Solipsistic

See here.

One of the many changing reasons offered by the White House for the firing of the eight attorneys is that they failed to properly pursue cases of voter fraud.

Here's the skinny on voter fraud claims and how they are used to disenfranchise the elderly and minorities.

...curtailing suffrage.

A dangerous game has been played by the DOJ and its one that seeks to undermine our fundamental right to select our leaders.

Former Justice Department lawyer tells all in the Los Angeles Times:

I spent more than 35 years in the department enforcing federal civil rights laws — particularly voting rights. Before leaving in 2005, I worked for attorneys general with dramatically different political philosophies — from John Mitchell to Ed Meese to Janet Reno. Regardless of the administration, the political appointees had respect for the experience and judgment of longtime civil servants.

Under the Bush administration, however, all that changed. Over the last six years, this Justice Department has ignored the advice of its staff and skewed aspects of law enforcement in ways that clearly were intended to influence the outcome of elections.

It has notably shirked its legal responsibility to protect voting rights. From 2001 to 2006, no voting discrimination cases were brought on behalf of African American or Native American voters. U.S. attorneys were told instead to give priority to voter fraud cases, which, when coupled with the strong support for voter ID laws, indicated an intent to depress voter turnout in minority and poor communities.

Via TPM.

My wireless connectivity was acting really goofy for about the last twenty-four hours and it was beyond my ability to fix it.

Or so I thought.

Turns out I needed to have TCP/IP filtering enabled. Who knew?

I only discovered it after a few hours of troubleshooting. Very frustrating.

Under the Presidential Records Act (PRA), the White House has to keep its communications on record in order to be reviewed at a later date by others. Its part of the whole accountability thing the White House seems determined to bypass.

Here's how they're trying to bypass the PRA.

Here it is in black and white.

His time's running out.

Unintentional hilarity from vintage comics.

Via the AV Club.

But we already knew this was true.

And further evidence as to why the US Attorney purge is a big deal.

Emblematic.

Don't think the case is a big deal? Here's a helpful rundown of why this situation merits further investigation and why sworn testimony from key players is a necessity.

You simply won't believe this.

AG AG is doing what he's told. Lying to the American people via Congress is a means to an end and not a big deal if you're serving the unitary executive.

Bill Maher. (Some strong language so don't watch it at work.)

While driving from Saint Louis to Dallas yesterday--which takes us through the center of Missouri, past Branson, and through Oklahoma--I saw at least three billboards for dentures.

Yes, we were driving through the fabeled "Denture Belt."

Here.

The coming storm and the defunct view of executive power held by the White House.

In 1998.

About President Clinton.

Via Glenn Greenwald:

Tony Snow - Op-Ed - St. Louis Post-Dispatch, March 29, 1998 :

(HEADLINE: "Executive Privilege is a Dodge")

Evidently, Mr. Clinton wants to shield virtually any communications that take place within the White House compound on the theory that all such talk contributes in some way, shape or form to the continuing success and harmony of an administration. Taken to its logical extreme, that position would make it impossible for citizens to hold a chief executive accountable for anything. He would have a constitutional right to cover up.

Chances are that the courts will hurl such a claim out, but it will take time.

One gets the impression that Team Clinton values its survival more than most people want justice and thus will delay without qualm. But as the clock ticks, the public's faith in Mr. Clinton will ebb away for a simple reason: Most of us want no part of a president who is cynical enough to use the majesty of his office to evade the one thing he is sworn to uphold -- the rule of law.

Simply, the President is not above the law.

The White House shows frequent contempt for Congress and the media, the means for the American people to keep them honest and accountable. This snippet from a story in the Kansas City Star reveals Rove's feelings on the issue:

Besides his considerable security contingent, the chief executive was accompanied by Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove and Press Secretary Tony Snow.

A reporter approached Rove to ask him what he thought of rumors that former Missouri Sen. Jack Danforth could replace embattled Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. “How about you go over there and do your job,” Rove replied, pointed back to the media pool.

Apparently, we all serve "at the pleasure of the President."

Did he fool you?

