iPod, youPod

Yes, I took the plunge and bought an iPod yesterday. I've been aching for one for a couple of years, but as we all know, they're really dang expensive. It's been a long, difficult journey for me. When the U2 iPod was released last year, I thought I would die. For $350 I could be the ultimate U2 fan and have an iPod. But the price tag killed me. Last winter, with my combined Christmas money -- mostly because of generous in-laws -- I probably had enough to get one. But when it actually came down to buying it, I couldn't spend $300 for what is essentially a very hip, very pretty Walkman. But the desire was insatiable. By February, I had signed up at FreeiPods.com in a pathetic attempt to get one, hence the link on the right side of the page. By June, I had sold my XBox as a means of generating funds to buy one. I sold books and DVDs on half.com to bring in more cash.

Then last month, the next generation of iPods was released. The photo models with the color screen. They look great. A co-worker got one just last week and it's been the envy of all the newsroom. Yesterday, I got back on to Amazon.com to drool a little more over the virtual iPod I had sitting in my wish list. Yeah, that's wish with a capital "W." Anyway, the older generation iPod, the one with the b&w screen had dropped about $60 in price. If I ordered it through Amazon, and signed up for the Amazon Visa, I could get the iPod for $209. It was a big dilema. I mean, who doesn't want the new one, the fancy color screen one, the latest on the market? And I still had that hope in the back of my mind I could somehow get the U2 version. But Amazon, in it's description of the b&w screen iPod, used the ultimate selling tool, "while supplies last." And I knew it was true. At the most these things were selling for an unbelievable $239. With the Amazon Visa discount, $209. I knew they would go fast.

So I conferred with Becky, decided I could always upgrade if I ever had the money, and bought the iPod. I'll use some birthday money to buy it, so, even though it comes Sept. 6, Becky's making me wait until the 21st to open it. But hey, I've waited this long, what's another few weeks? I'm hip already, right?

Back to School

I've been neglecting my blog. Because I'm lazy. "Tell me something I don't know," many of you are thinking. And correctly so. If I weren't lazy, I would be my brother H.L., clerking for a hot-shot judge in the DC circuit court. The only way to best a clerkship like that is to actually clerk for the Supreme Court. Actually, I probably wouldn't be a lawyer if I wasn't lazy. I've be ... a better reporter? I dunno. Sometimes I think this isn't the profession for me, but I always come back to how perfect the job fits my likes and passions. Maybe if I weren't lazy, I'd just be freelancing on the side for big-time magazines or writing a book.

Anyway, I'm making no sense. The real news is this: Claire started kindergarten yesterday. That's it. I'm old enough to have a child in the public education system. It will only be a matter of time before she's graduated high school and left for college. It's so surreal. Part of it, I'm sure, is my inability to accept my station in life. In my mind's eye, I'm still a 21- or 22-year-old.

But what surprised me about taking Claire to her first day of school was realizing that I was relenquishing control of her life. She is now in someone else's hands, for better or for worse. That's hard. But I know this is the best thing. It would be infinitely worse to home-school her, stunting her emotional and social growth by never giving her the chance to get out on her own. Parenting blows my mind. I think that's the only conclusion I can come up with.

Age is a weird, slippery thing. I turn 30 next month. I used to be dreading it, actually, for the same resons I can't believe I have a child in school. I've been dreading it for the past three years, actually. And because of that, as my birthday approaches I've become more comfortable with it. But it's still weird. Weird because there are memories fresh in my mind from elementary school that make my childhood only seem like momemts ago, not decades ago. I always thought that when I got old I'd feel old. But that's not the case so I'm not sure how to deal with it. I'm guessing the key is to not deal with it, but to just go with the flow -- just keep trucking down that road of life and don't look back too often. And I guess that's my problem. I like to look back. I'm unhealthily nostalgic.

It's all so strange. And I have a canker that won't go away.

