherto lacked in the mainstream media.  

Being gay became almost faddish in the media recently, with the slew of TV programs — Queer Eye for the Straight Guy, Boy Meets Boy — that, while they didn’t normalize homosexuality, certainly increased its visibility. Ever the vanguard of truly trashy television, the Fox network almost waded into hitherto unimaginably tasteless ground in 2004 with a show that was to be called Seriously, Dude, I’m Gay. Bowing to pressure and a startling sense of decency, Fox cancelled the two-hour show, ostensibly for “creative reasons.” But these shows, while giving airtime to gay TV personalities, reduced homosexuality to a facile stereotype of the consumerist, vain, and fashion-conscious gay man.

Brokeback Mountain refuses to stoop to the grotesque stereotypes that the Fox and Bravo networks so greedily capitalized on, and its multiple nominations legitimize its foray into addressing gay issues. The Academy Awards will be aired on March 5th.

Mimi Hanaoka

It’s impossible to know where to begin dissecting the broken sewer main that is the movie, Hostel.  Of course, any critique of a film with such obviously skyscraping levels of suckage begs the question of why someone like me didn’t see it coming.  Here, I admit to being a horror fan from childhood who, having had a few ecstatic scares before I had pubic hair, have been chasing the “first high” ever since.  

Hostel plays like it was written by two of the stupidest frat boys on the planet after a bong-fueled conversation where everyone thought their ideas were brilliant.  This is usually accomplished by the absence of anyone actually brilliant in the room.  The first three-quarters of the movie involve a group of friends and their casual sex travelogue through Europe.  Of course an enterprising foreigner tells them about this hostel tucked away in the Eastern bloc where the model-hot local girls tumble out of the trees, legs spread, waiting to get screwed by shitfaced lugs.  But, of course, the women are merely lures (evil, evil vaginas) leading the young men to a pay-per-kill dungeon where psychos act out protracted and theatrical murders.  

I won’t spend too much time savaging the plot for the simple reason that it’d be shooting fish on your plate at Red Lobster.  But I was intrigued by the almost backhanded inclusion of repeated homosexual panic, as the main characters police each other’s behavior with casual homophobia.  Methinks they doth repress too much. For those with fine-tuned gaydar, nothing is quite as obvious as the conquistador penis, the man desperate to prove his masculinity by having human-to-meat interactions with as many women as possible, as if sexuality can be denied with enough bed post notches.  In my experience, there are far too many men who hate women because they dig men.  When the entire film leads to a climax with the two nearly naked male protagonists getting tortured, I couldn’t help but wonder, why doesn’t everybody in this movie fuck so we could have less violence?  It sort of cements the sexual panic theory for me that one of the killers turns out to be an older man who had previously come on to one of the characters on a bus in a clearly dangerous spasm of gay.  Open homosexuals really must be the epitome of horror for closet-case jocks.

One side note that I must admit made me laugh out loud.  At one point Jay Hernandez’ character saves this Asian woman who just had her eye plucked out.  Of course she scrambles and fights to survive only to see herself in the mirror and commit suicide by train rather than live a life of imperfection.  Don’t they have plastic surgery in her country of origin?  I guess Asian women must be so obsessed with their looks that they’d rather die than face a life of asymmetry.  Since none of Gwen Stefani’s back-up Asians have glass eyes, the writers of Hostel couldn’t imagine a world where a woman they considered unattractive would want to live.    

Terry Sawyer

With recent race-related riots in Birmingham, Sydney, and Paris, it should be heartening to see a coalition of Muslims, evangelical Christians, and secular humanists all demonstrating for a common cause.  Except that the common cause that has drawn these disparate groups together threatens the very fabric of public debate.  

The British government is currently teasing out the details of the proposed Racial and Religious Hatred Bill, which would confer upon religious groups the same legal protection against hate crimes as racial groups. Since British courts already regard Sikhs and Jews as races, this new bill would apply, for example, to Muslims and Christians. Individuals guilty of inciting racial hatred would be subject to a maximum of seven years in prison.
  
Protection against hate crimes is all well and good, except that the House of Commons has signaled its intentions to reserve crucial changes made to the bill in the House of Lords.