"We will not go along with a partisan fishing expedition aimed at honorable public servants. The initial response by Democrats unfortunately shows some appear more interested in scoring political points than in learning the facts. It will be regrettable if they choose to head down the partisan road of issuing subpoenas and demanding show trials. And I have agreed to make key White House officials and documents available. I proposed a reasonable way to avoid an impasse, and I hope they don’t choose confrontation. I will oppose any attempts to subpoena White House officials.”

Bush is saying he wants to get all the facts out on the table, but the Democrats don't want that to happen. And yet...

The only way to speak to the White House officials, according to the President's demands, is not under oath--no legal pressure to speak the truth--and in private where stonewalling and choosing to avoid questions will be easy and less consequential.

The President states that he is protecting the right of officials to speak privately and candidly. If these officials are compelled to speak, it will hurt the ability of officials in the future to provide private advice. This is, of course, misdirection. If some official speaks to the President in private and gives candid advice to pursue an illegal action, this should be protected. If the President acts on this illegal advice, which appears may be the case in the firing of the US Attorneys, then both the President and the official are accountable and should have to answer to the American people.

The importance of a public questioning--and the heart of this issue--is the question of presidential power and accountability. Our President says the attorneys serve at his "pleasure," but the President serves at "the pleasure" of the people and if it appears that an illegal action has taken place, we deserve a public accounting. Forget the issue of Democrat or Republican. The President is not a monarch. He is accountable to us and Congress provides the means for us to make this so.

It's that simple.

While the White House tries to avoid accountability and play a game of political chicken, this column from fired US Attorney David Iglesias reminds us why this situation is a big deal and goes far beyond petty political wrangling by the Democrats:

United States attorneys have a long history of being insulated from politics. Although we receive our appointments through the political process (I am a Republican who was recommended by Senator Pete Domenici), we are expected to be apolitical once we are in office. I will never forget John Ashcroft, then the attorney general, telling me during the summer of 2001 that politics should play no role during my tenure. I took that message to heart. Little did I know that I could be fired for not being political.

Politics entered my life with two phone calls that I received last fall, just before the November election. One came from Representative Heather Wilson and the other from Senator Domenici, both Republicans from my state, New Mexico.

Ms. Wilson asked me about sealed indictments pertaining to a politically charged corruption case widely reported in the news media involving local Democrats. Her question instantly put me on guard. Prosecutors may not legally talk about indictments, so I was evasive. Shortly after speaking to Ms. Wilson, I received a call from Senator Domenici at my home. The senator wanted to know whether I was going to file corruption charges — the cases Ms. Wilson had been asking about — before November. When I told him that I didn’t think so, he said, “I am very sorry to hear that,” and the line went dead.

A few weeks after those phone calls, my name was added to a list of United States attorneys who would be asked to resign — even though I had excellent office evaluations, the biggest political corruption prosecutions in New Mexico history, a record number of overall prosecutions and a 95 percent conviction rate. (In one of the documents released this week, I was deemed a “diverse up and comer” in 2004. Two years later I was asked to resign with no reasons given.)

From Mark Harris, columnist for Entertainment Weekly:

Remember Olestra? You know, the magical fat alternative that was supposed to enhance the greasy mouthfeel of our favorite junk foods and then zip right through us, leaving no trace of anything that would trouble our waistlines or arteries? The stuff that sounded good until all those stories about ''anal leakage'' came out? I just saw 300, Zack Snyder's blood-and-body-oil blockbuster about the battle of Thermopylae, and I think I had an Olestra experience. Not only did the movie immediately exit my mind after I saw it, it practically slid away while I was still watching. I think the reason — other than its belligerent stupidity — was Snyder's decision to use CGI for just about every element of 300 except the actors (for whom it might have done the most good). Oatmeal-colored CGI skies that don't look skylike; CGI hills that don't appear hard to climb; CGI blood that spurts in unconvincing geysers; a dinky CGI thunderstorm that looks like a tempest in an iMac. Nothing in 300 has weight, dimension, or density; every overstylized, joysticky frame has been sprayed with a coat of I Can't Believe It's Not Movie. Warning: May cause brainal leakage.