This is classic. I was clearing off my desk today and came across a stack of hand-written thank-you notes from a class of junior high school kids. I was at their school in May for career day and spoke to sixth-, seventh- and eighth-graders about journalism as a career. Most of the notes were short, some were insincere and a few made no sense. But one was classic:

To: the Journalist,

Thanks for coming to our school. Most of the kids probably thought your presentation was boring but I thought it was o.k. Even though I don't want to be a journalist I still wanted to find out what it was like to be one. Maybe it isn't as bad as it sounds.
Anyway, thanks for coming.

From: Leine

p.s. I have a newspaper class I have to take and it's really boring. But your job sounds neat.


So there it is. What's funny is I left that day totally convinced I rocked their little junior high world. Guess not. Anyway, I'll throw one more in for good measure. Should give you some confidence in our public school system:

Dear record serchlight resechor

I whold like to say than kyow.

This may be a little self-serving, but it's so entertaining it's hard to deny. This is basically Skutch defined. Follow the links, one by one, to watch the story unfold:

Skutch, a group ... of students. The Skutch reference appears about two-thirds of the way down, next to the pictures of the rafters.

Skutch in the news. The debate starts at Message 20. You'll have to scroll down a bit.

Skutch defined. Cody clears things up.

And here, of course, is Cody's creation.

It's been a long week. My Dad and Mom came to visit last Tuesday and just left yesterday. It was a lot of fun giving them a peak of Rogers life in Redding. But it's still kind of wierd to have your parents visit you rather than the other way around. It took a good two days before everyone was relaxed and acting pretty normal. I'm not sure why. We loved having my folks there but it seemed like it took them a while not to feel like they were invading our space or shaking up the routine. Anyway. It's easier going to visit them. Which we'll be doing in November when we fly out to Washington, D.C.

It's funny, I never realized how little there is to do in Redding until I had to entertain guests for a week. Maybe that was the problem -- I thought of my parents as guests I had to entertain rather than, well, my parents. Anyway. We took them on a tour of the Shasta Dam. We had to kill time. And admittedly it was pretty interesting. We took them to Whiskeytown Lake, which was pretty fun. Though neither wore swimsuits or got wet. Anyway. They're off to Seattle to visit my sister and her family and we'll see if they have a better time there. I'm guessing they will. It's Seattle.

In honor of John Bolton's new job, I wanted to offer my hearty congratulations:

"Senator George Voinovich, the Ohio Republican who became one of Mr. Bolton's strongest critics, said yesterday that he planned to send the new ambassador a book on how to be an effective manager. It couldn't hurt, but this may be the first time a world superpower has used its top United Nations post as a spot for the remedial training of a troublesome government employee."


Like the New York Times' editorial page, we here at the Rob Report send our best to John Bolton in his new job. Keep those staplers on the desk, John!

It's Completely Useless Information Friday. To get the ball rolling, here's a link to a fully interactive map to Mexican Highways circa January 1955. It's a gentle reminder that Pemex is the combustible of champions.

Feel free to add your submissions to Completely Useless Information Friday below. I'll throw in one more, a personal favorite: Lilek's Gallery of Regrettable Food. Who thought snarking old cookbooks could be so funny?

I think an update is in order. A few months ago, my brother-in-law Dave and I got into a bit of a tussle over U2 and Creed here, arguing which was the better band. I'm still scratching my head -- I really thought Creed fans died out with the 90s.

Anyway, to my point. We agreed we'd swap CDs, compilations of what we thought were the best or at least the most approachable of the two bands' masterworks. We'd both listen and give summaries of each individual song. That was the deal. I sent mine off, he never his.

Anyway, his no show essentially forfeits him from the contest which means the argument victory goes to me. Not only does this speak to the quality of Creed fans, it speaks directly to the quality of music they produce. The obviously underwhelming desire to share can really only mean that their music inspires nothing in the listener. In so many words, they suck. They've always sucked and it doesn't matter what they do in the future, they will forever continue to suck. And then be forgotten. If there's any mercy in this universe. Did I mention they suck?

