Solipsistic

From The Washington Post:

Bush suggested last week that Democrats are promising voters to block additional money for continuing the war. Vice President Cheney this week said critics "claim retreat from Iraq would satisfy the appetite of the terrorists and get them to leave us alone." And Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, citing passivity toward Nazi Germany before World War II, said that "many have still not learned history’s lessons" and "believe that somehow vicious extremists can be appeased."

Pressed to support these allegations, the White House yesterday could cite no major Democrat who has proposed cutting off funds or suggested that withdrawing from Iraq would persuade terrorists to leave Americans alone.

Via Crooks and Liars.

I don't agree with the title of this piece, but it helpfully chronicles the incidents and statements leading up to our war in Iraq since 2003.

Won't they just let Hitler rest in peace.

Via Atrios.

Here's when a few of mine, and your, faves are returning with new episodes:

Battlestar Galactica (Oct. 6)
Gilmore Girls (Sept. 26)
Lost (Oct. 4)
Veronica Mars (Oct. 3)
The Wire (Sept. 10)
24 (Jan. 7)

A few new ones to look out for:

30 Rock (Oct. 11)
Kidnapped (Sept. 20)
Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip (Sept. 18)
Heroes (Sept. 25)
Six Degrees (Sept. 21)

Yes, the first four shows are all coming on NBC. I will be shocked if "30 Rock" is consistently funny. But it does have a great cast, including Alec Baldwin. The idea of "Heroes" is intriguing, but NBC has consistently done sci-fi/action badly. Very skeptical. I'm hearing really good things about "Kidnapped" and it also has a fine cast, including Jeremy Sisto. I can't imagine Aaron Sorkin's "Studio 60" won't be excellent and "Six Degrees" is another JJ Abrams creation so it deserves a few weeks of your time. (And it features indie darling Hope Davis.)

"The Nine" (Oct. 4th) looks intriguing, but it seems like I've seen it before. "Lost" meets "The Inside Man."

Thank God college football starts tomorrow night.

In the continuing quest to route out the antichrist, I bring you this public service announcement. (If you have not seen the pretty awesome movie "Angel Heart," don't read any further because a nice surprise will be spoiled.) Here's a picture of Satan from the sacred Mickey Rourke text "Angel Heart":



And here's New York Times columnist Paul Krugman:



Believe it...or not...

Did anyone see the Bush interview on NBC news last night? It was just Bush and NBC news anchor Williams walking through a recuperating New Orleans neighborhood talking to one another. The situation got a little heated when Williams asked Bush some tough questions about his reputation post-Katrina. The president stopped walking and got very close to Williams becoming more than a little aggressive in his manner. No doubt Bush, hovering around 33%, sees the need to aggressively defend himself.

It was truly fascinating and was a stark contrast to the smooth and composed president #42.

Ever seen a singing, dancing animal doing its master's bidding? How about a singing, dancing Fox?

Cable news has to be happy about the prospect of some fresh, explosive product. That whole Karr thing just didn't pan out.

One of my favorite movies has finally made its way to DVD and has been given the Criterion treatment. Check this one out. If you're into Whit Stillman and/or Woody Allen, you should track this one down.

"Well then Katrina happened and they blamed it all on Bush."

Yes, that's what happened. Americans blamed President Bush for the arrival and destruction of the hurricane.

This Outkast musical is a misfire. Strangely, there is not enough music in the movie. The film's musical moments are great, particularly the closing Busby Berkeley inspired number. But stylistically, this movie is all over the place and it never finds a consistent tone. Also, the story is very predictable and slow going. Rent this one and watch the musiscal scenes. Skip the rest.

Are we really gearing up for another preemptive attack against a Middle Eastern nation based on sketchy weapons intelligence?

Please tell me this isn't happening again?

From the New York Times:

Some senior Bush administration officials and top Republican lawmakers are voicing anger that American spy agencies have not issued more ominous warnings about the threats that they say Iran presents to the United States.

What did we learn from this summer:

No one makes superhero films as well as Sam Raimi (director of both Spiderman films).

Until "Spiderman 3" comes out, "Spiderman 2" will remain the best...superhero...film...ever. Bryan Singer had an interesting but too serious take on the Superman legend and Brett Ratner proved he can do a serviceable job under the gun as he did with the fun, but instantly forgettable, "X Men: The Last Stand." Sam Raimi has learned how to respect the superhero, but still have fun with him. These are guys running around tights battling super powered bad guys after all.

America can hate a movie with Tom Hanks in it.

Or at least, I can. "The DaVinci Code" was the worst movie of the summer--and yes, I realize this summer also gave us "Snakes on a Plane." Tom Hanks was disinterested--channeling recent Harrison Ford, perhaps. The script was ridiculous. A powerpoint presentation by the reliable Ian McKellan was the highlight of the film. A boring, boring mess of a film that asked us to take it somewhat seriously.

Neither Johnny Depp or Samuel L. Jackson can carry a movie on their own.

"Pirates" was one of the least deserving box office champs in recent memory. The movie proved that if you throw enough action, jokes, and Johnny Depp at an audience
they will like your film. "Pirates" was "Armaggedon" as a comedy. This movie was a real mess that will not age well. "Snakes" without Samuel L. Jackson? The next Sci Fi Channel original movie. (Or TBS back in the "Atomic Tornado" days.)