Computer technology is not the enemy of art, or of great filmmaking, as anyone who has seen The Lord of the Rings (or even Letters From Iwo Jima) can attest. But CGI is no friend to a director who imagines it will help him achieve a kind of visual perfection that would otherwise be thwarted by the annoying humanness and/or variability of stuff like production designers, extras, weather, changes in the light, physical landscape, and the spur-of-the-moment inspiration that can bring a film to messy, exciting life. It may sound silly to fault a movie like 300 for ''perfectionism,'' considering that the goal on its petite mind is nothing loftier than to reach into the psyches of its fanboy fan base and offer their militaristic and sexual anxieties a well-lubricated man-fondling. And even if 300 had been made the old-fashioned low-tech way, it would have been just as gory and dim-witted. But at least it wouldn't have been sterile, a sad fate for a movie built on testosterone...

The piece is interesting and it talks about the danger of micro-managing films. Don't agree with him about Zodiac, but it's still an interesting piece.

At National Review Online.

For the folks back home: according to IMDB, Thompson hails from the Quad Cities. More specifically, Sheffield, Alabama.

Further erosion of civil liberties.

Attorney firings may be.

According to a new poll from someone, Americans don't support keeping the troops in Iraq.

I guess that means the war was actually a bad idea if the polls say so.

What's this movie about? Who the hell knows. Various critics have accused director Zack Snyder of producing a fascist tract or a glorification of the destructive policies of the Bush administration, but I think more than anything its a paean to CGI. The film is a tedious two hours and feels like a demonstration piece to help move home entertainment centers at Best Buy. It's devoid of emotion or drama and hopes to win audiences over solely through the steady bombardment of hyper-stylized bloodletting.

The film fails fundamentally by not creating a world we believe in. Snyder has tried to bring painterly comic book presentation to screen, a la Sin City, and in this he succeeds. This movie world looks crisp, sharp, and perfectly composed. And lifeless. The hordes of CGI soldiers, meant to evoke fear in their might and number, don't emerge as real but merely as computer-generated hordes. The world looks artificial as do many of the soldiers. There's nothing at stake because we don't believe in the film's reality.

As in last Spring's big budget comic adaptation V for Vendetta, the heroes of this tale, the 300 brave Spartans, are nearly invincible. These guys are mighty and as a whole nearly untouchable, and don't display any vulnerability until the script needs them to. There's no oomph to the battles because the 300 are so supernaturally mighty. They crush everyone in balletic slo-mo. Yawn. The story's brief moments of political turmoil away from the battlefield are predictable and seem culled from a different film.

If the film is guilty of any sin, it would be in trying to sell warfare as awesome and the enemy as relatively faceless and soulless. Hopefully the movie's presentation is so fantastic and ridiculous as to not sell anyone on the cruel, bloodthirsty code of the Spartans.

300 is a bore and tedious. In IMAX, as I saw it, it's flaws were glaringly apparent.

Rep. Rahm Emanuel (D-IL) is a wet blanket.

According to the National Association of Record Merchandisers and the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, here are the Definitive 200.

According to the AV Club and Idolator, not so much.

The list includes Grand Funk Railroad and omits the Velvet Underground so its automatically de-Grand-funct.

See what I did there?

Also on the list instead of Lou Reed and Co.: the Dirty Dancing soundtrack, Kenny G, Matchbox 20, Creed(!), and the Eagles Hell Freezes Over--which contains the excruciating track "Love Will Keep Us Alive."

An official statement from Rock Hall President and CEO Joel Pereseman: "The Definitive 200 honors a very diverse group of releases, and encourages fans to look to their own record collections and see what they are missing..."

Well, I wouldn't say I'm exactly missing Creed, Joel.

Funny new Strong Bad email.

According to Nathan Rabin at the Onion AV Club:

[Chevy] Chase’s career is riddled with “What ifs”. What if he’d accepted the lead roles in American Gigolo, Forrest Gump, American Beauty and National Lampoon’s Animal House, all parts he was reportedly offered but turned down, according to notstarring.com, a website devoted to documenting all the roles actors turned down or were rejected for...

Imagining Chase in any of those roles, except as Otter in Animal House, is difficult. American Beauty starring Chevy Chase?

Forget all of your expectations of what a horror should be and prepare to be amazed by the latest high profile Korean import The Host. When viewing an American horror film, whether it be the monster-on-the-loose or slasher variety, you generally know what to expect. Surprises are hard to come by and we are usually treated to tired retreads of the same formula, scenes, and dialogue. By now Halloween and Alien feel like the old standards and most new horror entries seem like karaoke night at the Holiday Inn.