I mean really, who in their right mind argues Creed is a better band than U2? I can see backing Radiohead or making a case for Weezer. But Creed? Are you listening Dave? Go home and listen to your Neil Diamond. Go turn on your heart light and talk to your chair. Then, when the tears have dried, give me a call and I'll help you establish some legitimacy as a music lover.

I'm trying to use the photo feature more because, as a reporter, I know nothing makes big blocks of text easier to read than having a nice, colorful photo nextdoor.

So, the following is a shout out to that special breed of dog that populate(d) the streets of Mexico while I and my fellow compatriots were there -- the mangy, bald, disease-ridden mutt of Northern Mexico. This photo has actually been making the rounds, but our A&E editor actually came across it on the AP photo service wire. If that doesn't make it legitimate, I don't know what does.

It all comes back to Utah. If you're Mormon, you're going to be connected in someway to the state, whether it's through a relative you have, by a pilgrimage you took or in photos from the temples-of-the-world calendar you have hanging in your kitchen. But when it comes down to it, there are really only two kinds of Mormon -- those born and raised in the Beehive state and those born and raised outside the state.

The distinction comes up here because Becky and I have some friends who have recently decided to move back to Utah. Both were born and raised there and the year they've spent here in Redding is the first time either -- with the obvious exception of Dave's mission -- have lived outside of their hometown. And a year here was all it took to convince them Zion was where they wanted to be.

It highlights the classic tet-a-tet in the Mormon culture. Those who are from Utah seldom leave and if they do, leave to find a way to return to remain in the state permenantly. Those who are Mormon and grew up outside the state -- with the exception of those from Idaho (more on that later) -- at first don't understand the Utah draw and then once they get an inkling of it, resent it and disparage it.

I grew up in Colorado and moved to Utah when I was 16. By that time, I knew the state pretty well. We visited Salt Lake and Provo at least once a year. It's a great place to visit. But it was wierd. Whole cottage industries based on theological tenets of the church existed in the real world there -- like stores specifically designed to outfit missionaries and clothing boutiques which sold all-white suits and dresses. And it all existed in a world that assumed everyone watching TV, walking down the street or reading the newspaper was Mormon.

Obviously, you grow up anywhere else and you know you're different because you're Mormon. In Utah, you grow up knowing you're the same as everyone else. You're high school chemistry teacher makes Relief Society jokes during class. The local news has a Conference watch. As an outsider, you begin to see and think of Utah Mormons as insulated and closed-minded, taking for granted their religion and making it completely commonplace. It was surreal then and it still is today.

So obviously a huge disconnect exists between Utah Mormons and mission field Mormons. As our friends prepare to move, Becky and I argue that they can do more good for the church outside of Utah than in, which I think is the central argument between those who live in and those who live out of the state.

Recently my Skutch (http://robsreport.blogspot.com/2004/08/well-i-did-unthinkable-today.html) friends talkedabout who was living in Utah, who was living out of Utah and who was planning to stay and/or return. Of course, everyone but me is either there now or has plans to return in the next five years. The desire to return to Utah, the desire to stay is, second only to the strange commonplace religion-infused culture, the one thing Utah Mormons are attacked for more than anything else.

In a religion that esteems missionary work as one of its three reasons for being, why do so many chose to live in a state that is three-quarters Mormon? In a religion that instructs you to stand out from the crowd, to be a beacon on a hill, why would you want to stay where you're the same as and almost indistinguishable from everyone else? Well, obviously, I have a few ideas.

With our friends who are moving back, as with, I would argue, the vast majority of the state, I believe it's the comfort zone. It's comfortable to live in a place you know, around people with whom you're familiar. It seems everyone wants to live within 15 minutes of their parents. Dave has openly stated that he wants to move back so that he can be mothered by his mom.

