While "putz" is popularly known as the Yiddish word for "prick", in non-vulgar usage (which I usually try to avoid!) it can also mean "fool". Nothin' wrong with "nebbish", either.Thanks for your comments!
Some TRUE FACTS: The photographer you saw was Micheal C. Cooper. Our reviewer is named Joseph Hamilton. Clearly, not the same person. Mr. Hamilton is, however, a working chef.
I can't speak to the experience he had there, but I've been reading restaurant criticism for years, and he's clearly reporting in detail about what he liked and did not like about his time at Jamil's, and how he thought it could be improved. That's what criticism is. Obviously, you disagree--which is perfectly fine, this is, after all, purely a matter of opinion--but that does NOT make the article a fabrication. Hurling accusations to that end only reveals your ignorance.
As you point out, Jamil's has been around for a long time and has a loyal following. I don't think anything written here is going to change that. I do, however, appreciate a critic that is actually critical, and there's nothing in this article that strikes me as disingenuous or fake.
I've noticed most people that bash Rall are coming from an obviously right-leaning slant. As a liberal I find him fascinating because he is so far left he almost comes back around the other side. I don't bother to write anything here directed at Rall since he's nationally syndicated and probably never sees what is written here.
You don't really have to be a far left liberal to bash Obama, though. Plenty of mainstream "progressives" are doing just that. While it was clear to me that he wasn't going to be the liberal standard bearer others thought, before I voted for him (committed to Afghanistan; voted for telecom immunity against illegal, Bush-era, wiretapping; etc.), I'm still shocked to see how far he's pushed the unitary power of the executive. It's a direct refutation of what he campaigned on. Transparency (not to mention his "belief" in separation of powers). Follow the writings of Glenn Greenwald at Salon.com for more on that.
But in the case of Rall's article, we're talking about what will be the single worst environmental disaster this country has ever seen, and Obama's response to it has only been slightly short of appalling. Much of the architecture that allowed this to happen was in place long before he assumed office, but there were clear warning signs that you didn't even have to look to hard to find.
See this excellent article in Rolling Stone. It should have anyone re-thinking their stance.
Consider the systemic levels of graft, old-boyism, irresponsibility and flat out incompetence, and then look at what Rall is advocating and ponder whether or not it's the worst idea in the world.
Considering the Supreme Court has granted the same status, in this country, to corporations as it does people, it isn't a huge leap of logic to hold British Petroleum criminally libel for--and I can't stress this enough--a completely preventable ecological disaster of unprecedented proportions; possibly in human history. Think of it like arson. If you burned an entire, smallish, country to the ground.
If I were Obama I'd be seizing British Petroleum's assets to give to BP's competitors as long as they fix and clean up what BP clearly never will. Makes him look like the leader he isn't being now, and it satisfies not only public justice--which will want blood soon--but also a free market justice. The diabolical oil barons without the worst safety record on the fucking planet win. Bye-bye, BP.
Tacos Y Don Fransisco is great, and I can't count how many people I've turned on to them. Mr. Tacos, as well. The food is not only infinitely better tasting--the variations on the recipes alone are great--than that pre-processed, non-local, chain crap, but the value is amazing. Get a burrito at Mr. Tacos. It's $6.50, tastes great, and it's the size of a goddamn cinder block! Makes me hungry just thinking about it. Hell, even the bottled Coke is better (there's real sugar in Mexican Coca-Cola as opposed to the nasty corn syrup in the U.S. variety). I've gotten into plenty of arguments about the best Mex in town with people who know what they are talking about. Chimi's, On The Border, and all the other corporate chains never enter the conversation.
Sadly, as Mr. Kline notes, this town is loaded with nativist bigots who love nothing more then to work themselves up into a lather over shit they know nothing about--treasure, you have no clue who operates legally, you just assume illegality--never realizing how much they sound like spoiled children. If they lived in a more metropolitan city their heads would probably explode from their own righteous indignation.
The whole thing would be funny if it weren't so pathetic.
Mike Ritze's Dominionist fantasy world, where his religious ideology permeates every single aspect of government and society, strikes me as far more insidious and creepy than any secular, humanist fears that haunt his fevered dreams ever could.
The Establishment Clause is quite clearly spelled, Mr. Ritze, so if there is a court challenge I hope you feel equally zealous in your insistence to foot the legal bill, personally, as you are in ignoring the 1st Amendment.
On first viewing, the film was a thrill due to the technology employed (IMAX 3D) and I was impressed by it far more than the actual story. But, only a little over a year later, it has already aged terribly. While the themes of Avatar are admirable (colonialism, occupations and genocide suck, support the veterans, etc.) they are also about a subtle as fart in an elevator.
I'm sure many have trashed Avatar for one reason or another, I'm only going on my opinion. The film just doesn't hold up to repeat viewings.
Correction: In this article, Evan Wei-Haas-TIFF's marketing guru-is incorrectly spelled "Hass". My apologies to Evan and to the rest of the TIFF crew for the error.
Considering that The Grey finds a group of men stuck in the wilderness and being hunted by wolves (who pick them off one by one), I think it's entirely fair to say that petting one of them would be a bad idea. It's not an asinine comment (btw, what were the "many others"?). It's a review of film. A fictional one. What I write has to represent what I've seen. So within the context of the story itself they are being cast realistically. If it were a documentary you would have a point.
While I understand your ire (I actually think wolves are noble, lovely and should not be slaughtered--though again I wouldn't want to be stuck in the tundra with a pack of them) the the film itself isn't meant to address the issues you raise. It's entertainment, pure and simple.