Telling the story of a gigantic hungry amphibious creature that wreaks havoc along the riverbanks of Seoul's Han River, The Host is a true original. Director Joon-ho Bong's film is likely to make some viewers uncomfortable because he keeps dashing expectations and taking his story in unexpected directions. The director generates tension by taking the monster movie and throwing the rules out the window. He keeps you on your toes. The Host is primarily the story of a father searching for his daughter who may or not have been killed by the monster. His family aids in the search and along the way they laugh, grieve, and deal with old wounds. It's sort of like Little Miss Sunshine meets Alien.

The film is subtitled which is likely to limit its success in American markets, but those willing to do a minimal amount of reading will be rewarded. You will want to see the film for its odd, invigorating moments such as a scene where the family grieves for the little girl they love and assume killed by the monster. Their grieving reaches such a fevered, ridiculous pitch that the scene, which we assumed sad, becomes insanely comic. The Host is full of these moments that manage to be sad, scary, and comic all at once. That Joon-ho Bong can sustain this wild tone without becoming ludicrous is quite a feat.

Like the original Godzilla, The Host is partially a cautionary tale about the dangers of environmental recklessness. I won't give away the monster's origins, but they are hilarious. In the creation of the monster, the special effects staff makes a pretty good use of a limited budget. By the film's climax, when the monster faces off against the determined, battle-hardened family members, we accept the reality of the creature.

Go see this one. It's fun, odd, and invigorating. And it's closing moments, perfect and touching, make the entire journey worth it.

Place the state according to shape on a blank map of the United States.

Tricky in the early going.

Fun quiz from Newsweek.

I got 87%. Missed a few easy ones and came up short on the question about Catholic sacraments.

The new David Fincher (Seven) film is as good as you have heard. Based on the book by Robert Graysmith, Zodiac is the true story of several San Franciso residents who become obsessed with discovering the identity of the serial killer calling himself "Zodiac." Robert Graysmith--played in the film by Jake Gyllenhaal in a subdued, fascinating performance--is an editorial cartoonist for the San Francisco Chronicle who gets caught up in the hunt after the killer sends a coded letter to his employer.

SOME SPOILERS

Also on the hunt are crime reporter Paul Avery--a mesmerizing performance by Robert Downey Jr.--and homicide detectives Toschi (Mark Ruffalo) and Armstrong (Anthony Edwards). Toschi, Avery, and Graysmith each become obsessed with finding Zodiac and this obsession slowly begins to take over their lives and destroy them. Graysmith, while preparing a book about the killer, slips into paranoia. Audiences accustomed to the rhythms of the serial killer film will first accept and applaud Graysmith's paranoia. We know that with just a little more hunting, the vigilant reporter will crack the case. If he can just discover that one clue. We don't quickly realize that Graysmith's obsession and vigilance are unhealthy.

Fincher continually subverts our expectations of the genre. Though like a police procedural--a story about the detective work that leads to capture of the villain--Zodiac is the anti-procedural, the anti-Law and Order. While Law and Order makes us feel safe and shows us a neat and tidy justice system that successfully weeds the guilty from the innocent, Zodiac is about the limits of justice, forensic work, questioning, and detection. Sometimes the justice system comes up short. Sometimes we can't detect and ascertain the guilty. And it is this uncertainty that wears on the hunters at the center of Zodiac.

The film is deliberate and methodical and is going to disappoint those looking for another exploitative entry in the slasher genre. There are several moments of horrific violence in the film that are among the most haunting ever filmed, but this is not a film that gets its jollies from carnage. Instead it shows it an unflinching, efficient, and brutal fashion. These moments, while horrifying, help us understand the fear of the people of San Francisco and the obsession of those who want to locate the killer.

Unsettling, expertly crafted, and full of outstanding performances, Zodiac is a drama that respects the intelligence of audiences. It asks us to pay attention, frees itself from genre conventions, and takes its time to tell its tale. Certain to alienate viewers who want a quick bloody thrill, Zodiac is nonetheless the year's first great film.

This principle from Ezra Klein at the American Prospect comes to mind when considering the US attorney scandal:

Bush's Razor: Given a possible universe of explanations for a particular [Bush] administration action, the most morally pessimistic and politically cynical will inevitably be proven correct.