For those who never leave, I believe its still the comfort zone issue but mixed with a little ignorance. There's the undeniable sensation when you visit Utah that most people believe nothing exists beyond the borders of thier state.

Now, these are broad generalities, mind you. I knew while I lived there in high school and I know now Utah Mormons who clearly don't fit that mold. But I would argue these people are in the minority. But the point I'm trying to make is simply this: Utah Mormons are abnormal and unhealthy. Hahaha. I jest. No, seriously, more Mormons should spread their influence, prompt some personal growth and live outside the state of Utah. That's all I'm trying to say.

It looks like it was Karl Rove. I know, big surprise. What's a little national security when your man's future is at stake? Or not. As a favorite blogger of mine put it, "What's really scary is that this is how Rove behaved when Bush was had a 62 percent approval rating. Who knows what kind of stuff he's pulling now?"

Here's Newsweek's story:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8445696/site/newsweek/

Since Bush announced he'd speak to the nation tonight to shore up support on the Iraq debacle, I've been thinking about what bothers me most about the war, the public's reponse to it and the current administration.

For me, it comes down to ideology. It's not about facts, it's not about quotes, it's not even about right and wrong. Since the beginning its been about ideology and the idea that America can and should police the world and promote freedom where it seems best by whatever means seem best.

Now that the smoking gun has been revealed, the world knows the Bush administration fixed the facts to build the case to go to war. But a lot of us don't care because if we buy into his ideology it doesn't matter that he took the moral low-ground there. The country can and should do what it wants to protect its interests abroad. We don't need an excuse.

It's the same reason his administration can paint those who oppose the war as anti-American. Those people clearly don't buy into the adminsitration's ideology and thus don't buy into the administration's America (nevermind that essentially what makes us American is the ability to question our government's actions and motives).

And clearly the Iraq invasion was supposed to fit under the war on terror. But that doesn't hold water anymore because we know Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11, didn't have WMDs, nor did he sanction al Qada within his borders. So the administration has gone on to use the excuse that reform in the Middle East will turn the tide on the war on terror and has to start somewhere so what better place than a free and democratic Iraq. I won't argue with that.

But. Like Tom Friedman has argued time and again, if the U.S. was really interested in reforming the Middle East, on Sept. 12 Bush should have created an energy policy that completely reduced our dependency on foriegn oil. Where do you think these people get their money? I mean really. Even Billy Madison could figure that out. But on Sept. 12 Bush was instead talking about invading Iraq.

So, now we find ourselves in a mess clearly of our own making. If we don't stay and see that it gets cleaned up then we really do have a threat to our national security. But look at what our misguided, fumbling attempt to exert our power and authority in the world has done and what it will almost certainly continue to do: weaken our country's economy, Army and national unity -- the three things that really do make us vulnerable to outside attacks.

And here's me at the piano with my oldest, Claire. She's an increbible piano player.

Well, now that posting photos has become so easy, I'll post a few of mine. First, the fam.

The time to return to Mazatlan has come. It's been far too long, with far too many excuses. The time to go is now. When I was learning Spanish down there, all the members and my investigators would tell me, "tienes que hablar como un perico" and "querer es poder." Well speaking like parrot has nothing to do with this current situation but the fact that wanting equals being able to do, does. I will find the money, I will arrange the trip, I will make it work because I want to go back. It's been too long. And I don't wnat to hear that it won't be the same, that everything will be different now doesn't matter. It's Mazatlan and I want to go back.

Only because I love Frank Rich. Rich wrote about Watergate and drew the obligitory parrallels to the current administration and its regard for the media. Here's a couple quotes:

"In the most recent example, all the president's men slimed and intimidated Newsweek by accusing it of being an accessory to 17 deaths for its errant Koran story; led by Scott McClellan, they said it was unthinkable that any American guard could be disrespectful of Islam's holy book. These neo-Colsons (White House counsel for Nixon) easily drowned out Gen. Richard Myers, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and Afghanistan's president, Hamid Karzai, both of whom said that the riots that led to the 17 deaths were unrelated to Newsweek. Then came the pièce de résistance of Nixon mimicry: a Pentagon report certifying desecrations of the Koran by American guards was released two weeks after the Newsweek imbroglio, at 7:15 p.m. on a Friday, to assure it would miss the evening newscasts and be buried in the Memorial Day weekend's little-read papers."

