Saw a charming movie the other night: "Paul," written by and starring Simon Pegg and Nick Frost. Pegg and Frost, of course, are the geniuses behind "Shaun of the Dead" (Best. Zombie Movie. Ever.), and "Paul"--while not QUITE in the same league--shares the same general vibe as that previous masterpiece.
In "Paul," Pegg and Frost play two British uber-nerds who have decamped for the San Diego Comic-Con. After taking in the convention, the pair set off on a geek-odyssey to take in the legendary sights of the American Southwest (Roswell, etc.). On the way, though, they meet the eponymous Paul, an actual alien (voiced by Seth Rogen), complete with big gray head, wide eyes, and various otherworldly powers. Shenanigans ensue as the friends must flee from government agents, angry rednecks, and biblical literalists, As in "Shaun," comedic hijinks are balanced with moments of true humanity, and the movie provides a satisfying helping of warm fuzzies in the end.
One quibble: The head badguy is played by Sigourney Weaver. Now, in the world of "Paul," the characters are heavily influenced by all the icons of geek culture: "Star Wars" references abound, as do references to "Star Trek" (Pegg and Frost occasionally converse in Klingon), "E.T.," and "The X-Files." So, what I'm getting at is, Wouldn't these guys be familiar with the "Alien" saga? Wouldn't they recognize Ripley?
Yeah, OK, I'm thinking about this way too much. Just watch the movie.
************************************************************
PUBLICATION NOTE:
Your-Not-So-Humble-Correspondent is off to New York tomorrow night, so I may not be around too much over the next couple of weeks. I'll see you all in early August. Keep the faith!
Wednesday, July 25, 2012
Tuesday, July 24, 2012
Just Another Day at Solipsist Central
SOL: Oh my God! Do you know what I just realized?
WOS: What?
SOL: Nobody names their kid "Ichabod" anymore!
WOS: . . . Why do you do this?
WOS: What?
SOL: Nobody names their kid "Ichabod" anymore!
WOS: . . . Why do you do this?
Monday, July 23, 2012
Just a Few More Thoughts on Aurora, Colorado
Did you hear about the GOP Senator who said that, since he believes all life is sacred, and since he would therefore do anything in his power to make it as difficult as possible for women to obtain abortions, he must also do everything he can to make it as difficult as possible for unstable lunatics to obtain guns whose only logical purpose is to kill as many as possible as quickly as possible? Did you hear about him? Yeah, neither did I.
***********************************
Obviously, the more guns there are in a society, the more stable that society is going to be. Just ask the folks in Afghanistan. Or Ciudad Juarez.
***********************************
Remember that time that a heavily-armed, law-abiding citizen stopped that maniac who was about to open fire on a crowd of helpless people? And how everybody said, "Thank God for the Second Amendment, or this would have been so much worse!" Remember that? Yeah, me neither.
************************************
The right of American citizens to own guns is what separates this freedom-loving, democratic nation from all those totalitarian dictatorships around the world. You know, like England.
***********************************
Obviously, the more guns there are in a society, the more stable that society is going to be. Just ask the folks in Afghanistan. Or Ciudad Juarez.
***********************************
Remember that time that a heavily-armed, law-abiding citizen stopped that maniac who was about to open fire on a crowd of helpless people? And how everybody said, "Thank God for the Second Amendment, or this would have been so much worse!" Remember that? Yeah, me neither.
************************************
The right of American citizens to own guns is what separates this freedom-loving, democratic nation from all those totalitarian dictatorships around the world. You know, like England.
Sunday, July 22, 2012
An Open Letter to the IRS
Dear IRS,
Let me start by saying I'm a pretty solid liberal. I believe in government, and I accept the importance of tax collection to support the functioning of public institutions. I sympathize with your mission, and I bear no ill will towards you or the thousands of men and women who work for you. I say all this so that you will understand I mean no insult when I say that sometimes you guys can be a little bit. . . thick.
Today, the front page of The New York Times (itself hardly a tribune of right-wing anti-government propaganda) featured the story of the estate of Ileana Sonnabend, a New York art dealer. When Ms. Sonnabend died, she left her children an art collection valued at close to one billion dollars! (Who knew Beanie Babies would accrue so much value so fast?!?) Anyway, after Ms. Sonnabend died in 2007, her heirs had to pay taxes based on the fair market value of the collection. Complicating the situation, though, was one particular piece, "Canyon" by Robert Rauschenberg.
"Canyon" is a "sculptural combine"--an art form that makes use of various "found objects." In this case, one of the "objects" is a stuffed bald eagle. "Ewww," you might say--and you'd be right. But more to the point, the inclusion of the eagle makes this 20th-century masterpiece technically worthless. Federal law prohibits the sale--indeed, the very possession--of a bald eagle. The only reason Rauschenberg was allowed to use the eagle in the piece was that he could prove that the specimen was actually killed and stuffed long before the eagle-protection law went into effect. In other words, Sonnabend's heirs couldn't sell the piece even if they wanted to, and so several appraisers, including one for Christie's auction house, assigned "Canyon" a fair-market value of $0.00.