This new FX series premiered last night to the mixed feelings of this viewer. The cast is certainly talented. I look forward to watching the talented cast Minnie Driver, Eddie Izzard, and Gregg Henry (Mitchum Huntzberger on The Gilmore Girls) every week, but the first episode had major tone problems. Or maybe I was just confused by the FX promos which made The Riches look to be a feel good rags to riches tale. Given this expectation, I was surprised by the scene that shows the aftermath of a car crash featuring a man impaled by a branch.

Rather than a straightforward comedy, The Riches is about a family of American con artists--husband and wife played by Izzard and Driver--on the run from the tight knit, dangerous gypsy community which they used to belong to and just swindled. They wind up hiding out in a luxury housing development in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, and pretending to be its occupants who they helped inadvertently kill in the afforementioned car crash. The show hints that this community might hide its own unique secrets and it sure better if they're gonna stretch this premise past a few episodes.

The Riches is an interesting hybrid of comedy and drama, but at times Izzard's con man husband and Driver's ex-con, drug addicted wife seem to be part of different shows. There are a few moments--the branch impaling, for example--that don't feel organic to the story and seem more of an instance of "Look, we're pushing the envelope. Isn't FX edgy?"

The show, though, has me intrigued with its tale of American gypsies and, acccording to this show, their odd supserstitions such as if you don't sleep outdoors at night, you'll lose your soul come morning. So of course, the posh and pampered lifestyle will cause numerous clashes with the family's earthy ideology.

Who knows where this show is going, but for the moment, I'm intrigued.

(It occurs to me that it actually may be considered improper to use the term gypsy in this day and age. If this is true, please let me know.)

In January 2006, Congress voted to re-authorize the Patriot Act despite details of abuse of the act uncovered by the Wasington Post. To counteract the claims of the Post and to win support for re-authorization, the Department of Justice sent letters to senators and held private briefings assuring them that the Post was wrong.

Now the Department of Justice is officially retracting these statements in light of the news that the FBI has been improperly using National Security Letters, one of the very abuses the Post warned about and the DOJ insisted wasn't happening.

As I understand it, that's the story in its simplest terms.

Glenn Greenwald offers his take:

In other words: all of those assurances we gave you in order to convince you that we were using NSLs in strict accordance with the law were false. Now that the IG Report proves that what we told you is false, we are retracting what we said, and when we get around to it, we will also correct the false testimony we gave at Congressional hearings and the false assurances we gave you in secret, classified meetings -- all of which successfully convinced you to re-authorize the Patriot Act.

This is typical of an administration that sees Congress as a nuisance and false statements to them as a means to an end.

My capacity for outrage was exhausted about three years ago. Now I just stare in horror. I feel like I'm living in a satire.

Criticizing Vladimir Putin has deadly consequences.

Injured troops ordered to Iraq.

The world's greatest sporting event will soon begin.

Of note:

Perennial underperformer Kansas has lost in the first round the last two years. This year they are a #1 seed. A #1 seed has never lost to a #16 seed. Don't expect the Jayhawks to lose in the first round, but expect another unsatisfying finish and an earlier-than-expected exit.

Look out for #6 Vanderbilt. Not so much an underdog given their surprising play this year, but still a possible cinderella. The team I'll be watching with the most interest.

See here.

And in case you missed this classic.

Behold.

...if you think hazard is spelled with two "z"s.

And produces this commercial. (Scroll down to the first box and click play.)

A few days ago I expressed confusion over Ann Coulter labeling Edwards with the "f" word. To me it didn't make sense.

But in fact it makes perfect sense. It's an attempt to emasculate a leading candidate for the presidency. And now Rush Limbaugh follows up on Coulter's slur.

We can't have someone both effeminate--John Edwards--and effete--liberals by definition, trial lawyers especially--in this time of terror.

It's all just so predictable and depressing.

All this talk of the "f" word reminds me of the first time I heard it. My brothers-- having just learned the word in middle school, I guess--called me this when I was a kid. The way they said it sounded angry, so I cried and told them I was gonna tell Mom and Dad. They then furiously tried to convince me that the word meant "a pile of sticks." I remember thinking it was ridiculous to call someone a pile of sticks, but I think they successfully convinced me and I never told the folks.