But here's my favorite:

"'The fundamental right of Americans, through our free press, to penetrate and criticize the workings of our government is under attack as never before' was how the former Nixon speech writer William Safire put it on this page almost nine months ago. The current administration, a second-term imperial presidency that outstrips Nixon's in hubris by the day, leads the attack, trying to intimidate and snuff out any Woodwards or Bernsteins that might challenge it...

"The attacks continue to be so successful that even now, long after many news organizations, including The Times, have been found guilty of failing to puncture the administration's prewar W.M.D. hype, new details on that same story are still being ignored or left uninvestigated. The July 2002 "Downing Street memo," the minutes of a meeting in which Tony Blair and his advisers learned of a White House effort to fix "the intelligence and facts" to justify the war in Iraq, was published by The London Sunday Times on May 1. Yet in the 19 daily Scott McClellan briefings that followed, the memo was the subject of only 2 out of the approximately 940 questions asked by the White House press corps, according to Eric Boehlert of Salon."

For those who saw, last week when the Chicago Tribune's Greg Kot reviewed U2's concerts in the windy city, he gave the band an essentially solid review but got on them for selling out, more or less. He said they've started to go the way of the Rolling Stones, not taking risks and going for the easy road. Bono took offense. So much so that he requested a face-to-face interview with Kot to make his case for why U2 is as good as its ever been and why rock needs the support of music critics.

What came out of the interview is intriguing stuff. One could argue Bono almost bushes the boundaries of fan loyalty. Turns out he doesn't think much of prog rock. If rock's going to survive and compete it has to be radio friendly and prog rock isn't. But it was his comments on U2's own experiments and fan-fave "POP" that caught me nearly off-guard (I argue Bono can never completely catch you off-guard because you always know he's going to say at least one thing completely half-assed).

Says Bono, "We had 10 years of experimentation. We decided to rope it in, and tie ourselves to only one thing. And that's the only discipline. Is it a great song? Is it fresh? Experimenting in rock is at its best when you dream from the perimeters and bring it back to the center.

"We did our 'Zooropa,' we did our 'Passengers,' even our 'Pop' experiment. 'Discotheque,' we viewed it as our response to Peter Gabriel experimenting. We wanted it to be our 'Sledgehammer.' Imagine if 'Discotheque' was a No. 1 pop song? Now that record makes sense. We didn't have the discipline to screw the thing down, and turn it into a magic pop song. We didn't have the discipline to make 'Mo Fo' into a loud concoction of rock 'n' roll, trance crossover. We learned from that album. We'd become progressive rock! Ahhh! It's on us!"

To which Kot (and really the rest of U2's serious fans) groaned: "You're killing me now. I thought those '90s albums were great. I didn't understand 'Achtung Baby' right away. But after seeing the tour, I realized it was your best album. I still feel that way. And I loved 'Zooropa' in that way, and 'Passengers.' I even liked 'Pop.' To me, you guys were showing us how it should be done. You were [screwing] with our heads and making great music. You were doing those weird ballads from 'Pop' as an encore at Soldier Field [in 1997]. I loved that you were so far out on a limb with saw in hand, and you were trying things, pushing things. And now you never play songs from those albums anymore. What happened?"