The French can make a good action film.

No, seriously. You're gonna love "District B13." This is the first foreign film that's gonna play really well on Spike TV.

M. Night Shymalan needed a flop. Bad..

The curious, flaky "Lady in the Water" proved that the talented Shymalan needed a wake-up call. I think that genius, next Spielberg talk was going to his head. Maybe his next movie will be a taut, stripped down thriller a la "Duel."

Kevin Smith peaked with "Clerks".

Best of the Summer

1. Cars
2. MI:3/District B13
3. The Proposition
4. The Illusionist
5. Talladega Nights

Worst of the Summer

1. The DaVinci Code
2. The Omen
3. Snakes on a Plane
4. Pirates of the Carribean: Dead Man's Chest
5. Miami Vice

Tomorrow:

From the lows of "Pirates" and "DaVinci" to the highs of "District B13" and "MI:3," we'll take a look back at Summer '06.

Complain all you want, but this Summer was far better than many in recent memory. Or maybe, I'm just getting soft.

From Dennis Dodd at CBS Sportsline:

The SEC is the best league in the country -- and has absolutely no shot of winning a national championship.

If Auburn can emerge from the regular season and SEC championship with a perfect record, it will be a mighty feat.

Check out this compendium from the Cato Institute that looks at recent assessments of Iran's weapons.

Via Atrios.

Does anyone remember the "Jiminy Glick" skit poking fun at the Independent Film Channel where every movie advertised was about a drug addict, homosexual, and suicidal person hitting the road? The skit then continued with different combos of folks hitting the road and learning more about themselves and life.

"Little Miss Sunshine"--an indie comedy that the studio is betting will have broad appeal--almost becomes that movie. We have a homosexual suicidal Proust scholar (Steve Carrell), a drug-addicted septuagenarian (Alan Arkin), a sullen teen Nietzsche disciple (Paul Dano), and a floundering motivational speaker (Greg Kinnear) all hitting the road in a VW van to learn more about themselves and life. What saves this movie from the typical malaise of many indie comedies are the women in the lives of these lost men. Toni Collette as the mother trying to keep her life afloat and her men happy and more importantly little Olive (Abigail Breslin), an eternal optimist who has just learned she has won a spot in "The Little Miss Sunshine" beauty pageant.

The family has to make an 800 mile trek in two days to get Olive to the big pageant which she has been preparing for all her young life. (Grandpa has been helping her on a special routine for her talent competition.) As the trip begins, each member of the family, except the oblivious and cheerful Olive, would rather not be journeying to the pageant. But as the journey continues and the obstacles grow, getting Olive to the competition becomes everyone's quest.

The cast is fantastic in this thoughful comedy and it has yet another great performance by Greg Kinnear. Steve Carrell gets to display some range in his role and shows that even if his attempt at movie stardom fails, he will always find work as a character actor. Abigail Breslin, as Olive, though, carries the movie on her small shoulders and makes it work. Will she be crowned "Little Miss Sunshine"? By movie's end she has proven that she is a true ray of sunshine for her struggling family.

I should mention that this movie takes a hard look at child beauty pageants. Should little girls be forced to portray mock adults and be dressed and behave in ways that are seen as appealing in adult women? Should eight year olds be placed in situations that leave them concerned about their body image? The movie asks these questions in ways which may be offensive to some viewers, but I believe are handled acceptably and deftly. The movie's climax is both hilarious and trenchant as it brings these issues to a head and asks that we let children be children.

Have started back to school this week. That's part of the reason there were no posts yesterday.

Also, started working out at a local gym. Have lost 4-5 lbs. in two weeks. Down to 224. Still too big. Want to make it all the way to around 190 in time for high school reunion in one year. I should also have completed masters degree and be on the way to steady and semi-respectable employment.

Will I burn out? I'm enjoying the extra energy, so hopefully not.

With Pluto being ousted from the fraternity of planets, it has been signed up by the New York Yankees.

("Mike and Mike" is an ESPN radio show and TV program.)

Was sitting behind two pastors the other day and they were talking--loudly, I wasn't eavesdropping...much--about "urban tribalism." One of the men posited that the political views of many in the city are not based on reason, but because it's what everyone else does. Apparently, he'd written a book about it. (What qualifications does one need to write a book? Time and will. That's it.)

"...just like the Crips and the Bloods," the faux sociologist offered.

This is offensive on so many levels and it took much will not to but in and offer a rejoinder. I wanted to say this, "Then by this reasoning given the relative homogeneity of the political viewpoints outside of cities--take the Saint Louis suburbs, for instance--isn't there a suburban tribalism?"

I'm guessing this would have not gone over well.

According to Ain't It Cool. Who's leaving? Other than Fey and Dratch, we don't know for sure. (They're leaving for the SNL backstage sitcom "30 Rock" which is bringing us back Tracy Morgan.)

Ain't It Cool speculates that Parnell is leaving. I hope not. I wouldn't mind seeing Sanz and Kenan Thompson go. (He's energetic, but he has no range. See the absolutely atrocious climax to "Snakes on a Plane.") Maya Rudolph, due to pregnancy, was barely on last season. She seems a likely candidate.