And by the way, no hard feelings toward my brothers.

Will Ferrell and John Heder (Napoleon Dynamite) as figure skating partners. Sounds like a bad SNL skit? Right?

I wasn't expecting much from this comedy whose trailers looked dull and uninspired. It seemed sure to bore. So when I sat down in the theater, I went in prepared to hate this movie. But then the credits began to roll, I was pleasantly surprised by the roll of names: William Fichtner, Craig T. Nelson, Amy Poehler, Will Arnett (Gob on Arrested Development), Rob Corddry, Jenna Fischer (The Office), and Romany Malco (The 40 Year Old Virgin). So I knew that even if the movie stunk, it would be fun to see the actors together on the screen. Also surprising was to see that Busy Philipps (Freaks and Geeks) had a role in creating the story.

The story is simple: arch rivals Chazz (Will Ferrell) and Jimmy (Jon Heder) are forced to become figure skating partners after they are banned from competing in singles skating. With the help of their coach Craig T. Nelson--in David Carradine mode--the men try to put aside their differences and compete for gold.

Will Ferrell does another variation on his Ron Burgundy/Ricky Bobby character: clueless egotist full of machismo. But he does it incredibly well and this time adds the wrinkle of being an insatiable sex addict. Not surprisingly, he gets the movie's biggest laughs and successfully carries the movie. Jon Heder is okay. He doesn't get in the way of Ferrell and surprisingly, given his monotone acting, scores a few laughs as a cherubic man-child. Amy Poehler and Will Arnett complement the movie well with their absurd comic turns as brother and sister skating partners and arch-enemies to Chazz and Jimmy.

The film has a surprisingly light touch and at times feels like a live action feel gooder from Disney. But Ferrell as sex-addled Chazz dispels any notion that Blades is family fare.

The movie is instantly disposable, but very funny. Audiences are gonna enjoy this one.

Yikes!

A brief shot from the film adaptation of Watchmen.

Another predictable tale of the erosion of our civil liberties.

The Times in Shreveport, LA is the latest. Read their statement here.

I know most of my links have come from one site today, but this is so rich.

Chris Matthews doesn't let up on Kate O'Bierne when she tries to justify Clinton's impeachment and defends Libby for perjury. Priceless.

And Matthews reminds us that, according to the law, a pardon is given as an act of grace to the guilty. Pardoning Libby is implicitly acknowledging he is guilty.

Just finished Jewels of the Sun by Nora Roberts. The book was excruciating--I had to read it for class--and Roberts use of metaphor was atrocious. "Jude patted herself mentally on the back"(?) and "her heart leapt like a wild stag in her throat." The main character was a ninny and she continually romanticizes the life of the working poor. She finds doing your own laundry romantic. She spends time "playing in the flowers."

I really hated the book. Hated the experience of reading it. Hated the characters and their hyper-Irish. (The book was set in a mythical Irish village populated by ghosts and faerie princes.) Countless pages are devoted to lifeless description of countryside, bathroom fixtures, and flowers. Descriptive details can immerse you in a novel and its world, but in Jewels Roberts hands, modifiers are flaccid and transparently obligatory.

Is this really the worst book I ever read? Well in grade school, I used to read movie novelizations--License to Drive--and the Hardy Boys Case Files--Nightmare in Angel City and Spiked!. Some of those novels were likely worse, but this is definitely the worst novel of which I can remember the full content.

Sandy Berger. And the CIA cabal who tried to take down Bush.

I bet the Masons were behind the whole thing.

Newt Gingrich on Katrina.

Libby and staff in happier times.

Some weird logic concerning keeping baggage screeners from unionizing.

If we model our labor practices based on whether or not we might be attacked, haven't the terrorists won. Sounds like acting out of fear to me and emboldening the terrorists.

What we're really dealing with here is the traditional conservative hostility toward unions and an attempt to win Americans over by framing the bill as a pro-terrorism initiative.

Well, here it is.

Fizz pwizz.

I was surprised and happy to hear this familiar voice last night on NPR's News and Notes. Had no idea he was now a columnist.

And offers some interesting insights into the trial and deliberation.

Here.

Yes, that is three people with giant rabbit heads.

