Will Smith hearts Hitler. Wait, what?

From the moral outrage department, movie star (and former Fresh Prince) Will Smith has apparently been taking flak for the last couple of days for a remark he made to a Scottish newspaper that Hitler "didn't wake up going, 'Let me do the most evil thing I can do today.' ... I think he woke up in the morning and using a twisted, backwards logic, he set out to do what he thought was 'good.'"

As of Monday, the Jewish Defamation league, according to TMZ, was "calling on Barack Obama [whom Smith has publicly supported] to repudiate Smith's comments, and [wanted] theaters to pull Smith's new flick 'I Am Legend' from their screens," saying that his words, "spit on the memory of every person murdered by the Nazis. His disgusting words stick a knife in the backs of every veteran who fought (and sometimes died) to save the world from the intentions of Adolf Hitler." For his part, Smith subsequently tried to defuse the situation, issuing a statement that said, "It is an awful and disgusting lie. It speaks to the dangerous power of an ignorant person with a pen. I am incensed and infuriated to have to respond to such ludicrous misinterpretation. Adolf Hitler was a vile, heinous vicious killer responsible for one of the greatest acts of evil committed on this planet."

Seriously, guys? Are we really that sensitive today that you can't even mention Hitler except to denounce him? I think we're all in agreement here that the Holocaust was a travesty (minus a few crazies, like Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Ron Paul), and I'm pretty sure that Will "Get Jiggy With It" Smith is not a neo-Nazi, so what exactly are we getting so riled up about? Frankly, while I don't necessarily agree with Smith's comments -- personally, I'm more inclined to believe that Hitler's rhetoric was a calculated effort to gain power through hatemongering (kind of like President Bush's...) -- I don't think that they are particularly radical. He didn't say that Hitler was a fun guy to be around, or that the Jews had it coming, he just said that the Nazis thought they were doing the right thing. And...?

Of course, I'm not entirely sure what business Will Smith -- star of "Wild Wild West" and "I, Robot" -- has waxing philosophical about Hitler's motivations, but I don't think he should be crucified for it, either. On the bright side, maybe this will finally teach celebrities not to act like they're experts on everything under the sun just because they read a script about WWII once, or teach the rest of the world not to listen to them if they're talking about anything besides how they did their own stunts (probably not, though, on both counts).

On a deeper level, I think we need, as a society, to be able to discuss historical events like the Holocaust without having to fear this kind of unmitigated backlash, because all this ideological bullying does is to alienate anyone with a different point of view from our own. I know that these are sensitive subjects for a lot of people, but freedom of speech is guaranteed by the Constitution in order to facilitate debate in this country -- are we really choosing, of our own accord, to undermine that?

At least if Will Smith thought that people were "basically good" before this shitstorm, he's probably nice and cynical like the rest of us now. What would Uncle Phil say?

Sources:
Will Smith angry over Hitler comment interpretation [CNN]
Will Smith -- Hitler, Schmitler; He Wasn't That Bad [TMZ]
Smith: 'Hitler was a good person' [Yahoo News]

"Charlie Wilson's War": Remember in the 80's when we sent money and guns to help Afghanistan fight the Russians? That was sweet...Or was it?

In a lot of ways, Charlie Wilson's War is a mixed bag of a movie.

On the one hand, you have the really interesting, mostly-true story of how a liberal congressman from Texas, who had never really done much of anything besides party, managed -- with the help of a jilted CIA agent and a right-wing socialite -- to fund a covert war in Afghanistan that contributed to the fall of the Soviet Union (how much it contributed to the fall of the Soviet Union is questionable but, for the movie's sake, we'll say it was a lot). You have Tom Hanks, as the sleazy-but-lovable Wilson, and Philip Seymour Hoffman, as the unlikable-but-hilarious Company man, Gust Avrokotos, trading the razor-sharp barbs that screenwriter Aaron Sorkin and director Mike Nichols are famous for (one particular scene, in Wilson's office, is reminiscent of the best screwball comedies of the 1930's and 40's). And, if you're into that sort of thing, you have more cleavage than any film about Washington has any business displaying (Wilson's congressional staff was nicknamed "Charlie's Angels," so you can only imagine what that looks like translated to the big screen, although I think the ridiculously beautiful Amy Adams is underutilized in this regard).

On the other hand, you have a film that tries to be too many things at once -- political comedy, personal drama and uber-relevant statement on the failures of American foreign policy -- and winds up being somewhat uneven for its efforts. Sorkin's incessant concern with political details (the reason that "The West Wing" was sometimes dubbed "The West Wonk" by critics) shines through here, and there is a lot more discussion of the intricacies of congressional appropriations (and the specifications of Russian attack helicopters) than there needs to be. In fact, Sorkin and Nichols are so intent on proving their political credibility that they sometimes forget basic tenets of filmmaking like character development. For instance, the (let's call it "personal") relationship between Wilson and the aforementioned socialite, Joanne Herring (played satisfactorily by Julia Roberts), is often hinted at as being important for an understanding of Wilson's character, but it is largely an afterthought for the film. So that when Wilson ends up crying in his office because he "misses" the newly-married Joanne so much, it seems to come out of nowhere. Similarly, Amy Adams' aide (Wilson's right-hand woman) seems more than infatuated with her boss, fawning over him and giving Roberts the stink eye, but the thread is never really developed. At the end of the day, the characters verge on being three-dimensional, but are really little more than vehicles to propel the plot and recite Sorkin's zingers.

I don't want to disparage Charlie Wilson's War -- it's a film that manages to be entertaining and informative and that alone makes it worth seeing. Still, it was hard not to walk out of the theater a little disappointed. The American policy in the Middle East of providing support to fight our enemies and then bailing when it was time to build an infrastructure is a part of the reason that we are mired in countries like Iraq and Afghanistan today. It isn't necessarily Charlie Wilson's fault -- the film shows him fighting for money to build schools in Afghanistan post-war -- but his legacy as one of the players in the fall of the Soviet Union is problematic, nonetheless. Sorkin and Nichols try to make this point at the end of the film, but it is far too weak a statement after an hour of reveling in the machinations of the war. Some of that probably has to do with the script being changed at the request of the real Wilson and Herring (apparently, the film originally opened with a shot of the Pentagon in flames, circa 2001), but it doesn't do much for the film's impact that we have so little real connection to the characters, either.

When it comes down to it, the story of Charlie Wilson's war is a human one -- it was charm and humanity that made it possible, and it was human shortcoming that made it a failed policy in the long run. Despite the best efforts of Hanks and Co., this fact never really takes on the weight that it should, and that's where this film falls short -- it is just a good story told gracefully, rather than something more transcendent. All of which is to say that Charlie Wilson's War isn't bad, but it isn't especially memorable, either. And, as the saying goes, those who forget their history are doomed to repeat it.

Sources:
Socialite Joanne Herring wins 'War' [NY Daily News]

Merry Christmas, bitches! [Weekend Links] 12/24/07

-Hollywood is run by big, faceless corporations. Kind of like everything else. [Variety]
-Ron Paul has white pride. [Wizbang Politics]
-Speaking of white pride, Alan Keyes is a bonafide crazy person. [Wonkette]
-The Hillary campaign isn't good with dates. [Politico]
-Remember when R. Kelly taped himself peeing on a teenage girl like seven years ago? So does the state of Illinois, apparently. [The Superficial]
-After getting dumped on basic cable, Bret Michaels is heading back to the stripper-filled well with Rock of Love 2. It's about time someone put Tila Tequila in her place. [Blonde Savant]
-Tom Tancredo drops out, endorses Romney for shared distaste of Mexicans. Classic asshole move. [Huffington Post]
-Matt Taibbi on why Barack Obama is the great white hope. Read it. [Rolling Stone]
-And, finally, drunk Santas! [The Sun]

That dude from "Freaks and Geeks" + Mila Kunis + Kristen Bell in a bikini + the song from "Caddyshack" = Guaranteed awesomeness

I just saw the trailer for "Forgetting Sarah Marshall" and I felt compelled to share (Paul Rudd and Jonah Hill are in it as well, but they only give you so much room for the title of the post). Enjoy!