Many of the critics of Judge Taylor's opinion on the NSA program cite her failure to adequately address the supposed flaws in the ACLU's argument. Why did she not address these supposed flaws? The Department of Justice never brought them up. Glenn Greenwald has more:

...a principal reason why Judge Taylor was somewhat conclusory in her analysis of some issues, and the reason she repeatedly said that certain propositions were "undisputed," is because the Bush administration either failed or chose not to dispute them. Specifically, the Justice Department was so intent on telling the Judge that she had no right to even rule on these issues (because the NSA program is a "state secret," the legality of which the court cannot adjudicate without damaging national security and/or because the plaintiffs lack "standing"), that it basically chose not to address the merits of the plaintiffs' case at all.

Indeed, as I wrote about here at the time it happened, the DoJ twice tried to convince Judge Taylor not to rule on the substance of the ACLU's claim, but instead to rule first on the DoJ's "state secrets" argument. Twice, the court refused this request, ordering the DoJ to address the merits of the case (this Comment to Kerr's post, documents the case's procedural history). But the DoJ essentially refused to do so, and devoted almost all of its brief to arguing why the court lacked the power to adjudicate these issues, and almost none of its brief to arguing about the issues themselves. As Marty Lederman put it once he read the DoJ's Brief: it "did not quite advance or support in any detail that argument -- or any other merits argument, for that matter."

...the Bush administration's refusal to address the merits of the claims (which is part and parcel of its general contempt for the role of the courts in scrutinizing its conduct) meant that Judge Taylor was not only entitled, but was required by the Rules of Civil Procedure (Rule 56), to treat the ACLU's factual claims as undisputed for purposes of deciding the motion.

I have been pointing out the push by the right's media to state that Democrats don't want surveillance of terrorists. Of course, this is a lie and given the relative simplicity of the larger complaint--Dems want surveillance, but within the law--we have to see these misrepresentations as lies.

Some more examples.

The motto of the International Public Urination Society:

"Void where prohibited."

If someone should want to blurb me on this movie, you can choose a quote from the review below or use this:

"Snakes on a Plane: so bad, it's bad."

From National Review's blog:

...recall the presidents this country has known (and will know) who were obsessed with their own popularity. Think of the many times Bill Clinton allowed polling data and political advisers to shape military strategy. Imagine how horrifying it would be right now to have a John Kerry or Al Gore as president — no clear statements of policy, military decisions transparently shaped by "how it's going to look", a White House that smells to high heaven of vacillation, weakness, and even corruption.

Apparently the Editors have a crystal ball that allows them to look first backward then forward and then aids them in making completely baseless, ludicrous retro-predictions.

Gotta get me some of what they're smoking over at National Review.

UPDATE: Need any extra evidence that these folks are cheeba chasers. Check out the wacky HTML by clicking on the link above. The whole entry is a hyperlink. Keep on linkin'.

Why we should stop using the term Islamofascism.

I think jihadism is more appropriate, but this term doesn't evoke WWII and doesn't adequately support the war of civilizations message.

Via Washington Monthly.

Just to get my geek bona fides out of the way: I love goofy, animals going nuts films. I could watch "Anaconda" and "Deep Blue Sea" over and over. I have no problem with B-movies. Some of them I love.

That being said, "Snakes on a Plane" is a mean-spirited dud. Surprisingly gory and predictably plotted with characters that we don't care about. The movie also commits the usually unforgivable sin (SPOILER ALERT) of having a novice land a jet.(END)

What does this movie have going for it? A fantastic title and Samuel L. Jackson. The rest of this unwieldy genre in-joke will be tedious for those who aren't trying to hard to love it. I saw it in the ideal circumstances: a late-night opening weekend crowd full of folks who have been anticipating this movie for months. They were demonstrably stoked. If critics were seeing this movie in a vacuum--without any knowledge of the hype--the reviews would be far less kind. Liking this movie right now is akin to smoking in high school.

What killed this movie for me? It takes forever to get on the plane. The opening twenty minutes are unforgivably awful, no fun, and immediately prepare you for the hack job you are about to witness. The gore in this movie is intense, out of place, and gratuitous: (SPOILERS)a man being trampled to death gets a high heel right in the ear then writhes in pain, several folks get impaled after falling off a staircase, snakes jump into throats and eye sockets.(END) This film should have been a goofy romp and may have worked if it had been able to remain buoyant, but the gruesome violence clashes with the feel good moments and intentionally laughable dialogue. Tonally, this movie is a mess. Also, the CGI is pretty horrible and the snakes ridiculous. These effects would have been forgivable and even charming if the movie wasn't a mean-spirited gory spectacle.

Please skip this one.

Possibly. After half-heartedly blasting "Snakes on a Plane" on Friday afternoon, I went to see it on Friday night. Truly a bad experience and I like this kind of movie.

Curse you, Harry Knowles.

One of the reasons my blogging has been light and not as wholehearted in the past few weeks is because

A)after vacation, I fell out of my usual daily routine and it was hard to get back into the blogging groove, and
B)I put a good bit of my energy into hashing out the issues with some Christian folks on a semi-popular news blog.

As a Christian myself, I have been frustrated with much of the evangelical church's alignment with the Bush admin. Because of my Christian beliefs, I have found his time as President to be atrocious, but many in the church don't we agree with me. Distressingly, many Christians are stuck at the Hannity level "if you're not with us, you're for the terrorists" type rhetoric. This type of thinking is polarizing and values bluster and hyperbole passing as legitimate opinion over reasoned response.