You, IRS, though, see things differently. Your appraisers originally valued the piece at $15 million--based, presumably, on sale prices for similar pieces (there being apparently a thriving market in raptor-based art: Christo's "Wrapped Kestrel" going for some $10 million last October). Sonnabend's heirs, however, citing their own appraisers' zero-dollar estimates, refused to pay taxes on that piece. Interestingly, you guys then revised your initial appraisal slightly upwards--to $65 million. (Hey, what's $50 million in the world of high art?) You then decided that the heirs owed some $29 million in taxes, which includes an almost $12 million penalty because they refused to pay the taxes in the first place.
The really crazy part of all this is that you yourself acknowledge that, legally, there is no way the heirs could realize any financial gain from this artwork. According to one of your own former appraisers, a "plausible" scenario for financial gain might involve, say, selling the artwork to a reclusive Chinese billionnaire who would then stash the art in his own private vault. Are you really interested in taxing people on potential income they might receive for engaging in illegal activities? I mean, I could theoretically sell my kidney on the black market for several thousand dollars, but I don't have to claim that on my 1040!
I don't, right?
Now, look, I don't exactly feel sorry for these guys: I suspect that, financially, they'll ultimately be OK. At the same time, though, I can see their point--especially when you consider that they've already sold off some $600 million worth of art in order to pay about $479 million in taxes: Anyone who willingly pays nearly half a billion dollars in taxes doesn't seem guilty of tax evasion--either that or they're really, really bad at it.
All of this would just be an amusing little sidebar, except there's this lunatic movement out there called the Tea Party: These are the guys who scream that IRS agents are slightly more detestable than Hitler. And when you guys go after individuals who have, let's face it, already paid a fairly substantial amount of taxes--while at the same time somehow failing to collect a dime from multi-billion dollar corporations like General Electric--you kind of give these folks some serious ammunition.
Again, I say this as someone who supports your work: Consider the public-relations side of your actions. Oh, and please don't audit me.
Yours truly,
The Solipsist
Let me start by saying I'm a pretty solid liberal. I believe in government, and I accept the importance of tax collection to support the functioning of public institutions. I sympathize with your mission, and I bear no ill will towards you or the thousands of men and women who work for you. I say all this so that you will understand I mean no insult when I say that sometimes you guys can be a little bit. . . thick.
Today, the front page of The New York Times (itself hardly a tribune of right-wing anti-government propaganda) featured the story of the estate of Ileana Sonnabend, a New York art dealer. When Ms. Sonnabend died, she left her children an art collection valued at close to one billion dollars! (Who knew Beanie Babies would accrue so much value so fast?!?) Anyway, after Ms. Sonnabend died in 2007, her heirs had to pay taxes based on the fair market value of the collection. Complicating the situation, though, was one particular piece, "Canyon" by Robert Rauschenberg.
"Canyon" is a "sculptural combine"--an art form that makes use of various "found objects." In this case, one of the "objects" is a stuffed bald eagle. "Ewww," you might say--and you'd be right. But more to the point, the inclusion of the eagle makes this 20th-century masterpiece technically worthless. Federal law prohibits the sale--indeed, the very possession--of a bald eagle. The only reason Rauschenberg was allowed to use the eagle in the piece was that he could prove that the specimen was actually killed and stuffed long before the eagle-protection law went into effect. In other words, Sonnabend's heirs couldn't sell the piece even if they wanted to, and so several appraisers, including one for Christie's auction house, assigned "Canyon" a fair-market value of $0.00.
You, IRS, though, see things differently. Your appraisers originally valued the piece at $15 million--based, presumably, on sale prices for similar pieces (there being apparently a thriving market in raptor-based art: Christo's "Wrapped Kestrel" going for some $10 million last October). Sonnabend's heirs, however, citing their own appraisers' zero-dollar estimates, refused to pay taxes on that piece. Interestingly, you guys then revised your initial appraisal slightly upwards--to $65 million. (Hey, what's $50 million in the world of high art?) You then decided that the heirs owed some $29 million in taxes, which includes an almost $12 million penalty because they refused to pay the taxes in the first place.
The really crazy part of all this is that you yourself acknowledge that, legally, there is no way the heirs could realize any financial gain from this artwork. According to one of your own former appraisers, a "plausible" scenario for financial gain might involve, say, selling the artwork to a reclusive Chinese billionnaire who would then stash the art in his own private vault. Are you really interested in taxing people on potential income they might receive for engaging in illegal activities? I mean, I could theoretically sell my kidney on the black market for several thousand dollars, but I don't have to claim that on my 1040!
I don't, right?
Now, look, I don't exactly feel sorry for these guys: I suspect that, financially, they'll ultimately be OK. At the same time, though, I can see their point--especially when you consider that they've already sold off some $600 million worth of art in order to pay about $479 million in taxes: Anyone who willingly pays nearly half a billion dollars in taxes doesn't seem guilty of tax evasion--either that or they're really, really bad at it.
All of this would just be an amusing little sidebar, except there's this lunatic movement out there called the Tea Party: These are the guys who scream that IRS agents are slightly more detestable than Hitler. And when you guys go after individuals who have, let's face it, already paid a fairly substantial amount of taxes--while at the same time somehow failing to collect a dime from multi-billion dollar corporations like General Electric--you kind of give these folks some serious ammunition.
Again, I say this as someone who supports your work: Consider the public-relations side of your actions. Oh, and please don't audit me.
Yours truly,
The Solipsist
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)