Flipside Media Blog

Review of The Incredible Hulk

2008-06-12T16:43:00.000-07:00

The tribulations of the Incredible Hulk — and, by extension, The Incredible Hulk, Universal's latest adaptation of the angry green giant — come from the long-standing challenge of turning something unpleasant into a work of entertainment. A horrific manifestation of meek scientist Bruce Banner's inner demons, the Hulk theoretically belongs in the classic horror genre alongside Mr. Hyde and Frankenstein's monster. As a creature of the comics, however, in the colorful realm of pop art, his fun side remains notoriously elusive. Dating back to the blithely cheesy score for the 1966 animated series ("Ain't he unglamo-rays?"), attempts to encompass the Hulk in a gleeful spirit have been repeatedly ill-informed. The 1977 series with Bill Bixby became a national joke; Ang Lee's generally reviled 2003 treatment, Hulk, went too far in the other direction, and the murky drama that resulted from his intentions left few people satisfied. The studio's do-over, while hardly a masterpiece, at least manages to align the character with the energized tropes of contemporary superhero franchises by making his strength the real star of the show.

By handing the directorial reigns to Louis Leterrier, the Parisian filmmaker responsible for the breathless Transporter films, Universal reveals its desire to emphasize spectacle over story. Banner, played by Edward Norton as a fearful geek with noble ambitions, views his unnatural exposure to gamma radiation as a disease. The Hulk, unleashed when Banner's heart starts pounding, is the main symptom. The government, however, lead by the gruff one-note General Thaddeus "Thunderbolt" Ross (William Hurt), sees the power as a tool. Rather than argue, Banner hits the road. The central conflict between these two men gives the movie its thrust (Liv Tyler, as Thaddeus' daughter and Banner's lover, hovers helplessly nearby), and the simplicity of their spat clears the road for the Hulk's emergence in a series of aggressive confrontations. In other words, an action movie.

The Hulk usually oscillates between two dire scenarios: He's either attacked by oppressive humans looking to capture him or used by Banner in carefully calibrated strategies to confront evil. Either way, he's a crazed militant psychopath, but never purposeless. The new version, written by Zak Penn, gets that much right. The Hulk, and his frightful foe (the Abomination, also played by Tim Roth) he battles in the climax, were developed as weapons. The Hulk becomes tolerated, if not fully accepted, when Banner and those around him understand how to fulfill his original destiny. You can forgive the fairly sloppy dialogue and occasional continuity errors if only for the gratification of seeing the Hulk transform into a lopsided hero when he finally teams up with the armed forces (possibly a keen introduction to his role in a developing Avengers movie, but those subtle commercial motives deserve separate analysis).

Watching the Hulk do his duty, it's easy to see how he represents psychological liberation. "You're everything he bottles up," explains Banner's pal Rick Jones to a slightly smarter version of the beast in preeminent Hulk comic book scribe Peter David's series. "Not just anger, but other stuff, too. Like jealousy and passion." Hence, the Hulk of Leterrier's film, tearing apart cars like paper and generating robust gusts of wind with a single hand clap, becomes a seething mass of desperation taking out his frustration on the world and finding catharsis in his defiance of human fragility. "It's beautiful," reflects amoral whackjob scientist Samuel Sterns (Tim Blake Nelson) after witnessing the brute materialize. "God-like." More than that, he's the ultimate flawed American superman.

As such, the Hulk has a definite political dimension, struggling to comprehend the bureaucracy around him. "I hate the government as much as anyone, but you're being a little paranoid," Banner gets told, and he's the first to admit his disillusionment. "It's like somebody poured acid in my brain," he moans. Together with the Hulk — essentially as his sidekick — Banner seeks a middle ground (and so does the franchise). But no amount of control prevents the Hulk from engaging in bouts of vicious destruction. By emphasizing these episodes over Banner's pathos, Leterrier actually lends a thin element of topicality to him. In Mr. Freedom, William Klein's great 1969 spoof of patriotic aggression (recently released on DVD by Criterion), the titular liberal-hating demagogue `embraces the mantra that "Might is right, and right is freedom." The Incredible Hulk reduces that sentiment to a triumphant roar: "Hulk smash!"

Review of The Happening

2008-06-12T16:35:00.000-07:00

One might charitably describe "The Happening" as a transitional work for M. Night Shyamalan. In an attempted rebound from the critical and commercial calamity of "Lady in the Water," the writer-director has scaled back most of his characteristic touches -- the contorted horror/fantasy mythology, the "gotcha" twist ending, even his trademark cameo -- instead serving up a patchy, uninspired eco-thriller whose R rating (a first for Shyamalan) looks more like a B.O. hindrance than an artistic boon. After an initial bloom of interest, the Fox release will likely wilt quickly in the summer heat.