Thank you for the links, for your comment and for reading!
I stand corrected. And I should have known that drinking an entire bottle of cough syrup before writing this review would end badly. Lesson learned. Thanks for the heads up, thatgirl!
Please allow 4-6 weeks for processing. No refunds are issued. Back issues are available for $10/copy.
We accept Visa, M/C, checks and money orders. Call to charge by phone 918-592-5550. Enter your contact information in the form below and we will contact you.
If ordering by mail, make checks and money orders payable to Urban Tulsa Weekly. Send your payment along with your complete postal delivery address to Urban Tulsa Weekly, Attn: Samantha, PO Box 50499, Tulsa, OK 74150
Address:
Address2:
City:
State:
Zip Code:
Email:
Phone:
Comments:
Urban Tulsa Weekly
1924 E. 6th St.
Tulsa OK 74104
Phone: (918) 592-5550
Fax: (918) 592-5970
e-mail: Subscriptions
COMMENTS
Posted by: Joe O'Shansky
19 comments total
Sort Comments: Most Recent | Oldest First
Re: Beyond Our Control
-Joe
Re: Cinematic Alchemy
-Joe
Re: Lights! Camera! Where's the Action?
http://www.tulsaoverground.com/main.html
Re: Steaked Through the Heart
Some TRUE FACTS: The photographer you saw was Micheal C. Cooper. Our reviewer is named Joseph Hamilton. Clearly, not the same person. Mr. Hamilton is, however, a working chef.
I can't speak to the experience he had there, but I've been reading restaurant criticism for years, and he's clearly reporting in detail about what he liked and did not like about his time at Jamil's, and how he thought it could be improved. That's what criticism is. Obviously, you disagree--which is perfectly fine, this is, after all, purely a matter of opinion--but that does NOT make the article a fabrication. Hurling accusations to that end only reveals your ignorance.
As you point out, Jamil's has been around for a long time and has a loyal following. I don't think anything written here is going to change that. I do, however, appreciate a critic that is actually critical, and there's nothing in this article that strikes me as disingenuous or fake.
Joe
Re: Obama's Katrina
You don't really have to be a far left liberal to bash Obama, though. Plenty of mainstream "progressives" are doing just that. While it was clear to me that he wasn't going to be the liberal standard bearer others thought, before I voted for him (committed to Afghanistan; voted for telecom immunity against illegal, Bush-era, wiretapping; etc.), I'm still shocked to see how far he's pushed the unitary power of the executive. It's a direct refutation of what he campaigned on. Transparency (not to mention his "belief" in separation of powers). Follow the writings of Glenn Greenwald at Salon.com for more on that.
But in the case of Rall's article, we're talking about what will be the single worst environmental disaster this country has ever seen, and Obama's response to it has only been slightly short of appalling. Much of the architecture that allowed this to happen was in place long before he assumed office, but there were clear warning signs that you didn't even have to look to hard to find.
See this excellent article in Rolling Stone. It should have anyone re-thinking their stance.
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/17390/111965?RS_show_page=0
Consider the systemic levels of graft, old-boyism, irresponsibility and flat out incompetence, and then look at what Rall is advocating and ponder whether or not it's the worst idea in the world.
Considering the Supreme Court has granted the same status, in this country, to corporations as it does people, it isn't a huge leap of logic to hold British Petroleum criminally libel for--and I can't stress this enough--a completely preventable ecological disaster of unprecedented proportions; possibly in human history. Think of it like arson. If you burned an entire, smallish, country to the ground.
If I were Obama I'd be seizing British Petroleum's assets to give to BP's competitors as long as they fix and clean up what BP clearly never will. Makes him look like the leader he isn't being now, and it satisfies not only public justice--which will want blood soon--but also a free market justice. The diabolical oil barons without the worst safety record on the fucking planet win. Bye-bye, BP.
Joe
Re: Hungry for a Decision
Sadly, as Mr. Kline notes, this town is loaded with nativist bigots who love nothing more then to work themselves up into a lather over shit they know nothing about--treasure, you have no clue who operates legally, you just assume illegality--never realizing how much they sound like spoiled children. If they lived in a more metropolitan city their heads would probably explode from their own righteous indignation.
The whole thing would be funny if it weren't so pathetic.
Re: Sinai Comes to Green Country
The Establishment Clause is quite clearly spelled, Mr. Ritze, so if there is a court challenge I hope you feel equally zealous in your insistence to foot the legal bill, personally, as you are in ignoring the 1st Amendment.
Re: No Brainers
Re: Projecting History
http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=152065534812704&ref=mf
Re: Welcome to the Loony Bin
Re: Caves and Conflict
I'm sure many have trashed Avatar for one reason or another, I'm only going on my opinion. The film just doesn't hold up to repeat viewings.
Thank you for your comments!
Re: Reel Progress
Re: The Eating of Scenery and Wolves
While I understand your ire (I actually think wolves are noble, lovely and should not be slaughtered--though again I wouldn't want to be stuck in the tundra with a pack of them) the the film itself isn't meant to address the issues you raise. It's entertainment, pure and simple.
Thank you for the links, for your comment and for reading!
Joe
Re: Shakespeare and Stupidity
Re: Phatter is Better
Re: Let's Talk About Two Amazing Movies
Thanks, Tony!
Re: Tikka My Fancy
Re: Cinematic Heat Beaters
Re: Mama Mia