Dress LC in corduroy and denim

I saw my 9 year-old sister playing on this website today (needless to say, she was introduced to it by my 18 year-old sister) and it was so bizarre that I couldn't resist posting about it. The site is called Stardoll (www.stardoll.com) and it allows you to dress up your favorite celebrity/British royal like some sort of creepy, computer-generated paper doll. Stardoll (which you can view in like 15 different languages) claims to have over 400 personas to choose from, all of which are rendered with extraordinarily disturbing detail, from Britney Spears to Michelle Pfeiffer to Prince William. It also has a whole bunch of other features that I haven't really explored (yet), like the ability to create yourself as a doll and the ability to social network with your fellow Stardollers. There is also a shopping function where you can buy clothes and accessories DESIGNED BY HILLARY DUFF!!! The site accepts payment online by credit card, by phone or by text message.

I'm not really sure what to make of all this. On the one hand, this site more or less represents everything that is wrong with the world today: The celebrity worship, the exploitative capitalism, the unwavering focus on the superficial. On the other hand, it is kind of surreal and awesome. The fact that I can take a simulacrum of Lauren Conrad in her underwear and choose how to clothe her (or not clothe her) is crazy enough, but the fact that I can then make her go on a date with me to the Eiffel Tower is absolutely insane, in the best way possible (P.S. Lauren, if you're reading this, I will take you anywhere you want to go, baby...)

In fact, my only suggestion to Stardoll would be that, by gearing the site almost entirely to tweenage girls, they're missing out on a segment of the market with plenty of time and disposable income on their hands: Nerds. Why not spice things up a little? Throw some lingerie on the clothes rack. Add the ability to move the dolls into provocative poses. Allow users to anonymously communicate with 13 year-old girls who don't know any better. Oh, wait, they do that already. (P.S. Stardoll, your site is just begging to be overrun by weirdos. I would know.)

Ultimately, whether it's the teeny-bopper imagining herself as best friends with Ashley Tisdale and using her "emergency" credit card to buy that really cute imaginary skirt, or her pimply-faced brother spanking it to Hayden Panettiere in her panties, this thing has the potential to be good, clean, masturbatory fun for the whole family.

President Rudy? Fuhgedaboutit.

Maybe I'm missing something here, but I'm not sure I understand how Rudy Giuliani isn't sinking in the polls like the freaking Titanic right now. What's that? He is sinking like the Titanic? Oh. That makes more sense.

See, while Republican rival Mike Huckabee is subliminally reminding you that he and the baby J are best friends in his holiday ads, Giuliani is using the Christmas season as an opportunity to let you know that a) he is a loudmouth from Brooklyn and b) he's that asshole who gives everyone a fruitcake because he's too wrapped up in his own shit to get real presents. Good strategy.

Look, I know that he's just trying to be cute in these ads (and God bless him for it) but, the thing is, Rudy Giuliani isn't cute -- he's a nasty, negative little man. And I think I've made my policy on conservatives trying to be funny abundantly clear: They shouldn't. Because they aren't.

I know these are the new wild and crazy Republicans who have YouTube debates and make ads with Chuck Norris but, somehow, I just don't see the Grand Old Party nominating one of the Jerky Boys for president anytime soon.

P.S. When did Santa become such a douche? Guess he's been spending too much time around the Giuliani camp...

Zoey 101 got knocked up

So, the big news around the Internet this afternoon (when I awoke from my finals-induced coma) was that Britney Spears' 16 year-old sister and star of the hit Nickelodeon show "Zoey 101," Jamie Lynn Spears, is three months pregnant. Normally, I wouldn't blog about such a wildly unsurprising story but 1) I need to get back into my groove and 2) I promised my sister (consider this a thank you for being 18 and baby-less).

Look, I know that there are probably a lot of good jokes to be made here but I don't really have much to say about all this. The Spears family is super-fertile and kind of trashy, so saying that one of them is pregnant is kind of like saying that Lindsay Lohan fell off the wagon -- we all knew it was coming, it was only a matter of when. I know that Jamie Lynn is cute and seems nice enough and everyone was hoping that she would break the chain here and avoid becoming a train wreck but, let's be honest, you can't fight science. Ultimately, I guess it's sort of admirable that she's trying to do the right thing by keeping the baby, if you're into that sort of thing -- after all, she did meet her boyfriend at church (Jesus must be thrilled...) -- although, if it were my kid, the whole situation would have been taken care of faster than you can say "life begins at conception" (sorry, J-man).

In fact, it's pretty hard to feel bad for the Spears family when Jamie Lynn's mother, Lynne (incidentally, her father is named Jamie -- get it???) apparently brokered a $1 million deal with OK! Magazine, giving them exclusive rights to the story. I know that Jamie Lynn's career as the next Disney Channel star to make the foray into Hollywood super-stardom is probably over but, somehow, I think she's going to be okay. After all, if you're going to be 16 and pregnant, it helps to have $1 million in your pocket.

All in all, the story is kind of sad but, hey, that's what happens when you refuse to teach teenagers about the birds and the bees. I know that there are a lot of people in this country dead-set on occupying some moral high-ground, but the fact is that hormones are powerful and kids are stupid, and there's not much you can do about it. So, for all of the parents out there worried about the message this is sending to your children, by all means tell them that this girl made a mistake but don't neglect to tell them how not to make it. When the time comes (and it's coming sooner than you think), talk to your kids about sex, and then go vote Democrat so we can teach sexual education in the schools. Or, just lock them up until college. Either way.

And let's all keep our fingers crossed for Hannah Montana (at least until she turns 18 -- then she's fair game...)

Sources:
How do you talk to kids about Britney's sister? (CNN)
Jamie Lynn's $1 Million Paycheck and Dad's Pissed (Popsugar)
Jamie Lynn Spears is pregnant (IDLYITW)

Reproduction! [Around the Internet] 12/12/07

-Coming to a theater near you: M. Night Shyamalan's latest train-wreck, The Happening. How is it that the Writers Guild can't get 4 extra cents per DVD and yet studios keep giving this genius a blank check? It's a head-scratcher. [Deus Ex Malcontent]
-Merry Christmas from fat Mike Huckabee! [Wonkette]
-Marking what is clearly a banner year for the English language, "w00t" is Merriam-Webster's word of 2007. [Pop Candy]
-Turns out that a bunch of Republicans arguing about a flat tax is mad boring. Go figure. [Wonkette]
-Jessica Alba is preggers. I don't even like Jessica Alba and yet, somehow, I find that thought incredibly depressing. [People]
-President Bush hates children. Especially poor children. [Huffington Post]
-Obama-mania sweeps New Hampshire. [Wizbang Politics]
-Why aren't Republicans supporting the most electable candidate? Because he doesn't hate Mexicans enough, obvi. So much for compassionate conservatism... [American Debate]
-And finally, glow in the dark cats! What will those Koreans think of next? [Breitbart]

Halliburton = The Devil [Around the Internet] 12/10/07

-The National Intelligence Estimate, as explained by a cherry and a kitten. [QuizLaw]
-Turns out Rudy Giuliani married his cousin in 1968. Talk about family values! [Mental Floss]
-The Fresh Prince hops on the Obama train. [NY Post]
-David Sedaris in The New Yorker. Read it. [The New Yorker]
-Impeach Cheney! I don't know who this Wexler guy is, but I like the way he thinks. [Wizbang Politics]
-Halliburton continues its bid for "Evilest Company Ever." [Think Progress]
-Mike Huckabee spoils the end of the world for everybody. Let's hope he hasn't read the last Harry Potter book. [Mother Jones]
-The lady who stopped the church shootings in Colorado is a stone-cold gangster. In other news, stop giving everybody guns! [Denver Post]

Newt Gingrich makes me angry and so does NBC. Fox...well, it goes without saying.

Last week, NBC refused to run a TV spot from a group called Freedom's Watch "[asking] viewers to remember the troops during the holiday season" because it violated their policy against airing politically controversial ads. The backlash from conservatives was immediate and considerable, and included former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich calling for a boycott of NBC Friday on rival Fox New's "Big Story." By Saturday night, NBC had "reversed course," deciding to modify their ad standards guidelines and to begin running the ad the next day.

The fact is that NBC should have told Gingrich to stick it where the sun doesn't shine, not because the network is run by liberals (although it might be -- I couldn't tell you) and not because the former speaker is anything less than an upstanding American (although the "eighty-four ethics charges [that] were filed against Speaker Gingrich during his term" make me wonder), but because he was just plain wrong. The difference between giving Al Gore "35 hours for global warming propaganda" (as Gingrich angrily charged NBC with doing) and running this ad from a radical right-wing political group is that Al Gore didn't use "Green Week" as a platform to spew hate on conservatives (or to promote any websites that spew hate on conservatives).