And that's when Bono dropped the bomb. Five or six years ago this would have gotten me really excited. I love "POP" -- by far the most underappriciated album of the group. But we've all heard the story of how the band was rushed to finish it because of the impending tour and the resulting album was really considered unfinished by the band. I would have loved the idea of them going back in the finish it. But not now. Not after reading what Bono said, not after the last two staid albums they've released. It makes me worry what will happen to the music. Anyway, I'm getting ahead of myself. Here's the bomb Bono dropped:

"There is still talk about the band going back in and fixing 'Pop,' actually going in… because the bones [of a great album] are there. It didn't communicate the way it was intended to. It's my daughter's favorite U2 album, and people are warming up to it now. But it was supposed to change the mood of that summer [1997]. An album changes the mood of a summer when you walk out of a pub and you have those songs in your head. And you hear them coming from a car, an open window. It changes the mood of the season. Instead it became a niche record. And I know you're a man who appreciates the niche. And I'm glad you appreciate that one, but that's not what it was intended to be. With 'Pop,' I always think if we'd just had another month, we could have finished it."

So there it is. It's post-structuralism at the fringe. Can you go back and tinker with your creation once its already been consumed by the masses. I guess George Lucas has answered that question for us. It'll be interesting to see what U2 does.

Well, I saw it. Here's what I thought.


I guess a little like Luke redeems his father at the end of "Return of the Jedi," George Lucas' last "Star Wars" lovechild "Revenge of the Sith" redeems him from the past two mistakes he made, "Phantom Menace" and "Attack of the Clones."

The film is far from perfect. Dialogue is still woody, plot holes (believe it or not) abound and Jar Jar still shows up (although, this time he has no lines -- Lucas must be learning something). But the action is satisfying, the effects are breathtaking and the movie leaves you feeling like maybe Lucas does care about "Star Wars" afterall.

The final showdown between Obi-Wan Kenobi and Anakin Skywalker was wonderful -- all except for the very end, but more on that later. For the first time, Lucas makes you feel like Obi-Wan really may be the powerful Jedi we see in the original trilogy. Anakin shows how anger, rage and jealously can truly eat you away from the inside out.

Yoda was wonderfully realized, 'though I always felt like I was watching a CGI character -- I think Gollum is still the gold-standard. But I enjoyed little CGI Yoda on screen so much that I didn't care. When he spoke of going to lead clone armies to battle on the Wookie home planet because he had a special relationship with the wookies, I believed it. The scene with his final battle with the Emperor were some of my favorite from the film. However, those two items also led to some of the films -- and I think overall -- some the of series biggest flaws.

As I see it, the lingering problem with Lucas's prequals is the characters and their development. The final scene between Padme and Anakin for example has Padme proclaiming that she doesn't know Anakin anymore, that's he's completely changed. Unfortunately for us, he still seems like the same old Anakin, only this time he's wearing a black cloak, not a brown one. And that leads to what I thought was the biggest problem of all: Anakin's embrace of the dark side. I thought the motivation was there, doing it to try and remove what he percieved as a threat to Padme's life. But to make it believable, at least for me, spend some time on it. One minute he's chopping off Mace Windu's hand, the next he's swearing his undying aligience to the Emperor. I think you can connect those dots, but take the time to do it to make it believable.

Then there's all the gaps in the story's narrative logic. Obi-Wan telling Anakin the fights over because he, Obi-Wan, has the high ground. What was that all about and why didn't Darth Sidious use that argument on Yoda when they were having their final showdown in the Senate chamber (I still loved that fight scene). And Yoda threw in the towel pretty quickly, too, didn't he? And why put Chewbacca in the movie. Are we really supposed to believe that after becoming a revered warrior on his home world he spends his twilight years playing second fiddle to Han? I think it also would have made more sense to have the Jedi actually hunted down and destroyed -- maybe over the course of a couple decades -- than to have them all offed when some Clone trooper gets Code 66. I mean, they're Jedis. I would argue it's not good movie making to throw events into a film to keep it moving when they have no internal logic with the storyline.

