By now, liberal whining about SUVs has transcended mere cliche and taken its place as one of the defining 3 or 4 caricatures most treasured by the world's dittoheads. But as you can probably tell from my writing, I'm not one to shy away from a good cliche.

The DC Council has just voted to establish some new taxes and fees on SUVs in the District. As you might guess, I'm in favor: I think there are externalities associated with SUV ownership -- things like extra pollution and damage to roads -- that should be paid by people who want to own them.

But even if SUV drivers pay their scientifically tabulated fair share, I know I won't be satisfied. Why? Can I just not stand the declasse spectacle of shameless and conspicuous consumption?

Well, yes. But who am I kidding? I'm an American, too. I enjoy consuming barrels and barrels of oil as much as the next guy. I just like doing it more discreetly.

I think the problem is that some of these externalities simply aren't fungible. There's a personal advantage to having more mass surrounding you as you barrel down the highway, or to being higher off of the ground than the losers in cars of conventional height. Unfortunately, the associated disadvantages to those around you are frequently in terms of life & limb. Charging a premium for ludicrously large vehicles and spending the money on road rage prevention is nice, and it's better than nothing, but it doesn't really make it any easier or safer for me to drive except insofar as it subtly discourages SUV purchases -- which I suspect isn't much.

this is late, but i wanted to mention it - on sunday, my father picked me up in d.c. so i could go over to my family's house in vienna to trim the tree, bake cookies, and basically have a norman rockwell christmas sunday, etc etc. we were listening to c-span radio or something as we headed home, and we caught an exchange between george stephanopoulos and bill frist, a man who is a senator and a doctor, and, apparently, an ignorant idiot. CJR campaign desk reminded me today of what was said, in regards to the recent study that revealed the bush adminstration-approved sex-ed programs tell you stuff like touching a girl's boobies will make her pregnant, condoms contain poison that will unleash itself on your penis if you think impure thoughts, etc:

Gerorge: You're a doctor. Do you think tears and sweat can transmit HIV"
Frist: I don't know...I can tell you..
George: You don't know?
Frist; I can tell you things like,like..condoms..
George: You believe that tears and sweat might be able to transmit aids?

at the end, frist admitted that it was incredibly rare for tears and sweat to transmit aids, but he basically had to have it beaten out of him. ridiculous.

Maybe it's just my RSS reader making goofing off more efficient, but it seems like the blog world is a little lethargic lately (including our corner of it, of course). Well, if you want a quick hit of content, check out my cousin Emily's blog. She's a pretty amazing girl having a pretty amazing adventure in Paris. Here's an excerpt, describing half of the young couple she met last weekend and has already moved in with:

Mark is a mime at the Louvre. He gets all painted up and stands on a box all day. Its terrible work, cold and not so lucrative. Oh and he's never been a mime before so he's winging it. He's gotten involved in all this street person drama lately, as the Indians who are dressed up in costumes in the area seem to think they have a monopoly; they are very aggressive towards him, there was even a fight with mark pushing one of them or something like that. But he has the North African Hat vendors on his side.

Kind of beats the shit out of my stories of Italian netcafe intrigue.

God cut from Dark Materials film

The director and screenwriter of the film adaptation of Philip Pullman's His Dark Materials is to remove references to God and the church in the movie.

Chris Weitz, director of About a Boy, said the changes were being made after film studio New Line expressed concern.

The books tell of a battle against the church and a fight to overthrow God.

"They have expressed worry about the possibility of perceived anti-religiosity," Weitz told a His Dark Materials fans' website.

Pullman's trilogy has been attacked by some Christian teachers and by the Catholic press as blasphemy.

Weitz, who admitted he would not be many people's first choice to direct the films, said he regarded the film adaptation as "the most important work of my life".

"In part because it is one of the few books to have changed my life," he told bridgetothestars.net.

The award-winning trilogy - Northern Lights, The Subtle Knife and The Amber Spyglass - tell the story of Oxford girl Lyra Belacqua.

She is drawn into an epic struggle against the Church, which has been carrying out experiments on children in an attempt to remove original sin.

well, i'm excited that christ weitz is directing, which is a fact i didn't know. i think he's pretty good - he handled the adaptation and direction of "about a boy" very gracefully, making it one of the best book-to-movie adaptations that i've seen. even though about a boy obviously a) isn't a trilogy and b) doesn't have the literary heft of "his dark materials," i bet he'll do a good job.

but in order to understand how FUCKING RIDICULOUS it is to cut out any references to church or christianity in "his dark materials"...i'm trying to think of an appropriate analogy. it's like filming "pretty woman" without any references to prostitutes, or "harry potter," except they take out, you know, magic.

apparently pullman, the author, isn't too put out by this change - and i'm sure he expected it:

Weitz said he had visited Pullman, who had told him that the Authority could "represent any arbitrary establishment that curtails the freedom of the individual, whether it be religious, political, totalitarian, fundamentalist, communist, what have you".

He added: "I have no desire to change the nature or intentions of the villains of the piece, but they may appear in more subtle guises."

There are a number of Christian websites which attack the trilogy for their depiction of the church and of God, but Pullman has denied his books are anti-religious.

His agent told the Times newspaper that Pullman was happy with the adaptation so far.

"Of course New Line want to make money, but Mr Weitz is a wonderful director and Philip is very supportive.

"You have to recognise that it is a challenge in the climate of Bush's America."

i guess the film will still be able to properly convey the stories, as long as there's an all-powerful, respected yet totally and terribly evil institution (though i'm not sure why any sort of corporation or other entity would concern themselves with the concept of original sin, which is central to the book), but what the fuck? if people are so worried that their faith, which has been around for, you know, a couple thousand years, is in mortal peril from a movie based on a series of children's books, then that is just plain stupid.

update: bridgetothestars.net suggests that "The impression I have received when I talked to Mr. Weitz was that the anti-religiosity of some aspects of His Dark Materials were being toned down, not removed altogther."