To give you an idea of what we're dealing with, this is a direct quote from the website of Freedom's Watch: "For too long, conservatives have lacked a permanent political presence to do battle with the radical special interest groups and their left-wing allies in government." Besides being kind of crazy, it is an unapologetic attack on the left-wing. And that's fine -- they have every right in the world to publish that kind of nonsense. But, by the same token, NBC should have every right in the world not to support it. What's particularly galling about this incident -- and what Newt and the Fox News puppets neglect to mention (by the way, I don't know who that chick is, but her suggestion that this was such a "PR...thing" for NBC does not speak highly of her) -- is that NBC offered to run the ad (whose actual content no one had a problem with) without the link to the website, which is what they felt was too controversial. And Freedom's Watch refused. So, what, Freedom's Watch doesn't care enough about the troops to run the ad without their own little plug? Seems kind of hypocritical, but maybe that's just me.

As far as the NBC showing their "true colors" stuff, Chris Matthews (who also drew Gingrich's ire) has a political talk show on MSNBC where, despite being a former Democratic staffer himself, he usually lays pretty well into members of both parties. And, even if he didn't, I find it ironic that Fox News, of all networks, would take anyone to task for being partisan. As for criticizing the president and the war (apparently the ultimate insult to America); well, they need to be criticized -- that's why we have a free press in this country. Frankly, this notion some conservatives have that no one should be allowed to criticize the administration in a time of war is about as un-American as it gets -- it goes against every ideal of freedom that those men and women overseas are fighting for, and it pretty well explains why they shouldn't be there to begin with. If we can't stick to our own principles at home, what business do we have going to another country and telling them how to live? And why should Americans be dying for that? And why can't anybody differentiate between supporting the troops and supporting the war? The whole thing is mind-boggling.

The worst part of the story, of course, is that NBC ultimately backed down and agreed to run the ad, link and all. So not only did they get the "bad press" from their initial refusal to air it, but they also ended up looking weak to boot. And, as usual, the wrong side (ironically, the right side) won.

When are we going to learn that every time someone backs down like this, it further legitimizes the politics of intimidation? And when is the left-wing going to figure out how to grow a pair? Because if we can't even stand up to a has-been demagogue like Newt Gingrich, it's going to take a lot more than ads to beat the best the GOP has to offer come November.

Sources:
NBC Decides to Run Conservative-Group Ad [AP]
Newt Gingrich [Wikipedia]
NBC Rejects Ad From Conservative Group [AP]

Oprah-bama! [Weekend Links] 12/9/07

-Mike Huckabee hates the gays. Well, nobody's perfect, I guess. [Wizbang Politics]
-Just like a liberal, NBC backs down on ad controversy. [Huffington Post]
-Turns out Democrats were cool with waterboarding in 2002. Guess they thought it was some sort of S&M thing. [Washington Post]
-Cryptkeeper Helen Thomas drives White House press secretary Dana Perino to the verge of a nervous breakdown. In related news, Dana Perino wishes Helen Thomas would just die already. [Crooks and Liars]
-Germany tries to make up for WWII by banning Scientology. Throw in a case of Heineken and we're even. [BBC]
-Clinton campaign counters Oprah-bama with the hotness. Mmm...Chelsea. [NYT]
-Charles in Charge got married. I give it a week. [People]

Check out how professional we are!!!

Crazy mad props go to Ryan for the sweet new header design. Next stop: Total world domination.

The cost of fame in America

On Wednesday, a 19-year old (boy? man?) walked into a department store in an Omaha, Nebraska mall with an assault rifle he had stolen from his stepfather and fatally wounded eight people before killing himself. The gunman, who has since been described as a "lost puppy" by his landlady -- and who will forever remain anonymous here -- had apparently spent "four years in a series of treatment centers, group homes and foster care after threatening to kill his stepmother in 2002" before "state supervision was terminated by agreement of the court, the state, his therapist and his father" last year. In an effort to explain the rampage, apparently brought on by a breakup with his girlfriend and the loss of his job at McDonald's, he left a hand-written suicide note at his home that said, among other things, that he didn't want to be a "burden on the ones that I care for my entire life" and that he "just [wanted] to take a few peices (sic) of shit" with him.

"Just think tho," he told his friends, "I'm gonna be (expletive) famous."

And he is famous. If you do a search for his name through Google's news search engine, you will find about 5,000 results, most of which include pictures -- either a high-school photo, or a still from security footage released by the police on Friday, or both. By comparison, a search for Amy Adams, the star of the number one movie in the country for the last two weeks, provides about 2,000 results.

Of course, I don't think that fame was the primary motivation behind these murders -- I won't purport to know or understand the reason that a person snaps like that, beyond the fact that he had some serious issues and obviously needed more help than he got. But I can't imagine that the trouble we have in this country differentiating between good fame and bad fame did much to discourage him -- famous, as far as we are concerned, is famous, and we tend to reward the good and not so good alike (just ask Paris Hilton).

And, most of the time that's not a big deal -- embarrassing, certainly, and perhaps damaging to the national culture, but not dangerous. Somebody, though, is bound to take it too far, and then we have eight people dead in a mall shooting because a teenager felt like an outcast. It has happened too many times before and it will, no doubt, happen again unless we do some serious soul-searching.

In the next few weeks, there are bound to be all sorts of new security measures at malls across the country (which should make holiday shopping that much more delightful) and a renewed vigor in the debates about gun control and violence in movies, etc. Fine. But I think that the first step towards preventing this from happening in the future is for all of the media outlets around the country to stop immortalizing a killer. Instead of his face, why not show the faces of his victims, the innocent people who were just trying to buy gifts for their friends and families? Why not send the message to anyone thinking about becoming "famous" that there is a difference between glory and infamy, and that there are real consequences for murder that have absolutely nothing to do with the murderer? It's funny how so many people in this country run around with their rhetoric about "not letting the terrorists win" abroad and, yet, when someone right here uses violence to get he wants, we give it to him.

There is a lot more going on here than we can fix in a few days, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try. It doesn't mean that we shouldn't take this opportunity to examine our society, and to change it for the better -- not just superficially, but fundamentally. In the words of Dante, "the hottest seats in hell are reserved for those who, in time of great moral crises, choose to do nothing." Let's not occupy them.

Sources:
Shoppers return to Omaha mall [CNN]
From "Troubled" to "Killer", Despite Many Efforts [NYT]
Searching for Clues to a Young Killer’s Motivation [NYT]
Images of Gunman, Suicide Note Released [AP]
Omaha Wonders: Why Did "Lost Puppy" Kill? [ABC News]

Crappiest vacation ever

In the interest of not flunking my senior year of college, I'll be taking a couple of days off from blogging to study for exams (by which I mean "write eighteen papers in the next two days"). Sad times. Be sure to check back for updates this weekend.

"The most sophisticated piece of technology you will ever pee on" [Around the Internet] 12/5/07

-Chilean prostitute whores for charity, gives new meaning to "hooker with a heart of gold" [QuizLaw]
-The Washington Times is a hot mess [Wonkette]
-Remind me why they gave the ESPN guy a show about politics? [Radar]
-Tom Tancredo is an asshole. I feel like I've said this before... [Wonkette]
-Italian court subpoenas Mickey Mouse. Somewhere, Julius Caesar weeps. [AP]
-Dick Cheney thinks we should get out of Iraq ASAP. Psych! [Politico]
-The Democrats had secret debate yesterday on something called the "radio." Here's a recap. [Huffington Post]

Brad Pitt is going to build you a house

While I was skimming through CNN.com this afternoon (it's my home page -- how impressed are you with me right now?), I couldn't help but notice this headline standing out from the rest of the "news" like a dashing diamond in the rough: Brad Pitt ponders quitting acting. In spite of myself, I couldn't resist -- to what, I wondered, might the handsomest man alive be devoting himself if not to acting? Producing? Directing? Spending more time with Angelina Jolie and their adopted African children (and that needy little bitch, Shiloh)?