I was prepared to hate this new comedy from producer Seth McFarlane (The Funny Guy), but I was surprisingly entertained. Thanks to Rob Corddry, who manages to be both naive and calculating, the show works. Some of the material was tired, like the exasperated parents, and should be trimmed from the show. Also, the attempt to parody The Wonder Years comes up empty. But When Corddry shares the screen with bizarre neighbor kid Josh (Keir Gilchrist) the show succeeds.

Drop The Wonder Years, the clunky references to 1994--the show is all told in flashblack--and make the parents funnier--or drop them--and the show might have legs.

(The last name of the show's next door neighbors is McKellar and, as all you Wonder Years fans know, this was the last name of the actress who portrayed girl next door Winnie Cooper (Danica McKellar) on the The Wonder Years.)

Cletus, Springfieldian yokel, on his wife's surprise furlough from military service:

"But I thought you was in Iraq trying to stop 9/11."

I sent the folks at Conservapedia a request for an account per their instructions, via their parent organization Eagle Forum, and today was given an account. It was a gracious and swift response. So though I disagree with their take on many issues, I'd like to report they were very gracious.

Andy Schlafly, site founder and son of Phyllis, responded to email personally which was nice, but this seems terribly inefficient. One wonders if he will do this for all account requests.

To create the account, you'll want to send your request to the following address:

eagle@eagleforum.com

I've written a few film reviews since starting this blog. Here's a collection of them for those interested.

Still doesn't make any sense.

Wow.

The new David Lynch film will not win him any new admirers and will likely alienate many longtime fans, but those willing to give themselves over to this frightening journey into the subconscious of a damaged woman will be awed, frightened, and deeply rewarded. As theme parks create films and rides that try to help you physically experience a film--you're flying with ET, you're riding in Doc Brown's Delorean--Lynch has created a film that helps you to experience a complete psychological break. Or maybe it is just a long, horrible dream. Either way, it's a journey into a very damaged psyche that is both thrilling and haunting.

The film eschews logic pretty quickly and the only way to enjoy it is to let go. Let the film wash over you and get caught up in its weird rhythms, frightening imagery, great performances, and fantastic music. Some of you will hate this film with a passion, but others will be awed. Don't call this film pretentious. Lynch isn't trying to impress anyone--does he really need any more artistic cred?--and isn't trying too hard. He's simply laying his unique and uncompromised vision on film.

There are shades of narrative coherence, but this is employed in order to confuse and disorient you even more. Just when you're saying "I think I've got it," Lynch rips the rug out from under you and demands that you sink further into the confusion.

The movie is a bracing experience that must be seen to be believed. Go in with the right attitude and this movie will reward you greatly. And scare the hell out of you.

I have been trying to create an account on Conservapedia so that I will be able to contribute in Wikipedia fashion, but have been unsuccessful. The site states that in order to do so, you must e-mail Eagle Forum. Conservapedia offers no link to Eagle Forum on its home page, so I had to track it down their site via Wikipedia. Will let you know if I am given an account.

Apparently, conservative alternatives to traditional media are very choosy and are hard to gain entrance into. Kind of like country clubs.

Ann Coulter on John Edwards. I don't even understand the joke/insult. It just seems to be nastiness for nastiness sake.

UPDATE: I mean, yes, I get the part about rehab and the whole Grey's Anatomy dust up, but why Edwards? This doesn't make any sense.

Yesterday, I shared some news about the wiki Conservapedia, a conservative answer to Wikipedia. Included on the site is a list of Wikipedia's biases. Some selections from that list:

The entry for the Renaissance in Wikipedia refuses to give enough credit to Christianity.

This is certainly a very subjective complaint. What would be "enough credit"?

Wikipedia often uses foreign spelling of words, even though most English-speaking users are American. Look up "Most Favored Nation" on Wikipedia and it automatically converts the spelling to the British spelling "Most Favoured Nation." Look up "Division of labor" on Wikipedia and it automatically converts to the British spelling "Division of labour," then insists on the British spelling for "specialization" also.[7] Enter "Hapsburg" (the European ruling family) and Wikipedia automatically changes the spelling to Habsburg, even though the American spelling has always been "Hapsburg". Within entries British spellings appear in the silliest of places, even when the topic is American. Conservapedia favors American spellings of words.