In short, the House of Lords amended the bill so that in order to protect free speech, the hate crimes bill would include threatening words and behavior. Insults and abuse would not be considered hate crimes. Furthermore, the hate crime would need to be intentional. Excluded from the definition of hate crimes are proselytizing, discussion, criticism, and insult.  Abusing or ridiculing religious beliefs or practices would not be considered hate crimes. And this is how the bill should stand.  The House of Commons, which will be voting shortly on the bill, wants to reverse these amendments made by the House of Lords.  

Rowan Atkinson, the British comedian (known precisely for his acerbic wit), concisely stated his reservations about the bill, which opponents say would smother free speech and unduly threaten artists: “No one deserves a right to freedom from criticism.”

Mimi Hanaoka

January 21, 2006

Song and saturnalia ignited the Edinburgh Castle this evening with a tribute to one of Scotland’s most acclaimed poets, Robert Burns. Here at the twelfth annual “Burns Day” celebration, the essence of the Scottish experience in America was in full effect, complete with Scottish accents, beer, dance, kilts, songs, whiskey, and indeed…a haggis. Scottish flags suspended from the rafters above the audience members who occupied every inch of available space to witness a deeply engaging performance by Jana, a Scottish Zen Monk. Jana’s love of Burn’s work arose in Scotland, where she grew up listening to her grandfather recite Burn’s most notable poem, Tam O’Shanter. Jana rendered radiant verses from a pile of poetic pieces that touched her heart as a means to propel this traditional cycle. She began the evening with words from another Burns poem, “Hey Johnny Lad, Cock up your Beaver,” in honor of the Scottish struggle to salvage freedom and identity during English oppression. With glasses in hand, admirers and spectators alike paid respect to the passionate and often romantic words of Burns.

Robert Burns (1759-1796) was born the son of a farmer, William Burns. His family rented acreage in the farmlands of Scotland. After his father died Burns and his brother continued the family legacy on the farm. Burns found pleasure in a modest living, and held onto a healthy dose of disrespect for the Victorian conservatives, whom he referred to as “the dirt o’ gentry.” Still and all, this ardent intellectual harbored deep-seated dreams that expanded past the boundaries of rural pasture. It was at this time that Robert Burns began writing poetry for inspiration. His words speak for the lives and values of Scotland’s lower class. He wrote mainly about men and their ways, as well as his position in the world.  Robert Burns was a man of prominent integrity. He engaged in a vivacious lifestyle, which he articulated beautifully with his command over the written word. His poetry rejoiced in the plebian life that he led, and ridiculed the conservatives who wished to subdue him. “He dignified simple life and spoke with zest of those even lower down than himself” (Fitzhugh, 12).

The following is an excerpt from one of Robert Burn’s early works, Epistle to Davie:

It’s no in titles nor in rank:
It’s no in wealth like Lon’on Bank,
To purchase peace and rest.
It’s no in makin muckle (much), mair (more);
It’s no in books, it’s no in lear(ning),
To make us truly blest:

If happiness hae not her seat
An’ center in the breast,
We may be wise, or rich, or great,
But never can be blest!

Nae treasures nor pleasures
Can make us happy lang;
The heart ay’s the part ay
That makes us right or wrong.

His words demonstrate that money and power do not always bring happiness. Happiness is found in health, and health is wealth.

By 1786, at the age of 27, Robert Burns had failed as a farmer, and had composed a sound body of poems that he published in Kilmarnock, Scotland. His book was well received, and it earned him respect from a well-to-do section of Scotland’s aristocracy. He tailored some of his later poetry to the cadence of song (as seen below in Song, Untitled), and continued this practice until the day he died:

See the smoking bowl before us,
Mark our jovial, ragged ring!
Round and round take up the Chorus,
And in raptures let us sing—

(Chorus)
A fig for those by law protected!
Liberty’s a glorious feast!
Courts for Cowards were erected,
Churches built to please the Priest.

What is title, what is treasure,
What is Reputation’s care?
If we lead life of pleasure,
‘Tis no matter how or where.

With the ready trick and fable
Round we wander all the day;
And at night, in barn or stable,
Hug our doxies on the hay.

Does the train-attended carriage
Thro’ the country lighter rove?
Does the sober bed of marriage
Witness brighter scenes of love?

Life is all a Variorum
We regard not how it goes’
Let them cant about Decorum,
Who have character to lose.

Here’s to Budgets, Bags, and Wallets!
Here’s to all the wandering train!
Here’s to our ragged Brats and Callets!
One and all cry out, Amen!

A fig for those protected,
Liberty’s a glorious feast!
Courts for Cowards were erected,
Churches built to please the priest.

