Saturday, February 25, 2006


Today is Senior Day in Champaign for the Fighting Illini basketball team, which means it is the last home game for James Augustine and Dee Brown -- currently tied with Nick Smith as the two winningest players in Illinois basketball history.

In their honor, every fan at the game will be given an orange headband imprinted with the numbers 40 and 11.

While Augie has been known to wear a headband on occasion, the orange headband has of course been all but trademarked by Dee Brown.

As his career comes to a close, it's worth noting the extent to which Dee has become so much more than a mere player w/r/t the University of Illinois. He is an ambassador for the University, yes, but even more than that he has become something of a symbol. His infectious style and demeanor have become what people envision when they think of Illinois basketball.

When you think about it, that sort of thing is very, very difficult for a player to do, seeing as they are only with the program for four years (if that). Almost all college basketball programs are identified with their coach (Coach K at Duke, Jim Calhoun at UConn) or even their ex-coach (John Wooden at UCLA, Bobby Knight at Indiana).

It really is a rare thing when a player takes on that role. It requires a player with an indelible stamp both as an outstanding player and a dominating personality. Michael Jordan still defines North Carolina basketball (for me, anyway) -- in spite of the fact that Dean Smith is the winningest coach of all time.

Not to say that Dee Brown is in that class as a player (almost no one is), but he is in that class as a personality, and it is in that respect that the Hall says goodbye to an all but irreplaceable player today.

Mr. Illini, indeed.

Friday, February 24, 2006

Cracker...And More Cracker

Not one, but two Cracker greatest hits sets out this week. The Trib explains why today:
Usually there's little distinction between a "Best of" and "Greatest Hits" collection -- but then again usually a band doesn't have one of each come out on the same day.

Yet on Tuesday two new compilations from veteran alt-rootsy-hooky rockers Cracker hit the stores: "Get on With It: The Best of Cracker" and "Cracker Greatest Hits Redux."

Cracker was so miffed at the label's plans to release "Get on With It" that it went and rerecorded most of the same songs to create "Greatest Hits Redux." The band then pointedly released its version simultaneously through the independent label Cooking Vinyl.

"I guess you could say they consulted with us, but it wasn't like a friendly exchange," Lowery said. "We got a cease-and-desist letter from them."

The problem, he said, was that Cracker had recorded a new album, "Greenland," that it was planning to release in March until Virgin made known its plans to release "Get on With It" in February. The band wound up pushing "Green-land" back to June.

"Our whole point was 'Look, we have a new record coming out. It's not cool to drop a greatest-hits record,' " Lowery said. "As they say in marketing, it sends a wrong message and it gluts the marketplace. But the higher-ups in the [Virgin] legal department said, 'We can do this whether you guys say so or not, so we're going to do it.' "
In figuring out how to respond to this latest conflict with Virgin, Lowery said the bandmates asked, "What would Andy Kaufman do?" When their lawyer noted that the band's restrictions on rerecording most of its songs were expiring, the idea clicked.

"Our lawyer was so confident of the legality of this that he said, `I'll even play some keyboard parts on this,'" Lowery said.

Shocked By The Response?

Paul Krugman and Tom Friedman both point out the ironic side of the Dubai port management story in the New York Times today. The Bush Administration has spent the last four years playing the fear/security card, finding terrorists under every rock. And now there is surprise at the reaction accorded their plan to allow Dubai Ports World to take over management of most the country's biggest ports -- ports that are well known to be inadequately secured?

The storm of protest over the planned takeover of some U.S. port operations by Dubai Ports World doesn't make sense viewed in isolation. The Bush administration clearly made no serious effort to ensure that the deal didn't endanger national security. But that's nothing new — the administration has spent the past four and a half years refusing to do anything serious about protecting the nation's ports.

So why did this latest case of sloppiness and indifference finally catch the public's attention? Because this time the administration has become a victim of its own campaign of fearmongering and insinuation.

Let's go back to the beginning. At 2:40 p.m. on Sept. 11, 2001, Donald Rumsfeld gave military commanders their marching orders. "Judge whether good enough hit S. H. [Saddam Hussein] @ same time — not only UBL [Osama bin Laden]," read an aide's handwritten notes about his instructions. The notes were recently released after a Freedom of Information Act request. "Hard to get a good case," the notes acknowledge. Nonetheless, they say: "Sweep it all up. Things related and not."