This "Most Favoured Nation" complaint is absurd. The spelling is due to the term's country of origin. Apparently, a proper global perspective is anti-conservative. Also seems ignorant of the fact that Wikipedia, like the world wide web, is a global cooperative.

Unlike most encyclopedias and news outlets, Wikipedia does not exert any centralized authority to take steps to reduce bias or provide balance; it has a "neutral point of view" policy but the policy is followed only to the extent that individual editors acting in social groups choose to follow it. For example, CNN would ensure that Crossfire had a representative of the political right and one from the political left. In contrast, Wikipedia policy allows bias to exist and worsen. For example, even though most Americans reject the theory of evolution, Wikipedia editors commenting on the topic are nearly 100% pro-evolution.

"Most Americans reject the theory of evolution"?

Wikipedia's errors spill undetected into newspapers. A Wikipedia entry falsely stated that Rutgers was once invited to join the Ivy League. Although that false statement was eventually removed from Wikipedia, it was not removed before the Daily News relied on it...

One example is not a trend. Should read "a Wikipedia error" not "errors."

There's more. Just wanted to give you a taste of the insanity.

Roger Ebert, who is still recovering from a recent illness, wrote a short piece about the Oscars that included this interesting detail:

One of the unexpected things about watching the show at home is that I never quite realized how elaborate the lead-up to the program is. Working the red carpet, you miss everything but your part. All the Interviews-Profiles-Glamour. But all I really see is backstage, and we press people watch the show on the monitors.

There was no tuxedo for me tonight at home, however. I had on gray herringbone tweed pajamas. Oh, and my usual New Balance shoes, of course. Still, it's nothing like the fun of being there. And even seeing dejected losers wandering through the post-show crowd.

I see a great endorsement opportunity here. A chance for synergy. A special line of movie watching/critique-enhancing New Balance sneakers.

From TPM.

Do you think she has a valid point? Seems like electing a candidate no one had heard of before 9/11 will eventually be a necessity.

My prayers go out to the people of Enterprise, Echo, Newton, and other communities near my hometown. The scenes of destruction are quite harrowing.

Growing up in SE Alabama, I frequently had to huddle in hallways and classrooms as a destructive storm system blew its way through our town. It was always scary, and I was blessed never to have lost any property, friends, or family to the destruction.

In 1996, a horrible storm struck my town knocking out the power for almost a week, throwing giant trees on to houses, and obliterating homes. The night of the storm, watching huge trees sway and snap and listening to the wind attack your windows, waiting for them to shatter, was harrowing. A storm has never taken from me as it did from so many yesterday and I pray that they will soon find peace.

The worst host on cable news.

Conservapedia has arrived, the Conservative answer to Wikipedia. (To paraphrase Stephn Colbert, "Collaborative efforts have a well known liberal bias.")

Via TAPPED, we get a look at the site's entry on Faux News:

Fox News was started in 1996 in response to the other cable news channels which all had obvious liberal biases. Because of this, Rupert Murdoch decided to start a real new channel which would tell the truth. The success of Fox news over every other news channel is because it is fair and balanced. It has many people on it who work to spread truth such as Sean Hannity who is a great American. Fox News is best because instead of just telling you what to think, they only report the news unbiased and then allow the viewer to decide.

In 2005 the White House selected Tony Snow from Fox News to be the new White House press secretary which was a great honor for Fox because it showed how well it was presenting the real truth instead of the fake liberal version.

This entry is mindbogglingly stupid and seems to be written for third graders. I guess trying to make fun of it is redundant.

This one's starting to gain traction and may lead to a big dust up in Washington.

Some background.

Just to catch you up, Faux News has a new program called The 1/2 Hour Comedy Hour meant to be the conservative answer to The Daily Show. Newsweek has a review and offers this priceless insight:

The only time I actually laughed during the entire show was during a commercial break, after seeing a promo which I'd initially thought was part of the show. The promo was for an episode of "The O'Reilly Factor" this week, which will apparently find Bill O'Reilly tackling such hot-button political issues as the forthcoming sex tape starring celebutante Kim Kardashian and R&B singer Ray-J. When I finished laughing and realized that wasn't a joke, it became clear to me Fox News already has comedy covered. Why fix what isn't broken?

Which brings to mind some of the better bits of The Daily Show; those moments where they just show you clips of Faux News with little to no comment.