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/

Free Barry

Last week, Barry Bonds, baseball’s all-time home run leader, was indicted by a federal grand jury on four counts of perjury and one count of obstruction of justice for allegedly lying in 2003 about his use of steroids (like anyone believed him, anyway). Whether or not Bonds ends up doing jail time – which is, apparently, a very real possibility – it would seem that his career is likely over, and his shot at being inducted into the Hall of Fame may be as well. While I’m not much of a Barry Bonds fan, something about these charges strikes me as unfair and, frankly, kind of ridiculous. Yes, obtaining and using steroids without a prescription is illegal and, if Bonds committed the crime, he should be punished accordingly, as should every other baseball player who broke the rules. But four counts of perjury? Obstruction of justice? Are we maybe going a little bit overboard here?

Of course, this isn’t just about steroids, or about Barry Bonds – it’s about the “integrity” of one of baseball’s most cherished records and, by extension, of the game itself. It’s about people who think that if our “national pastime” is tarnished, so is our national fabric. But while baseball clearly has a lot of symbolic significance in this country, it’s still just a game. A GAME, PEOPLE! Maybe, instead of crucifying athletes for taking performance enhancers, we should just stop taking professional sports so goddamned seriously. In fact, I found it kind of ironic that Bonds’ indictment was announced on the same day as Alex Rodriguez’s agreement with the New York Yankees on a 10-year, $275 million contract. It seems to me that, at the same time we’re telling athletes not to cheat, we’re giving them more and more incentive to do just that.

The thing is, Barry Bonds isn’t the disease; he’s merely a symptom, and so are steroids. The real problem here is a level of hero worship in this country that leads to $275 million contracts for guys who dress up in costumes and hit a little white ball with a stick. I’m not saying that athletes shouldn’t be well paid, but does it bother anyone else that A-Rod is set to make more than a third of the gross domestic product of Liberia? Same goes for actors – maybe we wouldn’t have a massive writers’ strike in Hollywood right now if we weren’t paying Tom Cruise $20 million a film to prance around the screen and complain about the dangers of psychiatry. I know that entertainment is one of our biggest industries – and, in the interest of full disclosure, the industry that I plan to go into when I graduate from school – but come on. We’ve just had the bloodiest year yet in a war that we can’t seem to extricate ourselves from, the dollar is weak and we’re a year away from what may very well be the most depressing presidential election in history (when I hear the words “Hillary” and “Rudy” together in the same sentence, I can’t help but throw up in my mouth a little). Don’t we have better things to worry about than Barry Bonds?

Sources:
http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/news;_ylt=AgeXKTO6N7wUQAmV7uBLrYgRvLYF?slug=ti-bondsreaction111507&prov=yhoo&type=lgns

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/17/sports/baseball/17bonds.html?em&ex=1195448400&en=ab901c4b4c6bb85d&ei=5087%0A