At the very least, Shyamalan's latest will almost certainly be greeted with less impassioned scorn than its predecessor; unlike 2006's "Lady in the Water," it arrives in theaters unencumbered by embarrassing tie-in tell-alls or reports of overweening directorial ego. (And if there are any movie critics among "The Happening's" many victims, the pic doesn't call attention to it.)

Trouble is, it's hard to imagine "The Happening" being greeted with much impassioned anything. Shyamalan's story -- about a married couple and a small child being driven farther and farther from civilization by a fatal airborne threat -- covers territory already over-tilled by countless disaster epics and zombie movies, offering little in the way of suspense, visceral kicks or narrative vitality to warrant the retread.

A mildly creepy prologue unfolds one morning in Central Park, where several pedestrians suddenly freeze in place and others start committing bizarre acts of self-mutilation and suicide. ("Those people look like they're clawing at themselves," marvels one onlooker, in one of the script's less felicitous examples of telling and not showing.) Meanwhile, the leaves rustle ominously in the wind, providing an early clue to the source of this strange, and deadly, epidemic.

Cut to Philadelphia, where high school science teacher Elliot Moore (Mark Wahlberg) hears of what is initially characterized as a bioterrorist attack. He and his lovely, slightly kooky wife Alma (Zooey Deschanel), traveling with math teacher Julian (an over-talkative John Leguizamo) and his 8-year-old daughter Jess (Ashlyn Sanchez), flee the city, only to have their train break down in the middle of nowhere.

Julian abruptly leaves Jess in the care of Elliot and Alma so he can catch a ride back to the city to search for his wife. Hiking across broad, rather beautiful stretches of Pennsylvania farmland (mostly shot on location), the three soon hook up with other refugees, only to find their way blocked by fresh corpses at every turn -- they see dead people! -- suggesting the danger is closing in on all sides. Yet the fact that the infected kill only themselves immediately dilutes any sense of real peril.

Steven Spielberg and Alfred Hitchcock have been Shyamalan's two most oft-cited filmmaking forebears, and the scenario here carries faint echoes of Spielberg's "War of the Worlds" and, particularly, Hitchcock's "The Birds," in that the nature of the threat here (cue more wind effects and trembling branches) seems organic rather than man-made. Elliot, being a science teacher, deduces what's going on fairly quickly, spouting the occasional mouthful of botanical mumbo-jumbo when he's not arguing with Alma.

As he did in "Signs" (which "The Happening" comes to resemble as its characters seek refuge in a little house on the Pennsylvania prairie), Shyamalan tries to show a family breaking down, then piecing itself back together, while an apocalypse rages outside its windows. Yet he never taps into what makes Wahlberg and especially Deschanel so uniquely edgy and compelling to watch, and, although both actors emote bravely, neither feels like an intuitive match for their underwritten roles.

While the R rating allows for more explicit gore effects than Shyamalan has resorted to in the past, the violent incidents are relatively few and typically viewed from a distance. The helmer's gift has always been for conjuring suspense from silences, shadows and enclosed spaces, a talent that gets little workout here.

In short, this is a Shyamalan movie minus the bravado, the swagger; there are no audacious attempts to pull out the rug from under the audience, no ham-fisted lessons about the importance of religious belief or the power of storytelling. The director even limits his customary appearance to an offscreen role, a choice that seems sadly in keeping with the rest of this oddly hesitant, insubstantial film. The big surprise at the end of "The Happening" is that even viewers who've been annoyed by his tricks and traps in the past may find themselves hoping he uses them -- or something better -- the next time around.

Review of The Last Legion

2007-08-21T21:49:00.000-07:00

“The Last Legion” isn’t half bad, but you’d never know that from its half-hearted promotional campaign. The cheesy-looking TV spots, lobby posters and newspaper ads. At its infrequent best, however, this ungainly international co-production more closely resembles an old-fashioned Saturday matinee action-adventure. Pic is seriously hampered by glaring inconsistencies of tone and intent, and often feels like a series of highlights carved out of a much longer epic. But cable and homevid viewers might enjoy the fitfully rousing hodgepodge after it completes a token theatrical run.

The episodic screenplay, based in part on a historical novel by co-scripter Valerio Manfredi, pivots on the misadventures of 12-year-old Romulus Augustus (Thomas Sangster), a direct heir to Julius Caesar.

Shortly after he’s crowned emperor of the crumbling Roman Empire in 476 A.D., young Romulus is in short order orphaned, deposed and exiled by the hordes of Odoacer (Peter Mullan), a Goth usurper.