And I know all this sounds like fanboy nitpicking, but even a casual veiwing of the six films will readily reveal the flaws. So I'll bore you only with one last harp: the time element. In the Star Wars universe, 20 years transpire from the end of "Sith" to the beginning of "Hope." Ewan McGreggor, who plays Obi-Wan in "Sith" looks more than 20 years younger than "A New Hope's" Alec Guiness. Alec Guiness, in speaking to Luke in "Hope" makes it sounds as though the Empire has ruled the universe for at least a couple of generations, not for a couple of decades. Not to mention Obi-Wan's line, "Obi-Wan, now that's a name I've heard since before you were born." Not anymore. All of this kind of took away from the movie.

So, greatfully, we'll always have "Star Wars: Clone Wars." We'll always have the original trilogy. And when all that is exhausted, I'll pop in "Revenge of the Sith" and dig on all the action.

Well, I got my ticket for tomorrow's 12:35 showing of "Revenge of the Sith." I've never considered myself a huge "Star Wars" fan. In my mind I was always a more run-of-the-mill "Star Wars" fans. You know, I saw watched the original triology a ton growing up. I thought the Millenium Falcon was the coolest space ship in the galaxy and I had a few of the toys.

In high school, back in the (gulp) mid 90s, I even went to the theater to see the entire triology play back-to-back-to-back after LucasFilms remastered in THX the sound and image of all three films. That was pretty cool. My friend OJ even airbrushed us T-shirts for the occasion. Anyway. I saw the special editions when they were released in theaters in the late 90s and even got pretty excited for the prequels when those announcements were made.

I never dressed like a character to go see the films. I never camped out for tickets. And after I saw "Phantom Menace" I was dissapointed, but not really surprised. I never even saw "Attack of the Clones" in theaters. In fact over the last four or five years I'd almost forgotten about "Star Wars," relagating it to that same place in my brain reserved for movies like "The Last Star Fighter" and "Kafka" -- movies that were good once but kind of forgettable.

And then Lucas announced he was releasing the original trilogy on DVD. I'd never purchased the triology on VHS and when Lucas announced the DVD plans, I didn't think I'd buy them, either. But then the hype built, the magazine published their gushing recollections of those heady days in the late 70s and early 80s and I bit. I bought the DVDs the day they came out and was swept up all over again in the "Star Wars" affection of my youth. Yeah, the DVDs had their dissapointments -- Han shot first Lucas, deal with it. But overall it was really, really good. And then Lucas got Genndy Tartakovsky to do "Clone Wars" and being the mad "Samurai Jack" fan that I am, I was actually getting excited about things "Star Wars" again.

And then I saw "Clone Wars" and wondered how a collection of 20, 3-minute cartoons could be better than the last 4 hours of "Star Wars" films Lucas had shot. Oh yeah, Lucas wasn't really involved. That explains that. "Clone Wars" was everything I wanted the new "Star Wars" motion pictures to be and weren't. It was exciting, thoughtful, insightful and just plain exhilerating. They were awesome. And before I knew it, I was pretty geared up to see "Revenge of the Sith." I'm still not getting my expectations up too high. I know if I expect it to be anything more that "Return of the Jedi" I'll be dissapointed. All I need is for it to be better than the previous two and I'll be happy. I'll feel like it was money appropriately spent.

So there it is. I go see it tomorrow at 12:30. I'll let you all know (all one of you) what I think.

It's a lazy man's post -- in a way -- because I'm essentially filling out a form letter and calling it content. But, I'm a music fanatic and this form letter was fun:


1. Of all the bands/artists in your CD/record collection, which one do you own the most albums by?
Easily U2. Including bootlegs, I have 33.

2. What was the last song you listened to?
"I'm not Your Baby" - U2 and Sinead O'Connor

3. What's in your CD player right now?
U2 "Pop"

4. What song would you say sums you up?
Today? I'd say Billy Bragg's "Stetson Kennedy"

5. What's your favorite local band?
Bitner -- but HotQua comes in a close second. The Umpqua Valley would be lost without Joe Ross.