So it literally began on Day 1. When terrorists attacked the United States, the Bush administration immediately looked for ways it could exploit the atrocity to pursue unrelated goals — especially, but not exclusively, a war with Iraq.

But to exploit the atrocity, President Bush had to do two things. First, he had to create a climate of fear: Al Qaeda, a real but limited threat, metamorphosed into a vast, imaginary axis of evil threatening America. Second, he had to blur the distinctions between nasty people who actually attacked us and nasty people who didn't.

The administration successfully linked Iraq and 9/11 in public perceptions through a campaign of constant insinuation and occasional outright lies. In the process, it also created a state of mind in which all Arabs were lumped together in the camp of evildoers. Osama, Saddam — what's the difference?

Now comes the ports deal. Mr. Bush assures us that "people don't need to worry about security." But after all those declarations that we're engaged in a global war on terrorism, after all the terror alerts declared whenever the national political debate seemed to be shifting to questions of cronyism, corruption and incompetence, the administration can't suddenly change its theme song to "Don't Worry, Be Happy."

Since 9/11, whenever the Bush team has found itself in political trouble, it has played the national security card against Democrats. It has worked so well that Karl Rove, in a recent speech to the Republican National Committee, made it a campaign theme for 2006.

He said America today faces "a ruthless enemy" and therefore needs "a commander in chief and a Congress who understand the nature of the threat and the gravity of the moment America finds itself in. President Bush and the Republican Party do. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for many Democrats."

Mr. Rove added: "Republicans have a post-9/11 worldview, and many Democrats have a pre-9/11 worldview. That doesn't make them unpatriotic — not at all. But it does make them wrong — deeply and profoundly and consistently wrong."

I particularly like the line "that doesn't make them unpatriotic," when that was exactly the political slur Mr. Rove was trying to implant.

So I understand why Democrats were eager to turn the soft-on-terrorism card back on President Bush when it was revealed that P&O, the navigation company based in London — which has been managing the ports of New York, New Jersey, Baltimore, New Orleans, Miami and Philadelphia — had been bought by Dubai Ports World, a company owned by the Dubai monarchy in the United Arab Emirates, an Arab Gulf state, and that the Bush team had approved the Dubai takeover of the U.S. port operations.

I also understand why many Republicans are now running away from the administration. They know that if they don't distance themselves from Mr. Bush, some Democrats are going to play this very evocative, very visual "giving away our ports to the Arabs" card against them in the coming elections. Yes, you reap what you sow.

Thursday, February 23, 2006

The Shooting: A Different Perspective

Time's Joe Klein brings a less-noted perpective to the Veeps recent shooting of his "acquaintance."

"Cheney's the sort of guy who thinks in terms of black and white," former Senator Bob Kerrey, a decorated Vietnam War veteran, said. "But now he's used a weapon the way a soldier often does, with unexpected results that come in shades of gray. Maybe now he'll have a better sense of what he has sent our troops out to do."

At 65, Cheney is too old to be a baby boomer, but his five draft deferments during the Vietnam War make him an honorary member of the tribe, as does his infamous explanation of why he didn't fight: "I had other priorities." The failure to serve—and the relative safety and affluence of our upbringing—has been a defining quality of so many baby boomers who have come to political power, and there have been consequences. Bill Clinton often seemed daunted and uncertain in his dealings with the military. Bush and Cheney have been the opposite. They rushed to war in Iraq without adequate cause or preparation. This is not to say that military service is a requirement for leadership in time of war; neither Abraham Lincoln nor Franklin Roosevelt was a combat veteran. But for 50 years there has been a growing cultural chasm between the military and the rest of society. Those of us who haven't served have a special responsibility to listen to and try to understand those who have. The most common complaint I've heard from troops recently returned from Iraq is that Americans are oblivious to what soldiers have to do every day over there. At the heart of that lament, inevitably, is the debilitating emotional cost of combat.