Maybe I am being unfair, but I saw a fair bit of this rhetoric at the Christian blog which I do believe to be a good cross section of today's evangelical church. (There were some Bush critics in there as well confirming the idea that this is close to a genuine cross section.)

In recent days, I saw the Judge Taylor decision interpreted on frequent occasions as an affirmation that Democrats don't understand terror because they won't allow surveillance of terrorists. (We have seen this interpretation in much of the conservative media which goes to show they are either entirely ignorant of the issues at hand--I really doubt this--or are willfully misleading readers/viewers/listeners. I vote for the latter.)

Talking into this constant bluster is exhausting and displays how unwavering Bush's support is likely to remain among the 34 or so percent. (A rough and unscientific mean of the approval ratings of many recent polls.)

The only way he's going to drop below 30% is to assault a Girl Scout.

From the newest Tom Tomorrow cartoon concerning a "serious" understanding of our war in Iraq. You have to watch an ad to read the whole thing.

Nice to have a light shone on the pretensions of the elite war supporters. Wait, only liberals, Democrats, and anti-war folks are elite. Oh, yes. Excuse me. I forgot.

Mexico plans on taking back the American Southwest, according to Pat Buchanan.

Been hard to get into a blogging groove since my vacation ended. School starts for me on Monday. Expect to see more regular blogging in the coming week.

And I haven't even seen it yet. The title and concept were funny initially, but I've been hearing about this for a year. Yawn.

Go see "The Illusionist."

Or at least the Editors do in this thoroughly misleading editorial concerning the Taylor ruling from yesterday.

Spot the lie in this paragraph:

This reasoning is ludicrous. Americans have no reasonable expectation of privacy when seeking to communicate with persons outside the United States. U.S. privacy law consequently does not — cannot — apply. Moreover, virtually every intelligence agency in the world is pursuing al Qaeda operatives and intercepting their communications. In Judge Taylor’s perfect world, only the U.S. — the primary target of al Qaeda — would be forbidden to do so.

Did Taylor base her ruling on the belief that she doesn't want the US intercepting al Qaeda communications? Of course not.

This is ludicrous. It's a blatant lie and casts doubt on the integrity of this publication. Isn't this supposed to be the flagship publication of conservatism, the old guard?

UPDATE: The editors do mention FISA--which is really the heart of the ruling--a few paragraphs down, but they have already implied that Judge Taylor seeks to keep the US from listening in on al Qaeda conversations. This is a lie.

Late Summer often leaves us with movies that are high concept and low quality. (See "Snakes on a Plane.") Movies often get placed in the August doldrums because they are hard to market, as well. That must be the case for "The Illusionist" because it is a film of sterling quality. It had my audience gasping, laughing, clapping, and held us generally enthralled.

"The Illusionist" tells a story as old as the hills. Lower class boy falls in love with a young girl of royalty. Girl returns love. Boy and girl are separated. Boy leaves home, grows talented and swift-witted. Returns to win girl from evil Prince. Don't let this description discourage you. This movie takes this old tale and makes it fresh and gripping.

The young boy grows to be the illusionist Eisenheim (Edward Norton) and returns to his hometown of Vienna where he meets the Girl, Sophie (Jessica Biel) who is soon to marry the scheming Prince (Rufus Sewell). The illusionist, though, is not a boring do-gooder, but a troubled and intense craftsmen. You are never sure if his emotions and actions are genuine or are all part of a larger scheme. Chief Inspector Uhl (Paul Giamatti) is assigned by the Prince to keep track of the crafty Eisenheim.

"The Illusisionist" is filmed in sepia tones and uses much of the syntax of silent era films. It never becomes distracting, however. In fact, this movie is an excellent example of how to use special effects to benefit the story rather than as an end unto themselves. Eisenheim's illusions are a wonder to behold. The movie also includes one of our greatest character actors, Paul Giamatti. Go see if for no other reason than to enjoy his work.

This is the kind of movie that will have older audiences saying "They don't make 'em like that anymore." It's truly a throwback. The violence is negligible and more implied than explicit. The one sex scene is tame as well. It is an excellent, gripping story well told. That it is based on a short story should be no surprise given its storytelling economy. It is a succinct film with interesting twists that never stops moving. My parents are gonna live this one. (I really liked it, too.)

Yesterday's ruling concerning NSA wiretapping found that the president was violating the law by not sending wiretapping requests through FISA.

If this ruling stands--it's still got a long way to go before it's definitive--then the President will be in violation of the law. (Even if the Supreme Court doesn't endorse yesterday's ruling, it is exceedingly clear that Bush is violating the standing law.)

What will be the appropriate consequences?

Glenn Greenwald, of course, has an excellent rundown on the judge's ruling concerning the halting of the NSA wiretapping.

My wife and I have a pretty reliable car with an unreliable radio. On a recent long road trip, we began to memorize the capitals of many countries throughout the world. Pretty fun and it made me realize what a talent I have for memorization and recall.

Quick. What is the capital of the United Arab Emarites?

No cheating.

Is the president in need of a geography lesson?

Via Atrios.

A federal district court rules that the NSA wiretapping program is unconstitutional and orders it halted immediately.