6. What was the last show you attended?
It's been a while, what with the reporter's income and two young'uns -- It was REM and Wilco in Vancouver, Wash. two years ago.

7. What artist do you consider to be very underrated?
Joe Ross -- seriously underrated. The guy plays a dulcimer like you wouldn't believe.

8. What's the worst band you've ever seen in concert?
I saw Iron Butterfly open at classic rock concert when I was in high school. They were pretty bad.

9. What band do you love musically but hate the members of?
I know it's hard to hate the members of the Beatles. And I don't hate them all -- George Harrison was a king among men. But as talented as John and Paul were, they were both kinda pricks.

10. What is the most musically involved you have ever been?
I used to go to this guitar jam that pretty cool.

11. What show are you looking forward to?
U2's Vertigo Tour

12. What is your favorite band shirt?
It's toss up between my PopMart concert T and my Wilco bombs-away T.

13. What musician would you like to hang out with for a day?
Jeff Tweedy would be too depressing. Bono's too ADD and Larry's too mean. Maybe the Edge, probably Adam. I'd love to hang with Elvis, post-comeback 70s Elvis. That would be awesome.

14. Metal question- Jeans and Leather vs. Cracker Jack clothes?
Cracker Jack clothes?

15. Sabbath or solo Ozzy?
Sabbath

16. Commodores or solo Lionel Ritchie?
Hmmmmm.... Neither.

17. Blackjack or solo Michael Bolton?
Sweet merciful crap! Michael Bolton?

18. The Eagles or solo Don Henley?
Don's got great solo stuff but I love early Eagles, too. I'm torn.

19. The Police or solo Sting?
Police. But I can't deny Sting's first four albums.

20. Doesn't emo suck?
Not really

21. Name 4 flawless albums.
U2 "Achtung Baby"
Pink Floyd "Dark Side of the Moon"
Wilco "Being There"
Beatles "Rubber Soul"

22. Did you know that filling out this survey makes you a music geek?
Really? Oh no! I'm screwed!

23. What was the greatest decade for music?
It certainly wasn't the 80s, even if Rolling Stone named U2 band of the 80s and Time called them rock's hottest ticket in 87. So much came out of the 70s. I'll say the 70s.

24. How many music-related videos/DVDs do you own?
U2 "Rattle and Hum," U2 "Under a Blood Red Sky," U2 "Best Of 1980-1990: The Videos," U2 "Best Of 1990-2000: The Videos," U2 "Elevation: Live From Boston," U2 "U2 Go Home - Live at Slane Castle" and Wilco "I'm Trying to Break Your Heart."


25. Do you like Journey?
Not since 1989.

26. What is your favorite movie soundtrack?
"Grosse Point Blank" is good. "Singles" was a classic. I really enjoy "Henry V" as pompous as that may sound.

27. What was your last musical "phase" before you wised up?
When I was a sophomore I listened to mainstream, middle of the dial radio country for about four months. I thought the songs told great stories. Now, when family or old friends bring the phase up I either hang my head in shame or emphatically deny it. I mean, I was listening to Reba and Randy Travis, not to mention Garth "omni-present in the early 90s" Brooks.

28. What's the crappiest CD/record/etc you've ever bought?
Since I'm usually scrounging up any money I spend, I'm usually pretty careful with it when I use it on music. I could have done without that Howie Day CD, but that's by no means embarrassing. I actually bought a .38 Special tape when I was in junior high. I certainly wouldn't do that today.

29. Do you prefer vinyl or Cd's?
Vinyl's fun, but CDs are more verstile.

30. What is your guilty pleasure CD, that being the CD you love but would be ashamed to admit you have in your collection?
Some people laugh a my Billy Joel "Glass Houses" CD. I'm not proud of my ELO "El Dorado" record. My Emerson Lake & Palmer "Black Moon" tape is kind of embarrassing, too. It's so earnest and about 15 years past it's time.

So there it is. Feel free to add yours.