One valuable metaphor emerged last week. The New York Times described the possible legal charges that could be brought in a hunting accident. "Mr. Cheney could be charged with negligence, defined as failing to understand the dangers involved and disregarding them, or recklessness, defined as understanding the dangers and disregarding them." Which is perhaps the neatest summary I've seen of the public debate surrounding the Bush Administration's war in Iraq. Absent further evidence, the Administration seems guilty of negligence—a cavalier insensitivity to the unimaginable calamities that attend the use of lethal force. And while I have little faith that Cheney's awful experience at the Armstrong Ranch will change his views of war and peace, I do hope that it gives him pause and that he gains wisdom from the intimate knowledge that there are experiences other than "pleasure" that can attend the firing of a weapon.

Now, Klein is probably (certainly?) taking armchair psychology to a new and absurd degree, but there really is more than a kernel of truth to what he is saying here.

The President and his crew have often said that the U.S. military is fighting in Iraq in order to keep terrorists from attacking the U.S. itself. Quite apart from whether you believe that is true, valid or sufficient, doesn't that indicate a mindset about the military that is at least in the vicinity of Klein's suggestion? Doesn't that somehow presume that putting them into harms way -- regardless of the validity of the reason -- is merely to be expected as part of their job description. They volunteered for it, right?

If you believe that the administration was cavalier in its decision to open up the inferno of war, how can you help but feel that they were equally cavalier with what they were asking individual soldiers -- who are real people, after all -- to do and see and experience?

Cheney shooting a guy isn't likely to change that.

Case Closed

I can accept differences of opinion on a lot of things, but you cannot expect to be taken seriously if you believe that anything other than the sausage & cheese White Castle is the best breakfast burger out there.

Sorry, but that's just how I feel.

Wednesday, February 22, 2006

Pazz & Jop

The 2005 Pazz & Jop Poll is on the Village Voice website. Here's how they rate my Top 10.

10. Black Mountain - Black Mountain - #138
9. Antony & The Johnsons - I Am A Bird Now - #7
8. LCD Soundsystem - LCD Soundsystem - #11
7. The White Stripes - Get Behind Me Satan - #6
6. The Hold Steady - Separation Sunday - #8
5. Kraftwerk - Minimum/Maximum - #164
4. The Decemberists - Picaresque - #33
3. The Mars Volta - Frances The Mute - #45
2. Bloc Party - Silent Alarm - #18
1. Spoon - Gimme Fiction - #14

Best First Lines

The American Book Review lists the Top 100 first lines from novels.

#1 -- unsurprisingly -- "Call Me Ishmael."

My favorites?

#5 - "Lolita, light of my life, fire of my loins."

#8 - "It was a bright cold day in April, and the clocks were striking thirteen."

#23 - "One summer afternoon Mrs. Oedipa Maas came home from a Tupperware party whose hostess had put perhaps too much kirsch in the fondue to find that she, Oedipa, had been named executor, or she supposed executrix, of the estate of one Pierce Inverarity, a California real estate mogul who had once lost two million dollars in his spare time but still had assets numerous and tangled enough to make the job of sorting it all out more than honorary."

#25 - "Through the fence, between the curling flower spaces, I could see them hitting."

#59 - "It was love at first sight."

Sunday, February 19, 2006


Went to see Capote last night at the Catlow Theatre (first time ever in the local landmark -- surprisingly big, very Bavarian theatre).

Now I had seen Brokeback Mountain and Heath Ledger was terrific in that movie, but if that is outstanding acting (which it was), then what Philip Seymour Hoffman does in Capote is something entirely different -- entirely beyond outstanding. Hoffman completely inhabits the role -- becomes Truman Capote -- in a way that I can't imagine anyone else doing (although another Capote biopic is due out in 2006, starring Toby Jones).

The movie is unsparing in its portrayal of Capote, warts and all. He's a user, but is it really immoral to be a user if the one your using is a mass murderer? Or in the end aren't you really using the murdered, not the murderer?

The movie doesn't make those decisions for you (even as the characters within the movie -- particularly Catherine Keener's Harper Lee and Chris Cooper's KBI Agent Alvin Dewey -- make their own studied and subtle decisions), and doesn't fail to bring out all sides of Capote's connections and purposes. Hoffman's single-shot scene saying his final goodbye to the two murderers before their execution is a stunning in its humanity -- it snaps the character into an entirely different place from where the movie has spent an hour-and-a-half placing him. Astonishing.

The movie is truly disturbing on many levels -- and the horrifically recounted scenes of the murders themselves are by no means even the most disturbing -- but is equally provocative on many levels.