Yes! This one will star Jason Schwartzman, Owen Wilson, and Adrien Brody.

Love Adrien Brody. Can't wait.

The magnificent character actor has died. He was a constant highlight of his films. One of the main reasons "City Slickers" is so endearing. Sad news.

And does a pretty fair job. Take a look.

...that Firefox is not updating Blogspot blogs automatically. If you use Firefox, you may not be getting the latest posts on this blog. Hitting "Refresh" a few times should fix this.

A little background on the George Allen, Virginia senate candidate, story.

And here is his response:

I’m concerned that my comments at Breaks Interstate Park on August 11th have been greatly misunderstood by members of the media.

In singling out the Webb campaign’s cameraman, I was trying to make the point that Jim Webb had never been to that part of Virginia – and I encouraged him to bring the tape back to Jim and welcome him to the real world of Virginia and America, outside the Beltway, where he has rarely visited. I also made up a nickname for the cameraman, which was in no way intended to be racially derogatory. Any insinuations to the contrary are completely false.

Yesterday, I apologized to anyone who may have offended by the misinterpretation of my remarks. That was certainly not my intent. On every stop on my Listening Tour – I have talked about one of my missions for this country – to make it a land of opportunity for all. I have worked very hard in the Senate to reach out to all Americans - regardless of their race, religion, ethnicity or gender. And I look forward to continuing to advocate this important mission for America’s future.

I never want to embarrass or demean anyone and I apologize if my comments offended this young man. Even though he has signed onto my opponent’s campaign, I look forward to seeing him on the trail ahead.

"I apologize to anyone who may have been offended." "I apologize if he was offended." This is not an apology for the remarks. He is merely saying that all have misinterpreted his statements.

Of course he was offended. The remarks were offensive.

His apology is akin to punching someone in the arm and saying "I'm sorry if that hurt you."

One of my friends is always wondering why we never heard any resolution to the anthrax letter story that occurred shortly after 9-11. I don't think it was a government plot as some would suggest. It is strange that the story just disappeared, however.Daily Kos brings it back to the forefront.

What ever did become of the case? Who was sending the letters? Did the FBI care or ever find out?

Some folks I know who worked for the public library found white powder in a book about this time. A biohazard team quickly descended on the library, took the staff up on the roof, made them strip down and thoroughly hosed them down. Yes, just like that biohazard scene in "Monsters Inc."

Ken Mehlman, head of the RNC, gets taken behind the woodshed.

Some outstanding criticism of the Bush policy of Middle East destabilization from the conservative Mack Daddy himself, George Will:

The London plot against civil aviation confirmed a theme of an illuminating new book, Lawrence Wright's "The Looming Tower: Al-Qaeda and the Road to 9/11." The theme is that better law enforcement, which probably could have prevented Sept. 11, is central to combating terrorism. F-16s are not useful tools against terrorism that issues from places such as Hamburg (where Mohamed Atta lived before dying in the North Tower of the World Trade Center) and High Wycombe, England.

Cooperation between Pakistani and British law enforcement (the British draw upon useful experience combating IRA terrorism) has validated John Kerry's belief (as paraphrased by the New York Times Magazine of Oct. 10, 2004) that "many of the interdiction tactics that cripple drug lords, including governments working jointly to share intelligence, patrol borders and force banks to identify suspicious customers, can also be some of the most useful tools in the war on terror." In a candidates' debate in South Carolina (Jan. 29, 2004), Kerry said that although the war on terror will be "occasionally military," it is "primarily an intelligence and law enforcement operation that requires cooperation around the world."

Immediately after the London plot was disrupted, a "senior administration official," insisting on anonymity for his or her splenetic words, denied the obvious, that Kerry had a point. The official told The Weekly Standard:

"The idea that the jihadists would all be peaceful, warm, lovable, God-fearing people if it weren't for U.S. policies strikes me as not a valid idea. [Democrats] do not have the understanding or the commitment to take on these forces. It's like John Kerry. The law enforcement approach doesn't work."

This farrago of caricature and non sequitur makes the administration seem eager to repel all but the delusional. But perhaps such rhetoric reflects the intellectual contortions required to sustain the illusion that the war in Iraq is central to the war on terrorism, and that the war, unlike "the law enforcement approach," does "work."

The official is correct that it is wrong "to think that somehow we are responsible -- that the actions of the jihadists are justified by U.S. policies." But few outside the fog of paranoia that is the blogosphere think like that. It is more dismaying that someone at the center of government considers it clever to talk like that. It is the language of foreign policy -- and domestic politics -- unrealism.

Foreign policy "realists" considered Middle East stability the goal. The realists' critics, who regard realism as reprehensibly unambitious, considered stability the problem. That problem has been solved.

Via Atrios.

Given the recent blow-up over Mel Gibson, I wondered what Disney would do with this big budget subtitled action film directed by Mel Gibson. According to IMDB, they're going forward with the distribution.

I guess with all the money they sunk in it, they had no choice. Be sure that ad campaigns that once highlighted Gibson's involvement will be radically altered.

Racist? Jerk? Both?

Watch this video that could very well sink his Senate campaign. Be sure to read the accompanying article to fully understand what the hubbub is about. We'll see if this story gets any traction.

UPDATE: It appears that the word used by Allen is a common racial slur. This guy has presidential aspirations. Whoops!