Not exactly. It turns out that Brad -- ever the philanthropist since ditching his wife of five years -- plans to focus on rebuilding New Orleans by putting up "150 eco-friendly homes in the Louisiana city's Lower 9th Ward" with "the ultimate goal [being] to build eco-friendly homes throughout New Orleans and the Gulf Coast." According to CNN's interview -- in which the star of Meet Joe Black also has interesting things to say about the Katrina disaster ("it was a man-made failure"), the lack of a "concept of waste" in nature ("Anything that's discarded becomes fuel or becomes food for something else") and how he "leverages" his celebrity for good causes ("The press uses me, I use it") -- Pitt says that acting is a "younger man's game" and that "there's just other things I'd rather be doing."

Now, I'm torn, because on the one hand I think it's great that Brad Pitt is putting his money and his fame toward a good cause (you can learn more about his organization at www.makeitrightnola.org), but on the other hand, I'm kind of hesitant to give him a big pat on the back because he's doing some community service and installed solar panels on his mansion. What about all the people who don't command $10 million per film who were rebuilding homes in New Orleans while Brad Pitt was busy filming Ocean's 13? Why aren't they mentioned in this article?

I guess my problem isn't really so much with Brad Pitt as it is with the notion that celebrities deserve some special praise for being involved with something other than themselves. Because, frankly, I think that celebrities have an obligation to get involved in good causes. I know that Brad Pitt works hard and all, and that he has to put up with people sticking cameras in his face or whatever, but the guy is clearly kind of blessed to be where he is in life. Really, everyone should try to be involved in their communities, but celebrities like Brad Pitt are in a special position because they have more money than they need -- which they can use to help out and which means they can afford to take time off -- and people listen to them (although, I'm not entirely comfortable with the notion that we should care whom Oprah or Madonna endorses for president, but whatevs). For better or worse, movie stars and musicians are leaders of the world that we live in, and they (should) have a responsibility to use that power to make it a better place.

So cheers, Brad, for doing a genuinely good thing. But you'll forgive me if I don't pin the Medal of Freedom on you just yet.

Sources:
Pitt: Acting becoming 'less a focus' [CNN]

Happy Hanukkah, bitches! [Around the Internet] 12/4/07

-The bra: Celebrating 100 years of male oppression. [USA Today]
-"Once a gynecologist, always a gynecologist": Ron Paul talks about killing babies on The View [Wonkette]
-Katherine Heigl apparently doesn't read the scripts of movies she stars in. Curious. [Cinematical]
-These whackjobs want you to believe that God hates the world, and yet their very presence in it makes me question God's existence. It's a paradox. [QuizLaw]
-The NRA wants a "viable" candidate. So do we all, fellas. So do we all. [The Hotline]
-And, if you ever needed a reason why the NRA shouldn't exist, here it is. [Wonkette]
-Mitt Romney fires his illegals. Why is it that when Republicans fight, it's always the immigrants that suffer? [Reuters]

Michael Savage got served

Apparently, turnabout is not fair play for Michael Savage.

According to the Associated Press, the conservative talk radio host and all-around loudmouth is suing the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) for their use of his one of his broadcasts on their website, which encourages a "letter-writing campaign directed against talk radio advertisers." The 4 minute segment in question includes the following rant, which the lawsuit describes as "provocative and strongly worded," but which might be better described as being outright racist: "What kind of religion is this? What kind of world are you living in when you let them in here with that throwback document in their hand, which is a book of hate...Don't tell me I need reeducation. They need deportation."

Savage claims that the excerpt from the show was taken out of context (he was actually "talking about Iran president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and his dangerous and violent brand of Islamic extremism, not about the religion in general," according to an interview with the AP) and that the CAIR's use of it without permission constitutes copyright infringement. CAIR and Savage appear to be in agreement that the campaign has resulted in advertisers pulling their spots from his show, which Savage claims has cost him at least $1 million in revenue.

As you might imagine, I am not a regular listener of Savage's show, although I have heard it before and remember thinking that, even among right-wing blowhards like Bill O'Reilly and Joe Scarborough, Savage was particularly reactionary and obnoxious. Honestly, I would love it if this situation cost Savage $1 million, but I have trouble believing that the kind of advertisers that would support his show would really care what the Council on American-Islamic Relations has to think.

I'm also not a lawyer, so I can't really comment on the legal issues here, but I can say that I find the whole thing kind of ironic. It seems to me that Savage was using his radio show as a platform to denounce an entire religion and the people who follow it (as far as I know, the president of Iran is not subject to deportation since he isn't a resident of the United States), so I don't see why those people shouldn't have the recourse of using his own hate-filled words against him. The suit also alleges that CAIR "is not a civil rights group, but a political organization funded by foreigners with ties to Hamas and other terrorist groups" (which, according to Wikipedia, is a charge that the group has been struggling with ever since its conception though, from what I read, the evidence doesn't really support it), but I'm not sure what bearing that has on his case.

In any event, I personally think it's nice to see one of these talk radio demagogues get what's coming to him because, in my admittedly limited experience of listening to their shows, they tend to toe the line between offensive and downright sickening. One can only hope that, next time, Michael Savage will take a moment and think really hard about what he's going he say before he blasts an entire religion on the air. Sadly, though, I have a feeling that's little more than wishful thinking.

Sources:
Radio Host Sues Group That Quoted Him [Associated Press]
Council on American-Islamic Relations [Wikipedia]
Michael Savage sues Muslim group campaigning for ad boycott [SF Chronicle]

And Iran, Iran so far away... [Around the Internet] 12/3/07

-Who Wants to Marry a U.S. Citizen? Like Tila Tequila with green cards. [Wonkette]
-"Never give a gay general a microphone." Pure redneck genius. [QuizLaw]
-"If we're going to go out to the streets and share the love of Jesus, why not expect something crazy to happen?" With that, I give you the Holy Interstate. [A Special Way of Being Afraid]
-Army throws money at recruits. NCAA investigation pending. [Wonkette]
-Iran is much less of a threat to the United States than the Bush administration. [Think Progress]
-Holy shit, it's a toilet house! [CubeMe]
-The Clinton campaign goes all kindergarten on Obama's ass [Wizbang Politics]

Reese Witherspoon = Higest-paid actress. Ryan Phillippe = Seriously bummed.

On Friday, Reese Witherspoon topped The Hollywood Reporter's annual list of highest-paid actresses with an asking price of $15-$20 million per movie. Despite the box-office failure of her most recent film, Rendition (which I didn't even realize had come out in theaters), the star of Legally Blonde 2: Red, White and Blonde beat out the likes of Angelina Jolie (who was 2nd on the list), Nicole Kidman (who was 4th) and Halle Berry (who was 10th). Somewhere, Ryan Phillippe could be heard banging his head against a wall (I know, dude -- we all thought you were going to be the famous one, too).

I like Reese Witherspoon -- I liked Cruel Intentions, I liked Walk the Line, I even liked Legally Blonde and, while I never saw Sweet Home Alabama, I'm sure she was really pretty in it. And I don't mean to pick on her because she's successful, but it seems to me that the ongoing writers' strike, which is currently keeping everyone's favorite shows off of the air, could be resolved very easily if, instead of getting paid $20 million a movie, Reese got paid $10 million. Or if the Desperate Housewives chicks got paid $340,000 an episode instead of $440,000, or if Jay Leno got paid $30 million a year instead of $40 million (actually, you know what? How about Jay Leno doesn't get paid anything until he starts being funny? We get it, people are uninformed and they give stupid answers to simple questions -- it was kind of cute the first 7,000 times but I think the novelty is starting to wear off there, Jay...) Hell, Oprah could single-handedly end the strike tomorrow! Not that they don't deserve all that cash but, you know, the less-attractive people who write all those clever things that come out of your favorite actor's mouth are fighting for an extra 4 cents per DVD sale or something. You do the math.

I know that I've said this before, but the astronomical amount of money that celebrities make is symptomatic of a culture that worships any kind of fame, for better or worse (usually worse). It's the reason why Britney Spears' shitty parenting is consistently a bigger story than the genocide in Darfur, and why so many people in this country can't point to Iraq on a map but can recite 50 Cent's "In Da Club" by heart. I don't want to make any value judgments here, but it seems like our priorities (and I'm certainly as guilty as anyone else) are out of whack.