Thursday, February 16, 2006


George Will makes like Maureen Dowd this morning regarding the monarchical nature of the NSA spying story:

The next time a president asks Congress to pass something akin to what Congress passed on Sept. 14, 2001 -- the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) -- the resulting legislation might be longer than Proust's "Remembrance of Things Past." Congress, remembering what is happening today, might stipulate all the statutes and constitutional understandings that it does not intend the act to repeal or supersede.

But, then, perhaps no future president will ask for such congressional involvement in the gravest decision government makes -- going to war. Why would future presidents ask, if the present administration successfully asserts its current doctrine? It is that whenever the nation is at war, the other two branches of government have a radically diminished pertinence to governance, and the president determines what that pertinence shall be. ...

...terrorism is not the only new danger of this era. Another is the administration's argument that because the president is commander in chief, he is the "sole organ for the nation in foreign affairs." That non sequitur is refuted by the Constitution's plain language, which empowers Congress to ratify treaties, declare war, fund and regulate military forces, and make laws "necessary and proper" for the execution of all presidential powers. Those powers do not include deciding that a law -- FISA, for example -- is somehow exempted from the presidential duty to "take care that the laws be faithfully executed."

The administration, in which mere obduracy sometimes serves as political philosophy, pushes the limits of assertion while disdaining collaboration.

Wednesday, February 15, 2006

More Curling

So I'm in the locker room at the gym and there's this guy in there who basically looks like that crewcut guy behind the desk on er. You know -- this guy:

And he's saying how he can't believe how much time he's wasted watching Curling at the Olympics. Then he goes on to say how "it's not like these women are anything worth looking at anyway!"

Remember, this is a guy -- who looks like that guy -- who's talking smack about Cassie...

...and her sister Jamie...

...and Jessica to boot.

Well, all I can say is that I think about Curling for about 15 minutes every 4 years (and those 15 minutes are almost over), but it really frosts my ass when a guy who looks like that guy on er talks bad about our fine Olympic athletes!

Don't worry ladies. We're behind you all the way as you hit the broom.

The Fix Is In. Again.

For the 130th straight year my dog did not win the Westminster Dog Show.

The winner was ... Spuds McKenzie!

Tuesday, February 14, 2006

Well...I Guess She'll Have To Do

This just in from Madison Square Garden - Pembroke Welsh Corgi Best In Breed at the Westminster Kennel Club Dog Show is Ch Riverside Wicked Wonderful.

She will compete in the Best In Group (Herding) competition tonight on the USA Network.

She is, of course, merely a poor substitute for this Corgi:

Who has, quite frankly, better things to do with her time -- like chew on that giant rawhide bone she got for Christmas.

Lloyd vs. Jake

Happy Valentine's Day from The WaPo, which examines the residual impact of Lloyd Dobler on the culture.

Lloyd was, of course, John Cusack's kick-boxing character in Say Anything, Cameron Crowe's 1989 feel-good hit of the summer. According to the article, Lloyd lives on and on in the romantic dreams of many, many American women -- in a way that the doltish Jake Ryan can only hope to match.
"Jake Ryan is dessert, and Lloyd Dobler is like the vegetables you need," says Sasha Johnson, 29, a Washington TV producer. "Lloyd Dobler ruined men forever. I can't take total credit for this, an ex-boyfriend said this to me once. He contended that Lloyd Dobler's boombox moment became the pinnacle of romance -- the standard that no man could ever meet no matter how hard he tried. I've always loved Lloyd Dobler and have grown to appreciate him more as the years have gone on . . . the guy in high school that no woman wanted but ultimately now the kind of man we want to marry.

"He had that right mix of self-assuredness, sensitivity and geekiness. He was willing to make an insanely bold gesture to get the woman of his dreams back -- something every woman wishes could happen to her."

For Cusack, the role has apparently been a blessing and a curse.

Cusack, who turns 40 in June, was only 22 when he played the part (and, arguably, played it over and over -- the sensitive, mix-tape-making, imperfectly perfect boyfriend). He didn't want to do it, in that way 22-year-old actors are terrified of doing more high school roles. More terrifyingly, in Hollywood trivia myths, it has been said that Kirk Cameron, the teen idol star of TV's "Growing Pains," was up for the part. Crowe had to beg Cusack, who agreed only if he could fuse his own sensibility onto Lloyd. Unlike celebrities who are embarrassed or dismissive of their early work, Cusack is apparently almost always gracious when reporters who are writing about his latest movie ask about Lloyd. And they always ask.
In the end, you'd have to hope that the article is right in saying that "for every one woman with a residual Jake Ryan thing there are maybe 100 with a persistent Lloyd Dobler fetish." Hopefully, though, they'd do better than to offer him a pen as a substitute for returning his undying affection.