Saw a colorized print of "Plan 9 from Outer Space" last night at Saint Louis's fantastic Tivoli Theater. A must see, though a black and white version is preferable to really experience the director's original vision.

Some new things I noticed upon seeing this film for the second time: the evil alien in the movie is named Eros and he is played by the actor Dudley Manlove. The person in charge of wardrobe on the movie was named Dick Chaney.

Very funny, very silly, and much more of a cohesive film than "Anchorman." Gary Cole, Jane Lynch, Michael Clarke Duncan, Amy Adams, John C. Reilly, Sacha Baron Cohen, Andy Dick, Molly Shannon, and David Koechner all deliver hilarious performances. The above line-up alone, including Will Ferrell, of course, make this a movie worth seeing.

Molly Shannon may deliver my favorite performance of the movie. It's good to see her again. Wish Cheri Oteri had popped up somewhere in the movie.

Surprisingly, this movie climaxes with a romantic moment that was quite subversive for a mainstream comedy, particularly one about NASCAR. The director has been preparing the audience for Ricky Bobby's "conquest" the entire film in the way the two characters are placed at opposite ends of the screen. This is used by directors to create romantic tension. As a viewer, either consciously or subconsciously, you want the characters to close the gap between one another. Director McKay uses the syntax of romantic film in an offbeat, but hilarious way.

There is an actual commercial break in the film that, while meant to be funny, was pretty egregious and did promote a real product. Was not amused.

I watched some of this interview this weekend. Truly astounding. If you have the Secretary of State sitting before you and you wear the mantle journalist, don't you think it's your responsibility to your nation to ask at least one critical question? Truly embarrassing.

Excerpts courtesy Glenn Greenwald:

HANNITY: Our war, the president said yesterday, is with Islamic fascists. Some people took issue with the use of that word today, but that's really what it is, isn't it? Isn't it? Is that the right terminology?

and like this . . .

HANNITY: A lot of people have been using the analogy of the rise of Nazism, and the world fell asleep. There were a few people that tried to wake the world up, Winston Churchill the obvious example.

RICE: Yes.

HANNITY: There were other people that thought that they could negotiate with Hitler their time and have peace in their time. Do you see that analogy? Is that applicable in this particular case?

and . . .

HANNITY: If we assume that Ahmadinejad and his incendiary rhetoric continues, if his pursuit of nuclear weapons continues, must America and the world consider military force to stop him and stop Iran from becoming a nuclear power? I mean, assuming that somebody who says they want to wipe Israel off the map is not somebody you can negotiate with or that wants to go along with the world community, at some point a military option has got to be considered, no?

Tool.

This Wall Street Journal editorial was heralded by much of the right wing blogosphere yesterday. It intimated that thanks to Bush's illegal wiretapping the liquid bombers to be were toppled.

The piece contained a completely this false and mystifying statement as highlighted by Glenn Greenwald:

Additionally, The Wall St. Journal is simply incoherent when it says that "Other Democrats are still saying they will censure, or even impeach, Mr. Bush over the FISA program if they win control of Congress." This claim just makes no sense. Nobody opposes "the FISA program." Bush critics want aggressive eavesdropping within the "FISA program." The censure of the President has been proposed because of the President's eavesdropping outside of the FISA program -- i.e., outside of the law. Does The Wall St. Journal Editorial Board really not understand that most basic point? Why are they falsely telling their readers that Democrats oppose "the FISA program" -- as though Democrats oppose eavesdropping itself?

They must be deliberately misleading their readers. Embarrassing.

Via TPM:

NBC News has learned that U.S. and British authorities had a significant disagreement over when to move in on the suspects in the alleged plot to bring down trans-Atlantic airliners bound for the United States.

A senior British official knowledgeable about the case said British police were planning to continue to run surveillance for at least another week to try to obtain more evidence, while American officials pressured them to arrest the suspects sooner. The official spoke on condition of anonymity due to the sensitivity of the case.

In contrast to previous reports, the official suggested an attack was not imminent, saying the suspects had not yet purchased any airline tickets. In fact, some did not even have passports.

From ABC News:

While the British terror suspects were hatching their plot, the Bush administration was quietly seeking permission to divert $6 million that was supposed to be spent this year developing new homeland explosives detection technology.

Congressional leaders rejected the idea, the latest in a series of steps by the Homeland Security Department that has left lawmakers and some of the department's own experts questioning the commitment to create better anti-terror technologies.

Homeland Security's research arm, called the Sciences & Technology Directorate, is a "rudderless ship without a clear way to get back on course," Republican and Democratic senators on the Appropriations Committee declared recently.

"The committee is extremely disappointed with the manner in which S&T is being managed within the Department of Homeland Security," the panel wrote June 29 in a bipartisan report accompanying the agency's 2007 budget.

Not really, despite loud claims to the contrary.

From The New Republic:

Marty [Peretz] speculated yesterday that the culprits of the foiled British terrorist plot were placed under surveillance. Today's fascinating Washington Post account of how a British-led tem of investigators prevented the attack confirms his suspicion. However, it's worth pointing out one key difference between the British way and the new American way of surveillance: Barring some unforeseen and massively scandalous revelation, British investigators, in all cases, have to obtain and comply with court-issued warrants for any surveillance. This week's counter-terrorism success should demonstrate how possible it is, and remains, for open-society to combat jihadism while preserving the rule of law.