There isn't an easy fix to all of this, but I do have a few suggestions: Next time you're on CNN.com and you see a story about Christina Aguilera pregnancy rumors, don't click on it. Next time you're watching the "news" and a story comes on about Paris Hilton's vagina, change the channel. And next time that really sexy actress you like makes yet another romantic comedy about finding yourself when your husband dies (and they had been together since high school!), take that $10 and go buy a book -- and not a novelization of Tranformers but a real, genuine book. Not only will you feel better about yourself, but you'll be a more attractive person.

Of course, if that movie happens to be Legally Blonde 3: Guantanamo Blonde, you can find me in line. After all, there's only so much you can ask...

Sources:
Sliding scale: Salaries of Hollywood's leading ladies [Hollywood Reporter]

Larry Craig might be gay

And the hits just keep on coming.

The Idaho Statesman, in the dirtiest newspaper article that I have ever read, has brought forward five men who are alleging homosexual encounters with embattled Sen. Larry Craig (R-Id.). The men, all of whom are homosexuals themselves, are apparently dismayed by what they see as Craig's "hypocritical" anti-gay attitude and voting record, and especially the emphatic denial he made on national television in August (shortly after the discovery that he had plead guilty in June to soliciting sex from an undercover police officer) that "I am not gay, I never have been gay."

The accounts are spread out over a roughly 25 year period, and range from being whisked away to a Capitol Hill house after meeting Craig in a gay strip club (and then being given $20 after sex and told "I can buy and sell your ass a thousand times over") to being propositioned in an airport bathroom in a manner similar to the one described by Craig's arresting officer. Perhaps the most damning allegation comes from Mike Jones, the former Colorado-based gay male escort most famous for destroying evangelical minister Ted Haggard's career, who claims that Craig paid him $200 for sex sometime between November 2004 and March 2005.

Now, Mike Jones must be the worst gay male escort ever because I'm pretty sure the first rule of prostitution is that you don't go around outing your clients (that being said, the dude is like gay-Republican kryptonite...) In all seriousness, though, this story is a lot of things (the word "disturbing" comes to mind quite often) but mostly it is sad, because even if some of these guys are lying, I think it's still pretty clear that Larry Craig is not a straight man. And there's nothing wrong with that, except for the deep-seated self-loathing that has caused him to be such an outspoken opponent of homosexuality and gay rights.

In fact, if he wasn't such a dick, I would feel bad for the guy. Like I said when a similar story came out earlier this week about Trent Lott (with whom Craig incidentally started a barbershop quartet called "The Singing Senators"), it's really unfortunate -- and we are all responsible for this -- that we live in a society so homophobic that some gay men still feel like they have to seek each other out in the anonymity of airport bathrooms. But, as far as I'm concerned, anyone who gets a 0 rating from the Human Rights Campaign and suggests -- as Craig did in 2005 -- that the flooded areas of New Orleans should be abandoned because "fraud...is in the culture of the state of Louisiana" deserves whatever he gets. And, if the last four months have been any indication, that's going to be a lot of negative press until he finally finishes out his term in shame.

I guess $20 doesn't buy what it used to.

Sources:
More gay men describe sexual encounters with U.S. Sen. Craig [Idaho Statesman]
Larry Craig [Wikipedia]

I'm so excited! I'm so excited! I'm so...scared! [Weekend Links] 12/2/07

-Free South Park online next year! In other news, Scientology still nonsense. [Agent Bedhead]
-Thai politicians bribe voters with Viagra. Insert erection joke here. [Wizbang Politics]
-Obama and Huckabee lead in Iowa. Clinton and Romney pissed. [Politico]
-Despite best efforts, Evel Knievel dies of natural causes [Los Angeles Times]
-Jesse Spano to host new Bravo dance-off show. Let's hope it's not like Showgirls without all the naked parts...because Showgirls is fucking terrible without all the naked parts. [Defamer]
-It must be Christmas-time if my Jewish roommates are making peppermint bark. Mmm...Jesus-y. [Two Fat Als]

Murtha-f***er

After returning from a trip to Iraq, Rep. John Murtha (D-Pa.) remarked on Thursday that the surge of troops in the region "is working," a decidedly far cry from his prior stance that the increase was a "failed policy wrapped in an illusion." Murtha's unexpected change of heart came as House Democrats battled with the Bush administration over attaching withdrawal deadlines to a $50 billion war funding bill, a struggle that continued through Friday. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Ca.) -- no doubt beside herself with white, hot rage -- declined to comment.

As much as I hate to say it, this is a perfect example of how Democrats go out of their way to be unelectable. The Republicans maintained control of Congress for 12 years -- when their biggest accomplishments were impeaching Bill Clinton for getting a beej and miring us in an ill-advised war -- in large part because they stayed together and they stayed on message. Honestly, if you can't control your own party members, how can you be trusted to run an entire country?

Still, the Democrats can't let the Republicans put them on the defensive now. Because even if the surge is working, it doesn't change the fact that this war was based on false intelligence, or that it has catapulted this nation $9 trillion into debt and cost the lives of 4,000 soldiers. The truth is that this change in strategy should have come four years ago, when the White House was busy ignoring its top advisers. The idea that, just because they may have finally done something right, we're now supposed to stand up and cheer for the Bush administration is kind of ridiculous -- it's like tipping your waitress extra for going back to the kitchen when she screwed up your order.

Murtha's comments, which he has since tried to back away from, aren't exactly helpful but they'll probably be forgotten pretty quickly. In fact, according to a New York Times article published last Sunday, the Democratic presidential candidates had already begun to "shift their tone" on Iraq due to reports of decreased violence a week ago. What should not be forgotten, however, is that if the Democrats want to win in November, they're going to have do so as a united -- and organized -- front, a notion that is easily lost in the chaos of primary season.

After all, you don't win races by tripping over your own feet.


Sources:
As Democrats See Security Gains in Iraq, Tone Shifts [NYT]
Murtha's comments on 'surge' are a problem for House Democrats [Politico]
Pelosi won't budge on troop pullback dates in war funding bill [CNN]

I knew it! [Around the Internet] 11/30/07

-Tila Tequila is full of shit. I'll probably still watch, though. [The Superficial]
-Kasparov warns of chaos in Russia. In other news, Queen to L7. Or Something. [NYT]
-The Orgasmo Clock: And you thought it was a myth... [Gizmodo]
-Rambo!!! [Cinema Blend]
-Michael Wilbon hits you with some knowledge. Read it. [Washington Post]
-Barack Obama is a Muslim conspiracy [Washington Post]

God bless Mike Gravel, that crazy bastard

Despite the fact that it is a Thursday night and I should probably be passed out drunk right now (I have to get my binge drinking in before I graduate and it becomes "alcoholism"), I just couldn't resist posting this video as soon as humanly possible because, frankly, its existence is probably the greatest thing that has ever happened to me, or to American politics. No joke.

I guess I shouldn't have been surprised at the staggering level of awesomeness here, given former Alaska senator and current presidential uber-longshot Mike Gravel's wonderful tendency to make completely whacked out declarations about how we should encourage homosexuality in the military (because soldiers will naturally fight harder for someone that they love in the Biblical sense) and legalize heroin (because it would effectively end the war on drugs. And, you know, get everyone high...), but I have to admit that I was not really prepared for how sublimely fucking crazy this video is. It's like "Schoolhouse Rock" on acid, only better, because it stars a man who, because he was low on campaign funds, apparently took public transportation to the announcement of his own candidacy last April (Wikipedia, bitches!). Do I even need to mention that this guy is my hero?

The video, which can also be found on the Gravel campaign's YouTube profile space, is literally titled "power to the people vs give peace a chance," written exactly like that, with no capital letters or punctuation. It would seem to be Gravel's response to being excluded from the Democratic Presidential debates, which is either a product of some sordid conspiracy on the part of the political establishment, or the fact that he is currently receiving like .5% of the vote (or both). There is nothing that I could possibly say to make watching it a funnier or more enjoyable experience but, in the interest of being an active blogger, here is a shot-by-shot breakdown of this psychedelic masterpiece. Feel free to follow along:

-Right off the bat, Gravel is wearing an old-man shirt and seems to be talking to no one in particular, which makes him my grandfather. I'm really curious as to what he's saying -- probably something crazy.

-I think this video just gave me epilepsy.