Monday, February 13, 2006

More Olympic News

Did you know that the curling event is actually called a bonspiel?

You could look it up.

Also, the "skip" of the U.S. "rink" is Cassandra Johnson.

"Nice toss," Cassie.

Need To Feel Old?

Newest Olympian Emily Hughes was born in 1989.

And she's still older than teammate Kimmie(!) Meissner.

Have a nice day!

Friday, February 10, 2006

Gots Me Some Satellite

So my Christmas present was a Sirius Satellite Radio (Model S-50). That was cool. The downside was the scarcity of the home docking setup that allows you to listen at home.

I was finally able to track one down (thanks Abt), and it arrived yesterday.

As you may have guessed, very sweet. For a start, got to listen to Howard Stern this morning for the first time in a couple of months. Word was that the show was reveling in the newfound freedom to curse. Fact is, the show is pretty natural in its use of F-bombs (e.g., can you imitate Joe Pesci in Goodfellas without a few? Hell no!).

Stern is on from 5-9am (or so) here, with a West Coast rebroadcast from 9-1 -- so that's a lot of Howard.

As far as other stations go, I haven't been able to listen to many of them at much length so far -- but early favs are "First Wave" (New Wave/'80s -- playing Echo at the moment), "Left Of Center" (Indie Rock -- playing Test Icicles at the moment) and (of course) The CBC.

Only about 150 other stations to sample.

Monday, February 06, 2006

48 Hours: Boston

Whirlwind trip to Boston this weekend. In on Friday afternoon, back on Sunday morning.

In between...

Hooked up with Noreen at the Ritz -- she had flown in the previous day for business. Beautiful view overlooking the Public Gardens and the Commons by day (as Sam Adams would say -- clicketh to enlargeth):

and night:

After taking the T in from the rainy mess of an airport that is Logan, met up with Rob for lunch at P.F. Chang's and caught up with his doin's.

Dinner that night with Noreen at Grill 23. Friggin' unbelievably good NY Strip steak. The key to a great steak is, of course, the temperature of the grill. This is why it's damn near impossible to grill a really great steak at home.

According to our waitress, the grill at Grill 23 is a steady 8000 degrees fahrenheit!

Keep in mind, of course, that the surface of the sun is about 10,000 degrees, and you begin to get the idea of just how hot the grill is at Grill 23 in Boston -- and why the steaks are so damn good!


Wait a minute. Maybe that waitress wasn't exactly up on everything steak. Come to think of it, she couldn't really explain what a Delmonico was, either. Just said that "it's kind of difficult to explain."

Actually, considering steel becomes molten at 2500 degrees -- I think she may have missed the boat on this.

Anyway, the steaks were awesome.

After coffee in the morning on Saturday, it was out for a walk around downtown for a bit of sightseeing:

Across the Commons...

Up Washington Street...

At the Quincy Market...

The State House...

And around Beacon Hill.

Met up with Mark & Alane for lunch at Stephanie's on the fabulous Newbury Street. Had the "Open Faced Thanksgiving Sandwich," which was just ridiculously good -- "roasted turkey, squash mayonnaise, mashed potatoes, cornbread stuffing, cranberry sauce and gravy on toasted sourdough bread."

I mean, come on. How could that not be the best sandwich I've ever had?

It was.

Anyway, Saturday night was a wedding reception for Ellie and Chris in Hingham.

Ellie is a customer and friend of Noreen's. She and Chris were married a couple of months ago (congrats!), and hosted a reception this weekend.

The reception was very nice -- very kid-centric, in a way that nicely recognized the couple's place in life. The only problem was, of course, the getting lost on the way there. One thing MA could do with a little more of?


Cartoon Carnage

Two views of the reaction in the Muslim world to the Danish cartoons.