Aurelius (Colin Firth), one of the few military commanders to survive the barbarian invasion, leads his faithful men -- and a sword-swinging Byzantine beauty named Mira (Bollywood star Aishwarya Rai) -- on a rescue mission to free Romulus and his enigmatic tutor, Ambrosinus (Ben Kingsley), from a fortress on the Isle of Capri.

But the good guys are betrayed upon their return to Rome. So they venture off to Britannia to seek help from the last remaining Roman Legion loyal to the young emperor, all the while pursued by the bad guys and threatened by an even worse tyrant.

The chief problem with “The Last Legion” stems from the filmmakers’ apparent inability to decide what kind of pic they wanted to make, and what sort of audience they wanted to target. There are echoes of Robert Louis Stevenson’s “Kidnapped” and “Treasure Island,” suggesting that helmer Doug Lefler and his collaborators may have envisioned purposefully retro, family-friendly fare. (Another indication: Violent scenes obviously have been tweaked to remove detailed depictions of carnage.)

In a handful of other scenes, however, there are hints of tongue-in-cheek send-up, particularly whenever Firth laces his straight-faced heroics with a smidgen of “Indiana Jones”-style jokiness. These modestly clever touches are a welcome contrast to the inadvertently comical scenes where characters posture and pontificate in the stilted manner of standard sword-and-sandal (or sword-and-sorcery) B-pics and TV dramas.

As Ambrosinus, a cryptic sage who serves as Yoda to Romulus’ Luke Skywalker, Kingsley must deliver most of the faux profundities that litter the script. He also has to impose some sense of consistency on a character whose abilities are never entirely clear: During a climactic battle, Ambrosinus is able to toss -- goodness gracious! -- great balls of fire. But the sudden display of this convenient talent likely will make some viewers wonder why he couldn’t have used it earlier.

It doesn’t help that “The Last Legion,” filmed on locations in Tunisia and Slovakia, boasts production values that reflect a severely limited budget. On the other hand, Sangster makes an engagingly plucky impression, Firth does the derring-do with self-assured grace, Rai is extremely easy on the eyes and Kingsley is, despite the aforementioned obstacles, effortlessly authoritative. The fight scenes are sufficiently exciting, and the pic overall is just good enough to make you wish it were a lot better.

Review of THE BOURNE ULTIMATUM

2007-08-04T12:26:00.000-07:00

In setting Jason Bourne on the home stretch of his search to discover who and what made him the killing machine he is, director Paul Greengrass has outdone himself, creating a film of such sustained energy and tension that the infrequent pauses for breath seem startling in their quietude. In other hands, unrelenting nervous camera movement and machine-gun cutting prove wearying more often than not, but Greengrass skillfully employs both not only in the service of excitement, but for the accentuation of telling detail and discreet parceling out of information.

Result is a breathless doozy that sends Bourne from Moscow to Turin, Paris, London, Madrid and Tangier, Morocco, before alighting in New York, from where the CIA's extra-legal assassination org has been tracking his movements with the most sophisticated and instantaneous of high-tech equipment. But Bourne continually beats the agency at its own game, outwitting and tricking its surveillance ploys and besting the toughest killers the company can throw at him.

Having settled certain scores in "Supremacy" three years ago, Bourne (Matt Damon) is determined to retrieve his memory this time around, so as to learn the identity he had before placing his skills at the service of the agency. Spurring this opportunity are articles by a London journo (Paddy Considine) in which revelatory details of Bourne's career were obviously provided by a highly knowledgeable source.

After a hair-raising pursuit of Bourne and the scribe at London's Waterloo Station, Bourne tracks the source to Spain, where he once again meets CIA op Nicky Parsons (Julia Stiles), and then to Tangier, where a CIA "asset," or hitman, is lying in wait. An amazing chase through the port city's twisty, hilly streets and the teeming passages of the old Medina, then over rooftops and through windows, and finally to a gasping, slashing, hand-to-hand combat scene in a cramped bathroom, is a marvel of technique and sheer logistics, and one that makes marvelous use of a legendary city rarely seen in Western cinema.

Along the way, it becomes clear the CIA has replaced its former black-ops program, Treadstone, with a new one called Blackbriar, which under stern topper Noah Vosen (David Strathairn) displays a propensity for rogue action and killing as a ready solution to all problems. As they listen in on phone calls and observe Bourne's movements their secret Manhattan HQ (never before has a feature film so well documented London's pervasive surveillance cameras), Vosen and colleague Pamela Landy (Joan Allen) argue over what to do with Bourne. Landy, who developed a certain affinity for the lone wolf in Berlin three years back, wants to keep him alive, while Vosen repeatedly insists upon whacking him. Latter's increasing frustration over the mounting failures to do so amply contributes to the very pure audience pleasure the picture generates.