-I get why Gravel's mouth is taped shut (because the man is trying to keep him quiet and such) but why is he holding a 230 year old flag? Could they not find him a new one? Go with what you've got, I guess.

-I love that when Mike Gravel talks about "politicians" like Hillary, Obama, and Edwards, he does so with a sarcastic tone of voice, as if he's making perfect sense and it's everybody else who are out of their damn minds. There's something to think about next time you're high...it's like "The Matrix"!

-Nepotism: favoritism (as in appointment to a job) based on kinship. (From http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/nepotism)

-Mike Gravel is really pissed off about jingoism. Me too.

-The Gravel campaign really went all out for this video, technology-wise. I think they may have shot it in an Apple store.

-I love how he says "Power to the peeeeeople." P.S. This song is mad catchy.

-Mike Gravel clearly did a lot of drugs in the 60's. Just saying.

-Could someone please explain to me what's up with the turtle and the monkey? I feel like it has something to do with war, but I was not under the impression that they were enemies...

-Am I high right now?

-"Why won't you let me say what I want to say?" Probably because you're a raging looney! Case in point, this video.

-Did he just say something about cheese?

-I'm going to have nightmares about that electric buffalo in the background for sure.

-Okay, America just turned into a sombrero and then fish started flying out of it. Just putting that out there.

-"Are they afraid of the truth?" Well...yeah. But who isn't? Put that in your pipe and smoke it (not literally...)

-For some reason, YouTube is not working properly and the video just cut off like 15 seconds early. Somehow, I'm okay with it.

Look, I know that Mike Gravel has no shot in hell of ever being president -- and, thank god, because he's a raving nutbag. But, still, isn't it kind of comforting to know that someone like this is out there, spreading his crazy brand of patriotism across the land like some loopy Johnny Appleseed? I say, let the man into the debates -- even if he doesn't get a single vote come primary-season, the American people deserve to have someone pushing the discourse, especially in an ever-blander, soundbyte-based political landscape.

God bless you, Mike Gravel. You are truly an American original. Now go seek help.

Sources:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Gravel
Also, big props to Ryan, who found this video.

White-on-White Violence: The YouTube Republican Presidential Debate

For anyone fortunate enough to have missed it, the CNN/YouTube Republican Presidential Debate was held tonight in St. Petersburg, Florida. Something like 5,000 video questions were submitted by YouTubers from across the country (at least one of whom, naturally, bore a striking resemblance to Hank Williams, Jr.) and 35 were chosen by CNN's producers to be shown on a big screen above the stage. Candidates were also given the opportunity to submit their own "YouTube-like" videos (most of which were just campaign ads, and not particularly good ones at that), which were interspersed with the questions.

You might imagine that any forum involving YouTube and Republicans would be a mess but, while it sometimes verged on shitshowiness, the debate was usually just about as dull as eight old white guys arguing about politics should be. The issues ranged from reducing crime in the inner city to the ethics of waterboarding, but the debate focused primarily on the war, immigration, abortion, government spending and gun control.

I will spare you the pain of a full-blown recap, but here are some observations (in no particular order):

-Anderson Cooper was the Worst. Moderator. Ever. Whenever a candidate went over his time limit -- which politicians are wont to do -- Cooper, rather than forcing (or even asking) them to finish, would simply repeat the word "time" over and over again until they were done, as if saying it enough would magically make them stop ignoring him. Also, I find him kind of funny looking.

-Republicans really don't like Hillary Clinton. I'm not exactly sure how she came to symbolize everything that is wrong with the world, but boy do they hate her. In fact, I think that every single candidate, at one point or another, referred to her in some derogatory manner, several of them more than once. It's a sad state of affairs when a United States senator draws more ire in a political debate than Osama Bin Laden, but I'm sure she loved every second of it. Also, it turns out that the Clinton campaign planted one of the more controversial questioners of the night, retired Brig. Gen. Keith Kerr, an openly gay veteran who asked why American soldiers aren't professional enough to serve with homosexuals. Score one for the Ice Queen.

-Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney seem to hate each other almost as much as they hate Hillary. At one point, during a heated discussion about illegal immigration, I was pretty sure that the ostensible front-runners were going to break out into fisticuffs, and that was only five minutes into the debate! I say we just get it over with and make the next debate a steel-cage match between these two (maybe Hillary could guest-referee...)

-What the hell kind of a name is "Mitt," anyway?

-And who the hell is Duncan Hunter? After two hours, all I know about the guy is that he loves border fences. In fact, his greatest accomplishment seems to have been building a 30-foot fence between San Diego and Tijuana (probably after the infamous Marissa Cooper incident of 2004). I'm not sure whether he's more qualified to be president or manager of the Home Depot.

-Republicans shouldn't try to be funny -- it usually ends badly. I'm looking at you, Giuliani...

-I'm finding it really hard not to like Mike Huckabee. I know he doesn't believe in evolution and all, but he's just so damn friendly, and his response to a (remarkably stupid) question about believing the Bible word-for-word was by far the most eloquent and progressive of the bunch. One of my roommates remarked that he doesn't seem presidential because he's "too nice." Plus, he lost more weight than the Subway guy.

-Ron Paul kind of looks an elf, but he has some good ideas about the war. Namely, that we should end it.

-Why are Republicans so squinty all the time? Is it because they hate the light?

-John McCain probably doesn't have a snowball's chance in Hell of winning this nomination, but I think he had the best soundbyte of the night: "We came to power in 1994 looking to change the government, and government changed us." Also, it's a really bad idea to argue with him about torture, something Romney found out the hard way.

-Speaking of Romney, I couldn't help thinking that he was the most presidential of the group, probably because he's really good at not answering questions. Also, he's kind of dreamy, if you're into the stuck-up, rich, Mormon look. I wouldn't be at all surprised if this race came down to him and Huckabee.

-Fred Thompson was pretty much a non-factor and, thank god, because he thinks that overturning Roe v. Wade should be our "#1 focus" (not, you know, ending the war or paying down the massive, crippling debt that it has caused.) Good call, Fred.

-Republicans love Bill Cosby. He is like their one black friend.

-Tom Tancredo is an idiot. For more, read this.

All in all, it was pretty much a waste of two hours. At least now I know what we're dealing with, though, and it isn't pretty. I know that the Democratic candidates aren't exactly the Founding Fathers or anything, but if we can't get one of them elected against this bunch of weirdos, I'm leaving. For reals.

Sources:
http://www.youtube.com/republicandebate
http://washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071129/NATION/111290095/1002

The National Guard is desperate. And cheesy.

Trent Lott might have some skeletons in his closet

For anyone wondering why the esteemed Sen. Trent Lott (R-Mississippi) suddenly decided to announce his retirement yesterday, despite having been re-elected to a fourth term in 2006, there may be an answer on the horizon.

BigheadDC.com, a political blog based in the nation's capital, is reporting that the former majority leader -- who was widely criticized in 2002 for his comment that if renowned racist Strom Thurmond had been elected president, "we wouldn't have had all these problems over all these years" (like, you know, the Civil Rights Movement) and once compared homosexuality to kleptomania -- may have frequented a Seattle-based gay male escort.

Now, I've never heard of BigheadDC.com and I normally wouldn't spread such an unsubstantiated rumor. But, frankly, I don't like Trent Lott -- he strikes me as a bigot and a disgrace to the United States Senate. There's a decent chance that you'll never hear another word about this story because it just isn't true but, God help me, I hope that it is. While it's always sad to see someone who can't face his own identity, if anyone deserves to join the ranks of self-loathing hatemongers like Ted Haggard and Larry Craig, it's this guy.

You can read the original story here

Sources:
http://www.usnews.com/usnews/politics/bulletin/bulletin_071127.htm
http://www.hatecrime.org/subpages/hatespeech/claremont.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A37288-2002Dec10?language=printer

Rest in Peace, Sean Taylor

Story, from Yahoo! Sports

Al Gore + George Bush = Loserville

I was watching a story today on MSNBC's Hardball with Chris Matthews about the reception that Al Gore attended in the Oval Office for America's Nobel Prize winners. Needless to say, it was awkward for all involved, but at least we got a weird snapshot of the former presidential rivals side-by-side, complete with Gore's "I-may-have-lost-the-election-but-I'm-still-better-than-you" smirk, Bush's trademark shit-eating grin, and everyone else's visible discomfort at being in the middle of this clash of the titans.