Burn’s songs revel in the realities that supplement everyday life. He envisions a free body encircling the light of truth, and denounces the formalities of law and church. Instead, the focus falls upon enjoying life’s natural pleasures. Burns Night at the Edinburgh Castle is truly an homage to this focal point.  

Allen Black, manager of the Edinburgh Castle and Master of Ceremonies, conducted a Haggis Sacrament in honor of Robert Burns with none other than the legendary Scottish Bagpiper, Jack Cunningham, accompanying him.

After swiftly parading the boiled sheep’s stomach up and down the pub, Black exhaled a fleeting entreaty for the soul of Robbie Burns before fashioning the symbol of a cross into the haggis with a ritualistic Scottish knife and enlivening the innards with a shot of whiskey. One skin satchel of haggis was enough to feed an ample segment of the two hundred casual Scots who attended the event.

The fervor of performance poetry, song, and conversation lasted late into the night, and legend of Robert Burns was rekindled in the hearts of those who recognize what the man stood for.

Sources
Fitzhugh, Robert. “Robert Burns: The Man and the Poet.” Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston, 1970.

ahodgdon

It is hard to review a film when the focus of the story can’t be revealed because it’ll spoil the fun, but suffice it to say Fox Searchlight’s British romantic comedy, Imagine Me & You, is a film about love at first sight, unrequited love, platonic love, love that hurts, and love that saves you.  First-time writer-director Ol Parker takes some real-life experiences, puts them in a blender, and concocts a funny, sometimes sweet, sometimes thought-provoking gem of a movie with characters that genuinely engage, even though at times you may want to slap some sense into them.

The film stars Piper Perabo (Coyote Ugly, Cheaper By The Dozen I & II) as Rachel, a typical British thirty-something finally tying the knot with her long-time childhood love, Heck, played by the likeable Matthew Goode (Chasing Liberty, Match Point) who, at least in this film, looks and acts like a British version of American TV’s Ed (Tom Cavanaugh).  As Rachel is heading up the aisle at their wedding, her eyes grab a glimpse of another and from that moment something changes inside her as she begins to question her love for Heck.  

Imagine Me & You isn’t a great film, but it offers a refreshing take on classic romantic comedy, of which I can’t explain, unfortunately.  The film is packed with plenty of the charming moments and sheer electric sparks found in the best romantic comedies, such as Sleepless in Seattle, When Harry Met Sally, and Adam’s Rib.  In most genres, a film doesn’t really need a big star to make the film good or even exceptional, but in romantic comedies I believe it sure helps, and romantic pairings such as Tracy & Hepburn, Day and Hudson, and Hanks and Ryan turned mediocre stories into classics.  Piper Perabo is a likeable enough lead, but my feeling is that a bigger star, such as Reese Witherspoon, Scarlett Johansson, or Drew Barrymore, could have elevated this film to a higher level.  It’s understandable that a first-time director doesn’t have the street cred to attract big names, and it is possible to enjoy this film as presented.

The comedy is very British and with a cast mainly from BBC comedies, some of the humor may leave you shaking your head. But for the most part, the script relies on universal musings of relationships that everyone on both sides of the pond can enjoy.

In some respects, Imagine Me & You is like the light comedy companion to another issue-stretching romantic film in theaters right now, but I can’t see this little picture causing any furor, which takes me back to the problem of revealing too much.  All I can say is this is definitely a chick flick in more ways than one but a film that I think even your date will enjoy, whoever that may be.

You could easily place Imagine Me & You with all those other British romantic comedies of recent memory like Four Weddings and a Funeral, Notting Hill, and Love Actually, but only time will tell if it’ll play as much on cable as it seems those films have (see star power above).  The rest of the cast is serviceable with two standouts, Lena Headey (The Brothers Grimm, Ripley’s Game) as florist Luce who looks for love in all the wrong places but finds it when least expected and newcomer Boo Jackson as Rachel’s eight-year-old sister ‘H’ whose smart charm deserves her own pre-teen romantic comedy.

With all the heavy-handed, Oscar-nominated films out there now, Imagine Me & You is a delightful escape that’ll not only make you smile and chuckle but make you think about what romantic love means in today’s ever-changing world.

Imagine Me & You opens in Los Angeles, New York, and San Francisco on January 27th and on February 24th nationwide.  Rated PG-13.  93 minutes.  Released through Fox Searchlight.

Rich Burlingham