Greengrass stages one spectacular set piece after another, virtually all of them in crowded public places -- train stations, airports, cafes, bottlenecked city streets -- that lend the action scenes an unsurpassed sense of verisimilitude. Bourne walks away from more than one auto crash that would have finished off lesser men, but he and we know that nothing is going to stop him before he comes face to face with his own Dr. Frankenstein, a man whose image periodically flashes through his mind.

Resolution to this central issue of the three films, as well as to individual fates of secondary characters, proves highly satisfactory, resulting in that rare tumultuous thriller that can't be faulted at all on its own terms. The continuity and even upgrade in quality as the series has progressed can be significantly attributed to a solid team that hasn't changed much across the seven years; producers Frank Marshall, Patrick Crowley and Paul L. Sandberg have been onboard for the entire ride, as have story and screenwriter Tony Gilroy (this time credited alongside Scott Z. Burns and George Nolfi), cinematographer Oliver Wood, editor Christopher Rouse and composer John Powell, whose urgent musical accompaniment is goosed by some striking string and percussion orchestrations. Second unit and stunt work overseen by Dan Bradley is top-drawer. Nor should one forget Doug Liman, who continues on as an exec producer after having set the artistic template as director of the initial outing.

Social Media Initiative - Help us Get 1 Million Trees Planted for Free

2007-07-14T20:59:00.000-07:00

Dr. Cook can you please take a look at this I think you might be able to help. Thanks for all you do as always keep up the good work. The link is here please look at it. http://www.marketingpilgrim.com/2007/07/social-media-initiative-help-us-get-1-million-trees-planted-for-free.html

Bush pardons Libby

2007-07-03T05:59:00.000-07:00

Bush Wipes Away Libby's Prison Sentence By MATT APUZZO Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON — Just when things looked darkest for I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, when prison seemed all but certain, President Bush wiped away the former White House aide's 2 1/2-year sentence in the CIA leak case.
Bush's move came Monday, just five hours after a federal appeals panel ruled that Libby could not delay his prison term. His prospects for an emergency appeal to the Supreme Court seemed bleak. The former chief of staff to Vice President Dick Cheney, Libby was just waiting for a date to surrender.
After months of sidestepping pardon questions, Bush stepped in. He did not issue a pardon but erased a prison sentence that he felt was just too harsh.
"I respect the jury's verdict," Bush said in a written statement. "But I have concluded that the prison sentence given to Mr. Libby is excessive. Therefore, I am commuting the portion of Mr. Libby's sentence that required him to spend 30 months in prison."
Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald disputed the president's assertion that the prison term was excessive. Libby was sentenced under the same laws as other criminals, Fitzgerald said. "It is fundamental to the rule of law that all citizens stand before the bar of justice as equals."
Libby's attorney, Theodore Wells, said in a statement that the Libby family was grateful for Bush's action and continued to believe in his innocence.
Because he was not pardoned, Libby remains the highest-ranking White House official convicted of a crime since the Iran-Contra affair. But he won't have to serve a day in prison, a fact that his friends cheered, even those who wished he'd received a full pardon.
"That's fantastic. It's a great relief," said former Ambassador Richard Carlson, who helped raise millions for Libby's defense fund. "Scooter Libby did not deserve to go to prison and I'm glad the president had the courage to do this."
Though the leak investigation is complete and nobody will have to serve prison time, the scandal that has loomed over the Bush administration for years did not subside. Democrats were enraged.
"Libby's conviction was the one faint glimmer of accountability for White House efforts to manipulate intelligence and silence critics of the Iraq war," said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. "Now, even that small bit of justice has been undone."
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said Bush's decision showed the president "condones criminal conduct."
The president left intact a $250,000 fine and two years probation for his conviction of lying and obstructing justice in a probe into the leak of a CIA operative's identity. The former operative, Valerie Plame, contends the White House was trying to discredit her husband, former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, a critic of Bush's Iraq policy.
Congress ought to investigate "whether or not the president himself is a participant in the obstruction of justice," Wilson told The Santa Fe New Mexican. Wilson, Plame and their children moved to Santa Fe earlier this year.
"The president has utterly subverted the rule of law and the system of justice that has undergirded this country of ours for the past 220 years," Wilson said Tuesday on NBC's "Today" show.
Bush said his action still "leaves in place a harsh punishment for Mr. Libby."
The leak case has hung over the White House for years. Special Prosecutor Fitzgerald questioned top administration officials, including Bush and Cheney, about their possible roles. And Libby's trial revealed the extraordinary steps that Bush and Cheney were willing to take to discredit a critic of the Iraq war.
Nobody was ever charged with the leak, including Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage or White House political adviser Karl Rove, who provided the information for the original article. Prosecutors said Libby obstructed the investigation by lying about how he learned about Plame and whom he told.
Already at record lows in the polls, Bush risked a political backlash with his decision. President Ford tumbled in the polls after his 1974 pardon of Richard M. Nixon, and the decision was a factor in Ford's loss in the 1976 election.
Bush's father — former President George H.W. Bush — issued pardons shortly before leaving office in 1992 for former Defense Secretary Caspar W. Weinberger and five other former officials who had served in the Reagan administration. The six were involved in the Iran-Contra affair, in which arms were secretly sold to Iran to win the freedom of American hostages, then the money was funneled to anti-communist guerrillas in Nicaragua despite a congressional ban on military aid.
On Monday, White House officials said Bush knew he could take political heat for commuting Libby's prison sentence and simply did what he thought was right. They would not say what advice Cheney might have given the president.
Bush said Cheney's former aide was not getting off free.
"The reputation he gained through his years of public service and professional work in the legal community is forever damaged," Bush said. "His wife and young children have also suffered immensely. He will remain on probation. The significant fines imposed by the judge will remain in effect. The consequences of his felony conviction on his former life as a lawyer, public servant and private citizen will be long-lasting."
Attorney William Jeffress said he had spoken to Libby briefly by phone and "I'm happy at least that Scooter will be spared any prison time. The prison sentence was imminent but obviously the conviction itself is a heavy blow to Scooter."
___
Associated Press Writer Ben Feller contributed to this report.