Normally I'm not a big fan of shows like Matthews' but, as an example of what happens when these two get too close, he showed this clip from one of the 2000 presidential debates, for which I will be forever grateful:

Can you believe that these two losers were the best choices we had for the most important job in the free world??? Between Gore's constant, nerdy references to the Dingle-Norwood bill (just thinking about him saying the word "Dingle" makes me laugh!) and Bush's obvious lack of knowledge about what the Dingle-Norwood bill is (it's okay, though, because he can "get things done," whatever the hell that means), these guys make Bill Clinton look like Abraham Lincoln. I'm surprised we didn't just give up and elect the president from "The West Wing" as a write-in candidate -- he may not have been "real," but at least he didn't make America cringe every time he opened his mouth. My favorite moment, of course, is when Gore inexplicably gets all up in Bush's face (could you get any creepier?), and Bush gives him that cocky little head nod that so gracefully says "up yours." Classic.

Look, I like Al Gore -- I think he's done a lot for this country over the last 15 years, both in his capacity as vice president and as alarmist spokesman for global warming control. But for all of the people who run around saying he should run again because he would make such a fantastic president, I refer you to this video clip and suggest that we can do better. I'm not going to say that Hillary, or Huckabee, or even Obama is the right person for the job but, come on, he (or she) has to be out there somewhere, right?

If not, here's hoping that whichever two superstars we nominate give us more precious moments like this one that we can laugh about in eight years when we're all trying to sneak across the border into Canada.

Sources:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/27/washington/27bush.html?hp

It's Always Sunny in Killadelphia

If you watched the news in Philadelphia this afternoon, you might have noticed that the two lead stories both had to do with violence related to the University of Pennsylvania, where I am a student (Go Quakers!).

The first story concerned a shooting that happened last night at 12:30 inside Wizzard's, the strip club that I live across the street from. Allegedly, as Penn campus police were entering the club on a public disturbance call, a gunman shot a DJ with whom he had been fighting. When the guy refused to put his weapon away, one of the officers opened fire, killing him. The club has since been shut down for, I believe, fire code violations.

This, of course, is not the first instance of gun violence in the immediate area -- about a month ago, there was another incident outside of Club Koko Bongo, a glorified bar located in the same building complex as Wizzard's, where "10 officers and one sergeant were conducting crowd control [...] when one man pulled a gun and fired toward the crowd." One police officer was shot in the leg (she was not critically injured) in the ensuing battle, and the gunman was killed.

The second story had to do with former Penn Economics professor Raphael Robb, who today pleaded guilty to "voluntary manslaughter for killing his wife as she wrapped Christmas presents last year." Apparently, Robb and his estranged wife, Ellen, were arguing "about a trip she was taking with their daughter and whether they would be returning in time for the daughter to return to school." The discussion grew heated, Robb's wife pushed him, and he -- fearing that she planned to leave him and "keep him away from his daughter" -- just "lost it," beating her to death with a chin-up bar, which was apparently the first blunt object that he could find. Robb then rearranged the scene to make it look as if a burglary had taken place. According to the Associated Press, he "faces a likely prison sentence of 4 1/2 to seven years."

I'm not really sure where to start unraveling all of this, except to say that dealing with violence increasingly goes with the territory around here. I remember seeing the flashing lights of police cars outside my window as I went to bed last night and thinking little more of it than "I'll have to check out the news tomorrow." Of course, you kind of expect the occasional burst of violence in the part of the city -- West Philadelphia -- in which the school is situated. While I've never personally had a problem, we all recognize that it isn't the best neighborhood. What you really don't expect, though, is for your professors to beat their spouses to death with a steel bar. Besides being really bizarre, the story is also pretty terrifying, if only because Professor Robb seemed like such a nice guy (I never had him, but my roommate did and enjoyed his class).

Ultimately, though, Philadelphia -- which has recently been battling a rash of crime throughout the city -- is not the only place where there is violence. In fact, it's damn near everywhere these days -- not only in the newspaper but in music, on the screen and, of course, all over the Internet. As a culture, we are awash with carnage, whether it is being glorified, or criticized, or just plain reported.

In some way, then, maybe it's a good thing that these latest incidents have brought the problem so close to home for us Penn students, as a reminder that, even though we live in the collegiate bubble, there's a whole world out there that's falling apart. I'm not sure how we're going to fix it but we better start soon, because I have a feeling that the violence isn't going to stay outside of our windows forever.

Sources:
Koko Bongo
Robb
Wizzard's

MTV is keeping you down

I had a whole list of things that I was going to do tonight -- I was going to write a folk song (a la Bob Dylan -- I guess that damn movie got to me after all), I was going to read Love in the Time of Cholera (I've been stuck on page 123 for a few days now). I was going to publish a sweet blog post about Al Gore and do my laundry because I'm out of underwear. Instead, I fell asleep on the couch during the Patriots-Eagles game, and spent an hour when I woke up watching the latest episode of MTV's A Shot at Love with Tila Tequila. Suddenly, it was 12:30 and I'd wasted yet another night.

For the uninitiated, A Shot at Love is MTV's latest entry into the already overcrowded world of reality dating shows. Its star, Tila Tequila, is famous primarily for having been one of the first celebrity-hopefuls to take advantage of social networking (she was the most popular woman on MySpace, once upon a time) and not much else. Though she originally fancied herself a "musical artist," she doesn't seem to have many discernible talents beyond taking her clothes off (which she's admittedly pretty good at). The show's hook is that Tila is bisexual, a fact that she "revealed" in the first episode, to the "shock" and "dismay" of all involved, namely the 16 straight guys and 16 gay ladies that had signed up to vie for her love. They all live in a single house and sleep (not very well, I would imagine) in a single, giant bed and compete in challenges to win private dates with Tila (this week, they had to transfer as much chocolate as they could from a kiddie pool to a bucket using only their swimwear -- classy.) Hilarity ensues.

Basically, A Shot at Love is television at its absolute worst -- entertainment so mindless that the producers don't even bother to write scripts because the stars probably wouldn't be able to read them anyway. It is everything that is wrong with America rolled up into a neat little package, complete with giant breasts and plenty of girl-on-girl action. And, oh yeah, it is painfully watchable. Like its forebears, The Real World, Next and VH1's Flavor of Love, it is the kind of show that you can just sit and stare at without being bothered by pesky "thoughts" or "ideas." And, in all fairness, sometimes -- in moderation -- that isn't such a bad thing.

But, when the show ended tonight and its tractor-beam grasp on my mind was broken, I couldn't help wondering if these shows will someday be the artifacts that define our generation. Unlike the Baby Boomers, who took to the streets when they saw the injustices of segregation and the Vietnam War, we have been eminently complacent with a world that grows less and less livable everyday. Between global warming, the War in Iraq and the covert theft of our civil rights, we have plenty to protest. So why don't we? I can't help thinking that it might have something to do with shows like A Shot at Love.

MTV, of course, is owned by Viacom, which is a big, faceless corporation. Does it bother anyone else that these shows are aimed directly at the demographic that, in the past, has often been the most vocal advocate for change? I'm not saying it's a conspiracy, necessarily -- our parents watch their own mindless crap, like Survivor and Big Brother -- I'm just saying that we should be wary. Intentional or not, it's fairly obvious to me that shows like A Shot at Love are a major distraction for a generation that should be up in arms and isn't.

I would be a hypocrite if I ran around telling people to kill their TVs, and I'm not looking to start any marches. I enjoy Tila and her antics, and I'll probably waste the same hour next week that I've wasted every week since the show premiered. But, with the world in the sorry state that it is, and a golden opportunity to affect change in next year's presidential election, it's time that we start weening ourselves off of reality shows and start getting in touch with reality. Those folk songs aren't going to write themselves.

"I'm Not There": Pretension, Thy Name is Todd Haynes

Todd Haynes' I'm Not There, inspired by the music and life of Bob Dylan, is the kind of movie that makes me the angriest -- the kind that fools people into thinking that it's good, even those who should know better. I could probably work up a stroke trying to figure out how this self-love fest earned an "81% Fresh" rating on rottentomatoes.com, which compiles reviews from media (mostly print) outlets across the country, but I think the answer probably goes something like this: Anytime an American studio produces something remotely artistic or innovative, movie critics jump all over it like it's manna from Heaven. It's a sad state of affairs for American cinema -- we've come to expect so little from Hollywood that even the most pretentious bullshit passes for gold.