In fact, let's take that a step further. According to a U.S. intelligence official cited by the Post, some of the British terrorists placed phone calls to individuals within the United States. Whoever they called should very obviously be placed under surveillance. The FISA court would undoubtedly agree, despite Bush's protests that successful counter-terrorism surveillance has to occur outside the restrictions of FISA. In short: counter-terrorism success, vigilance, the rule of law, and you--perfect together.

Via Atrios.

A vote for Ned Lamont was not/is not a vote for al Qaeda. This is ridiculous and doesn't even make sense. Please don't buy into this horrible smear.

Here's Cal Thomas with his hacktastic take on Lamont:

The narrow primary defeat of veteran Sen. Joe Lieberman in Connecticut's Democratic primary is more than a loss for one man. It is a loss for his party and for the country. It completes the capture of the Democratic Party by its Taliban wing.

They used to be "San Francisco Democrats," a phrase coined by former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Jeane Kirkpatrick to describe the party's 1984 convention. But they have now morphed into Taliban Democrats because they are willing to "kill" one of their own, if he does not conform to the narrow and rigid agenda of the party's kook fringe.

Mr. Lieberman's one "sin," in the eyes of the Taliban Democrats, was that he supported the effort to defeat the insurgent-terrorists in Iraq. As a Jew, Mr. Lieberman is particularly sensitive to those who have targeted the Jewish people for extinction. But even if he weren't Jewish, he would still "get it," because he understands what's at stake in the region and has correctly concluded that the consequences of American failure in Iraq would be catastrophic. [...]

Taliban Democrats have effectively issued a political "fatwa" that warns all Democrats not to deviate from their narrow line, or else face the end of their careers through a political jihad. Perhaps the few remaining rational Democrats should put on their burkas now and submit to the will of the party mullahs.

Tool.

Via Daily Kos:

Today on CNN Headline News, anchor Chuck Roberts discussed the impact of the foiled British terror plot with Hotline senior editor John Mercurio. Roberts asked Mercurio, "How does this factor into the Lieberman/Lamont contest? And might some argue, as some have already argued, that Lamont is the al Qaeda candidate?"

I was surprised by the intimacy of this film about the September 11th terrorist attacks. It takes a tragedy that was shook the world and chooses to focus on just a few characters. There are a few scenes that place the event in the larger global context, but most of the disaster is viewed from limited, first person viewpoints. This heightens the viewer's fear and anxiety and makes for an effective experience.

The movie follows two port authority cops as they try to evacuate the World Trade Center. John McLoughlin (Nicolas Cage) is the veteran cop who has became an authority on the WTC after the '93 attack and helped create evacuation strategies. (This situation, however, catches him off guard. No one anticipated a disaster originating on the upper levels of the towers.) William Jimeno (Michael Pena) is the rookie cop who volunteers to jump into the fray when many of his fellow cops hesitate.

The movie also tells the story of the cops' wives who anxiously wait for word on their husbands. The consistently excellent Maggie Gyllenhaal does an excellent job as the pregnant wife of rookie Jimeno. If the Fall doesn't produce many best actress contenders, Gyllenhaal could net a nomination. Mario Bello also turns in a fine performance as Mrs. McLoughlin struggling to keep her family calm and trying not to believe the worst.

The movie, though, is not the triumph as I was hoping. Our two main characters spend much of the movie inert and these scenes, unfortunately, become a little tedious. Maybe it's because I knew of the ultimate outcome of the story--it's based on actual accounts--that these moments became tiresome for me. After the harrowing arrival at the disaster site and the horrifying, but amazingly filmed destruction of the towers, the cops' experience slowly becomes less compelling.

Much has been made about the fact that Oliver Stone has made a largely apolitical film. But pay attention to the character of Marine Dave Karnes. This guy's a wild card and seems, at points, to be clashing with the film's ultimately uplifting message.

Or some such phrase is being used Sean Hannity, via David Horowitz, to describe the terrorism of the Middle East. It's a term that's even more ridiculous than Islamo-fascism. I understand that by using it he's implying Bush and Blair are Churchill, bin Laden and pals are Hitler, and John Kerry, Ned Lamont are Neville Chamberlain. But the terrorists are not Nazis. Period.

Microsoft PowerPoint.

The new book "Fiasco" by Thomas E. Ricks takes a look at the many poor decisions leading to the current debacle in Iraq. Apparently Rumsfeld was bad at issuing orders on what exactly he wanted in Iraq, but he did offer helpful slides like this:



Why does this man still have a job?

Via Wasinghton Monthly.

Awesome. The Daily Show's new Middle East correspondent in a few minutes says quietly and concisely what countless bloggers have been screaming for years.

The money I have generated since putting up ads a few weeks ago. Those who say blogs aren't a money making opportunity are mistaken.

John Gibson of Fox News on the implications of the Lamont victory in Connecticut:

"Hang on, Dems. Here come the Pol Pots of your party. And if you were for national security, you are now emphatically not. Or else. Remember the mountain of skulls in Cambodia? It's the Democrats new reality now that the anti-war rabble has tasted blood by taking Lieberman down," - John Gibson, Fox News.

