What a completely vile man.
Just picking my son up at youth group, wonderin’ which door to use… (at First United Methodist Church)
Did the devil help you out?
Siskel & Ebert — Taxi Driver. Split vote. Roger thought it was a great character study, Gene thought it was too lurid and violent.
Roger Ebert wrote the first film review that Martin Scorsese ever received—for 1967’s I Call First, later renamed Who’s That Knocking at My Door.
I had been a film critic for seven months when I saw his first film, in 1967. It was titled I Call First, later changed to Who’s That Knocking at My Door. I saw it in “the submarine”—the long, low, narrow, dark screening room knocked together out of pasteboard by the Chicago International Film Festival. I was twenty-five. The festival’s founder, Michael Kutza, was under thirty. Everything was still at the beginning. This film had a quality that sent tingles up my arms. It felt made out of my dreams and guilts. I consider him the most gifted director of his generation, and have joked that I will never stop writing film reviews until he stops making films. —Roger Ebert, an excerpt from Scorsese by Ebert
Martin Scorsese on the passing of Roger Ebert:
“The death of Roger Ebert is an incalculable loss for movie culture and for film criticism. And it’s a loss for me personally. Roger was always supportive, he was always right there for me when I needed it most, when it really counted – at the very beginning, when every word of encouragement was precious; and then again, when I was at the lowest ebb of my career, there he was, just as encouraging, just as warmly supportive. There was a professional distance between us, but then I could talk to him much more freely than I could to other critics. Really, Roger was my friend. It’s that simple. Few people I’ve known in my life loved or cared as much about movies. I know that’s what kept him going in those last years – his life-or-death passion for movies, and his wonderful wife, Chaz. We all knew that this moment was coming, but that doesn’t make the loss any less wrenching. I’ll miss him — my dear friend, Roger Ebert.” —Martin Scorsese, April 4, 2013
#day3 #30daysofbiking A couple of miles after work before going to the Guthrie to take in Propellers–The Taming of the Shrew. Fabulous show.
The destruction of fiscal rectitude under Ronald Reagan — one reason I resigned as his budget chief in 1985 — was the greatest of his many dramatic acts. It created a template for the Republicans’ utter abandonment of the balanced-budget policies of Calvin Coolidge and allowed George W. Bush to dive into the deep end, bankrupting the nation through two misbegotten and unfinanced wars, a giant expansion of Medicare and a tax-cutting spree for the wealthy that turned K Street lobbyists into the de facto office of national tax policy. In effect, the G.O.P. embraced Keynesianism — for the wealthy.
— David Stockman, former budget adviser to Ronald Reagan, says Bush era economic policies are bankrupting the country. (via kileyrae)
Here is the bike Elyse Stern was riding on Friday night when she was hit by Juan Ricardo Hernandez-Campoceco, who was driving drunk.
I would like MPD Sgt. William Palmer to explain to us all how a helmet and lights would have prevented Hernandez-Campoceco from doing this to Stern’s bike with his car, killing her instantly, and continuing on his way without even slowing down.
I would like Palmer to explain to me why, when “one of the key lessons here is prevention,” he immediately mentions a helmet and lights, without saying anything about harsher drunk driving laws. Sure, let’s talk about bike safety, but let’s also talk about how physics, the legal system, and our culture ensures that, no matter who was at fault, motorized transportation will win out in terms of bodily harm, police reports, and a media that still portrays cyclists as outliers and freaks. Explain to me why that is.
I would like Palmer and, by extension, anyone beating the helmets / lights / get-off-the-road / cycling-is-inherently-unsafe drum, to explain how a helmet and lights would prevent Hernandez-Campoceco from getting behind the wheel drunk. Explain to me how a helmet and lights would prevent Stern from having to ride through one of the busiest and most dangerous intersections in town at 2 a.m., an intersection she nonetheless had every right to use.
Or perhaps you could explain how easily preventable tragedies like Elyse Stern’s death are maybe not the most appropriate time to point out what she was doing “wrong,” when the above photo makes clear that doing everything “right” and riding safely and being a Model Cyclist almost certainly wouldn’t have prevented her death.
Explain to the trolls in comments sections far and wide how a person has every right to ride her bike on a city street at 2 a.m., especially if that’s her primary mode of transportation, and how getting killed by a drunk driver should never be an acceptable risk of riding late at night.
Explain to them, to all of us, how her ride home would be safer if our city had more bike lanes and motorists understood what they mean. Explain why even responsible, conscientious motorists have revealed to me, through experience and in conversation, that they don’t understand basic laws governing bicycle use within traffic.
Explain how helmets and lights and encouraging cyclists to “follow the rules of the road” are supposed to prevent accidents when, in every fatal car/bike collision in the Twin Cities for at least the past five years, as near as anyone can tell, the cyclist involved was obeying the rules of the road, and in most cases wearing a helmet. The families of Dennis Dumm, Audrey Hull, Thomas Malloy, and Virginia Hauer are patiently awaiting your lecture about lights and helmets.
Explain why, in the majority of the countless instances where my safety on a bike was jeopardized by a motorist, it was by a “professional” motor-vehicle operator, such as a taxi or school-bus driver.
Explain how helmets and lights might not even be necessary if we had more bike paths; if motorists drove the speed limit and didn’t get behind the wheel drunk or take calls or text while driving; if motorists didn’t hate cyclists just for exercising their equal right to the roads (which cyclists pay taxes on too, so let me just save you the time of trotting that one out); if motorists didn’t intimidate cyclists by passing too close or tailgating or honking or yelling at them in order to “teach them a lesson,” always justifying their actions by saying they’ve seen some cyclists ride unsafely or illegally, so therefore apparently all cyclists should be afraid, all the time.
Explain how our culture has accepted all of that as the norm for a city that’s consistently ranked among the most bike-friendly cities in America.
Ha ha, April Fools—I know you’re not going to do any of that.
A track from my upcoming “solo” record (I actually had a little help), to be released this summer. Co-produced and engineered by Mike Wisti, Albatross Studios, Mpls. Photo: Mark Wojahn.