And that's what I'm Not There is, more than anything -- pretentious with a capital "P". In fact, this movie is so self-important that it deserves its own adjective: It is Haynesian, in its needlessly indecipherable structure (the movie is split into six different sections that intertwine, often for no apparent reason), in its self-consciously esoteric symbolism, and in its maddening length, which is somewhere around two and a half hours but feels more like seven or eight years (the film ends on two of the most painfully drawn out shots in the history of popular cinema, first of of a mysteriously smiling Cate Blanchett -- in full Dylan garb -- staring directly at the camera for a good twenty minutes, and then an excerpt of concert footage that fades to black over the course of an hour or so). I almost gave the credits a standing ovation.

The thing that bothers me the most about this film, though, is that there were actually quite a few moments that I really liked. For instance, one of the strongest scenes in the film is a surrealist interpretation of Dylan's "Ballad of a Thin Man" that involves a snotty British music critic, circus freaks and the Black Panthers. Not only is it visually captivating, but I found myself wanting to learn more about the song and its context so that I might better understand the allusions. Sadly, though, moments like this one are too rare in the film, buried under the excesses of a talented filmmaker who seems to be so in love with his own ideas that he can't imagine omitting even a single one. Ultimately, filmmaking -- like just about any other artistic endeavor -- is about making choices, and that's where I'm Not There falls horrendously flat.

Look, I don't mind films that are artistic -- in fact, more often than not, I love films that are artistic. And I don't mind if a filmmaker strives to make something really meaningful and comes up short -- the effort is admirable. But when a film spends the better part of two and a half hours touting its "difference" for the sake of vanity, it gets on my nerves, especially when critics use phrases like "an uncompromising, beautifully wrought essay on identity" (The Denver Post) to describe it. In fact, I can't help but imagine that the Bob Dylan portrayed by I'm Not There -- forever battling appropriation -- might be a little perturbed to know that the film he inspired devolved into such a circle-jerk of the cinematic establishment. Me, I'm just disappointed all around.

Terror Level: Gouda

The world is a scary place when cheese attacks.

This is something I discovered while skimming through the Fox News blog today (I also discovered that they've abandoned the "Fair and Balanced" slogan in favor of "We Report. You Decide.", which basically has the same message but appropriately eschews "fair" and "balanced"). It would seem that a company in Tennessee is "recalling cheese sold in seven states and distributed nationwide in gift baskets that could be contaminated with dangerous bacteria." While there have been no reported illnesses, the threat is very real.

On some level, I know that this qualifies as news and deserves to be reported. I'm sure that all the people who discard their Sweetwater Valley Farms gift baskets will be grateful to the AP and Fox News, especially those with small children and elderly relatives, who are the most susceptible to the bacteria (although I feel like the people who bought the cheese in 5 and 10 pound blocks deserve what they get. Not death, of course, but certainly diarrhea...)

On another level, though, there is something patently ridiculous about killer cheese. Honestly, between this, E. Coli-laced spinach and Aqua Dots, is there anything that won't kill us? Next they're going to tell us that drinking water gives you AIDS and breathing oxygen may put you at risk for scurvy.

Ultimately, it doesn't really matter because we're all going to die from cell phone radiation, anyway. That's why I keep mine in my back pocket -- better cancer in my butt than someplace more sensitive. But, in the mean time, with the threats of terrorism, gun violence, and Martin Lawrence movies constantly hanging over our heads, the world might be a much better place if we could at least get our cheese under control.

Source: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,312729,00.html

"Enchanted": Disney + Manhattan = Warm and Tingly. Who knew?

I'm going to be honest here. Normally, Enchanted is not the kind of movie that I would admit to having seen, much less enjoyed (namely, the kind with princesses). But you know what? This movie charmed the bejesus out of me, and I'm not ashamed to say it. Despite the fact that most of what I watch these days involves some combination of death and existential crisis, there was once a time when I wore out my tape of The Little Mermaid and believed in living happily ever after (it probably has something to do with my being such a nutcase about relationships today) and damn it if Enchanted didn't make me miss the little bastard that I used to be.

What's really great about this movie, though, is that it neatly toes the line between fairy-tale and reality, both technically and thematically. A masterful blend of live action, animation, and CGI, Enchanted is very much a Disney movie at the end of the day, which means that it's basically formulaic -- you know from the very beginning how it's going to end, and you feel good about that. At the same time, though, the film is a lot more mature than you would expect, and not in the ostentatious, pop-culture-referencing way that Shrek was "mature," but in a real, down-to-earth, "love isn't always what you first make of it" kind of way. Not to give too much away, but the film actually touches on the very grown-up idea that falling in love with one person sometimes means leaving someone else out in the cold and, while it only skims the surface, it's an impressive leap for a fairy tale.

And if that's not enough, there's the (strangely perverse) appeal of seeing the Disney archetypes that you fell in love with realized in corporeal form. Even if we didn't know it at the time, I don't think there's a warm-blooded male born in the last half-century who didn't look back from the vantage point of puberty and wonder what Ariel looked like under her shells or, if you're into that kind of thing, what the Evil Stepmother looked like under that weird hat/cloak ensemble that she wore. Well, now I have an idea and, even though I feel like a bad person for saying it, I'm just going to put this out there: Amy Adams (who also gives an amazing performance as Gisele, the displaced princess) and Susan Sarandon (who is by far the hottest 60 year old I have ever seen) bring the goods. The weird thing about it is that Enchanted doesn't make a lot of effort to hide their sexuality. In fact, one of the film's most poignant moments involves Gisele discovering Patrick Dempsey's chest-hair as he walks around the apartment in a bath-robe (he plays the divorce lawyer who picks her up off of the streets of New York) and finding herself suddenly attracted to him. Last Tango in Paris it ain't, but it's still virgin territory for Disney.

And that's precisely what I loved about Enchanted. Because even if it playfully knocks around the old Disney conceits a bit, the film ultimately suggests that, despite all the concerns of the real world, we can find true happiness. Corny as it may be, it still made me smile.

For another good review of Enchanted, go here

Huck and Chuck

Let me begin by saying that, actual political content notwithstanding (I don't understand how Conservatives can make such a fuss about protecting their 2nd Amendment rights when they are constantly trying to revoke a woman's right to choose), this is one of the best political ads I've ever seen -- honestly, the only word that can adequately describe it is "awesome." I love a good Chuck Norris joke (although I find them less funny now that he's in on it), and it's always nice to find a presidential candidate with a sense of humor. You know what else is nice to find in a presidential candidate, though? A basic understanding of essential scientific principles. This, unfortunately, is one qualification that former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee seems to lack, given his repeated assertion that "if anybody wants to believe that they're the descendants of a primate, they're welcome to do it." Thanks for your approval, Mike, but I'm going to go on believing that I , in fact, am a primate, as are all human beings. Duh, that's, like, so sixth grade...

Look, I don't have a problem with people not believing in evolution (although I'm still not sure I get how evolution and God are mutually exclusive concepts). The fact is, though, that science is important -- it's what cured the plague, brought us the Internet, and made Pamela Anderson an emergency flotation device -- and it should be supported, not shied away from. Huckabee has said that he believes in science, and I'm not contradicting that, but he also said this: "Science changes with every generation and with new discoveries, and God doesn't, so I'll stick with God if the two are in conflict." Whether or not God and science are in conflict, I find troublesome Huckabee's suggestion that science's tendency to change (you might even say "develop") makes it somehow inferior to just trusting in God. If science didn't change with every generation, we'd still be bathing in leeches every time we got a stuffy nose.

Ultimately, the whole issue is too complicated to reduce to a soundbyte, but I think the kind of close-minded attitude that advocates a fear of the unknown is regressive and dangerous, particularly when we put it in a position of power. If Mike Huckabee doesn't want to believe that he's descended from monkeys, that's fine, but when he suggests that it isn't an appropriate question for a presidential candidate because "I'm not planning on writing the curriculum for an eighth-grade science book," he's missing the point in a big way, "Chuck Norris approved" or not.


Sources:
For more on Huckabee, I recommend Matt Taibbi's piece for Rolling Stone.
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/06/05/huckabee-im-not-writing-a-science-book/