Ridiculous and dangerous. He said this on the air. Via TPM.

I'm not sure how anyone can still defend Fox's integrity with a straight face.

Many reviews of this movie have used the word "adult" to describe it. I think boring is more apt. I was surprised at how stiff the film is. The reliable Colin Farrell, playing Sonny Crockett, is given little to do other than to look serious and sport a blonde mullet. He fails to engage the audience. We don't like him, hate him, or even care about him.

We get several long scenes of his romance--they comprise about a third of the movie--with bad girl Gong Li, playing business savvy drug trader Isabella. Their love scenes are numerous, intense, and graphic without displaying the naughty bits. These repeated forays into intimacy are meant to sub for character development. By seeing Crockett at his most exposed and unguarded moments, we are supposed to finally know and understand the character. It does not work.

Jaime Foxx, playing Ricardo Tubbs, teams up with Farrell to go undercover and take down a drug kingpin. Foxx, vibrant and interesting in Mann's "Collateral," is practically a nonentity. He is given little screen time and the only scene that gives us any intimate details of his life is, not suprisingly, a sex scene.

Because this is a Mann film, it is technically accomplished. This movie is sharp, a masterful mood piece, and the best use of digital cinematography ever on the big screen. The action scenes are intense and incredibly violent. There are several moments where large rifle rounds rip holes in bad guys that elicited cheers from my audience.

The intense sex scenes and unflinching violence have fooled many critics into labeling this film sophisticated. The adjectives I would pick would be the following: long, humorless, cold, empty.

Here's a fun video of a performance of the first level of "Super Mario Brothers" at a college talent show. Must be seen to be believed.

According to the NY Times editorial page, Missouri's new voter ID law is a de facto poll tax because it requires voters to pay fees to obtain necessary ID.

It was apparent that this law would have the effect of keeping many poor from voting. If the editorial is correct, the law may never come in to effect.

Thanks to the wife for sending me the piece.

Well too bad. You're getting several of them today.

Terry Bowden, former Auburn coach and darling of the SEC--how quickly he fell--puts Auburn at #6 in his Yahoo Sports preseason poll.

In other news, Auburn has cleared itself of any wrongdoing in the case of the players who were given automatic "A"s by a generous sociology professor. It sounds like the investigation by the school may be legitimate, but it reminds me of when the Pentagon or White House investigate themselves and find themselves not guilty.

I report:

Congresswoman Maxine Waters had parachuted into Connecticut earlier in the week to campaign against [Sen. Joseph I.] Lieberman because he once expressed reservations about affirmative action, without which she would not have a job that didn't involve wearing a paper hat.

You decide.

Via Tom Tomorrow.

Truly creepy. Very violent. Very scary. Excellent low budget thriller. The bad guys did look a little too much like orcs, though. The bigger frights in the movie came from the fear of being trapped beneath the earth--the movie's about a spelunking trip gone horribly wrong--and the degree to which that fear strips away our better natures and judgment.

I worked at a voting station yesterday for the Saint Louis Board of Elections . Things did not go very smoothly and I had two very difficult co-workers stand nearby me and say out loud that I was "a short fuse," "not necessary," and "not very warm." Ack.

I did drive eight hours the previous day and didn't get much sleep the night before, so I may have been less than gregarious, but my work was professional, thorough, and decidedly not rude. Plus, I was there about fifteen hours and didn't take a lunch break. All this considered, my work was exemplary. Anyway, be forewarned that working at the polls often means working with difficult people.

Civic duty can be painful.

Auburn University's pre-season rank according to the USA Today pre-season poll. Excellent.

Very old news, I know, but just wanted to let readers know this will be a major topic of posting in the months to come. First Auburn game is on Sept. 2 against Washington State.

Amazingly, Oklahoma--despite losing their QB last week due to NCAA rule violations--is ranked #5 in the nation. The poll was printed after this loss, but I guess the coaches may have voted prior to the announcement. Don't be surprised if they drift out of the polls after a few weeks.

I'm back from North Carolina. The Great Smoky Mountains were beautiful. Found out my '94 Honda Accord doesn't do well up a steep, unpaved mountain road. The ride down was intimidating, but we got back in one piece. Expect more content shortly.

From Powerline:

Yesterday John posted a link to video clip of Democratic Rep. John Dingell on YouTube and posted the audio of the clip here. John accurately quoted Dingell as follows:

"I don't take sides for or against Hezbollah; I don't take sides for or against Israel." Asked, "You're not against Hezbollah?" Dingell answers, "No..."

Accurately quoted? Huh?

Let's say I make the following statement: "I hate milk...when it's sour."

Then you state, "R James says, 'I hate milk..."

You would be practcing deception.

I will be taking a vacation for a few days. Going to North Carolina's mountains where it's nice and cool. Expect me back about Tuesday of next week. There may be a post here and there so check back in if you like.

This is starting to look really bad for them.

Powerline, one of the most widely read conservative blogs, egregiously misquoted Rep. John Dingell. They selectively edited an audio clip--or were supplied with a clip--that made it sound as if Dingell did not condemn Hezbollah. Did they knowingly defame Dingell?

The fact that this is the blog that pushed the Rathergate story makes this pretty ironic.

(Rep. Dingell, not to be confused with "Shirt Tales" nemesis/friend Mr. Dinkle.)