In Slate, Christopher Hitchens takes a hardline stance against the attack on free expression (and the very idea of the Enlightenment) that the rioters and embassy-burners represent:
Islam makes very large claims for itself. In its art, there is a prejudice against representing the human form at all. The prohibition on picturing the prophet—who was only another male mammal—is apparently absolute. So is the prohibition on pork or alcohol or, in some Muslim societies, music or dancing. Very well then, let a good Muslim abstain rigorously from all these. But if he claims the right to make me abstain as well, he offers the clearest possible warning and proof of an aggressive intent. This current uneasy coexistence is only an interlude, he seems to say. For the moment, all I can do is claim to possess absolute truth and demand absolute immunity from criticism. But in the future, you will do what I say and you will do it on pain of death.
There can be no negotiation under duress or under the threat of blackmail and assassination. And civil society means that free expression trumps the emotions of anyone to whom free expression might be inconvenient.
On the other hand, Warren Kinsella brings a different perspective (Feb. 5th post):
Firstly, I am a censor. I believe there are reasonable and proper limits on human expression.

Secondly, I believe that words and images have power. Words and images have the power to wound and hurt and, sometimes, kill.

Thirdly, I believe that we are entitled, as a society, to sanction (civilly or criminally) those who use words and images to deliberately or recklessly inflict harm on others - as with laws relating to the propagation of hate, or laws prohibiting child pornography, or defamation codes, or laws designed to sanction pornography that promotes violence against women and children.

And, yes, yes, yes: I believe we are entitled as society to place reasonable limits on the expression of actual hatred towards religious faiths. I believe that words and images that expose the tenets of a person's faith to hatred should be condemned and, where appropriate, punished. Expressing hatred about someone else's spiritual beliefs is not free speech. It is hatred, and it is almost always calculated to cause pain and hurt.
That's pretty much where I end up on the cartoons that depict Islam's prophet as a murderer. You might not find such things hateful or even hurtful, but many others do. Deeply, truly, honestly.

And, when all is said and done, what Muslims seek from the rest of us is not anything we do not already seek from them. Which is, mainly, a modicum of respect for the things they hold closest to their hearts.

I say they deserve that respect. And, if that makes me a censor, I'll wear that insult with pride.
Now the fact that Hitchens in British and Kinsella is Canadian hardly matters in this context, since what is really at stake is a larger issue of free expression within the realm of the Western Enlightenment tradition.

While I see some value in Kinsella's point of view, in the end isn't the alternative in this case just to have expression held under the thumb of the threat of violence -- which is really nothing more than extortion? And if the only expression allowable is that which doesn't hurt anyone's feelings what, in the end, do you really have left?

I heard an argument made on the radio this morning that the West (Europe, specifically) is completely hypocritical w/r/t this because many European countries have laws on the books criminalizing the denial of the Holocaust. Even granting that this may be true, two wrongs don't make a right. The same answer is true here. The answer to Holocaust-deniers is not jail, but education. More speech, not less. Argument, not embassy burning.

Thursday, February 02, 2006

Hey Sandy's Logo Girl! I'm Waaaatching You!

One of the great things about the internet is that it allows anyone to pursue their own slightly (or thoroughly) crazed obsessive interests.

Case in point -- this site devoted to all things Sandy's.

Sandy's was basically a Midwest (mostly Central Illinois) version of that staple of the '60s -- the McDonald's wannabe.

Before McDonald's became truly gargantuan (i.e., when they were still just counting the millions sold), every area had some sort of regional franchised drive-in hamburger joint competition.

In Illinois it was Sandy's. We had one in Kankakee -- and we went there a hell of a lot more than we went to McDonald's, mainly because it was a lot closer. Eventually the chain merged with Hardees and was lost to the dim mists of history.

Until some unknown dude, overwhelmed by his passion for the "Big Sandy," put together this tribute.

On it you can learn how Sandy's was born when Ray Kroc pissed off four guys from Kewanee. You can learn who the store manager was for the Sandy's in Champaign (in case you didn't know, it was Lyle Olson).

Most importantly, though, you can learn what it looked like when a trio of hot Moline H.S. cheerleaders made a break to Sandy's for fishwiches after the game. (Just so you know, it looked something like this):

It Makes Me Sad

It makes me sad. It makes me very, very sad.

It makes me sad that I didn't stumble upon this until after the college football season was over.

Well, there's always next year.

Sorry, I Misquoted Myself

How can you tell he's lying? His lips are moving.