Anyone feel this is wrong? Let me know.....Nici

Congress Will Reclaim Constitutional Authority in Trade Debate(Rep. Phil Hare)

2007-06-30T09:28:00.000-07:00

At midnight tonight, President Bush’s fast-track authority-where Members of Congress are forbidden from offering any amendments to trade agreements-will expire.

Good riddance.

I cannot in good conscience cede complete trade negotiating authority to an executive unwilling to enforce labor or environmental rights abroad.

It is time for Congress to once again reclaim its constitutional authority in the trade debate.

In my district in west-central Illinois, fast-track has ushered in trade policies that have eroded the very backbone of our local economy-its manufacturing base.

The expiration of President Bush’s fast-track authority is by no means a cure for the unfair trade agreements that have passed or the ones we will soon consider.

Lost jobs won’t magically return.

But this is an opportunity for Congress to forge a new direction on trade-one that benefits American workers and businesses.

As fast track expires, we must redouble our efforts to see that future trade policies are both free and fair. I am committed to that end.

Review of RATATOUILLE

2007-06-30T06:36:00.000-07:00

Brad Bird has spent most of his career making "cartoons"—a cinematic form that is afforded about as much serious artistic credibility as the slasher movie—but he deserves to be considered one of the most inspired storytellers at work in American movies. With Ratatouille, he takes the raw ingredients of an anthropomorphic-animal kiddie matinee and whips them into a heady brew about nothing less than the principles of artistic creation.

None of that should come as much surprise to anyone who saw Bird's two previous features: The Incredibles, with its art-deco fever dream of a superhero family hiding out in suburbia, and The Iron Giant, whose titular robot turned out to be considerably more humane than the government agents hot on his trail. Like the Iron Giant, Ratatouille's rodent hero is a non-human unwilling to accept the role assigned to him by society.

When we first meet young Remy (Patton Oswalt), his olfactory gifts have reduced him to serving as "poison sniffer" for his garbage-foraging colony. But Remy dreams of becoming a fine French chef, and gets his chance when he lands on the doorstep of Gusteau's,a once-grand flagship restaurant now reduced to a glorified tourist attraction. Remy's arrival coincides with that of Linguini (Lou Romano), a bumbling kid whose cooking proves unfit even for rodent consumption. But with a little help from a certain four-legged intruder—voila! From trash heap to magnifique!

As has been widely reported, the Pixar-produced Ratatouille was begun by another director and taken over by Bird well into the development process. Yet the film is unmistakably Bird's own, not least in its focus on the disparity between art and commerce, greatness and mediocrity. But the most provocative gesture is surely its vivid exultation of haute cuisine. It's a slow-food movie for a fast-food nation, distributed by a company known for its McDonald's marketing tie-ins.

Fret not, parents: Bird hasn't made one of those hipster family films that sails over the heads of its intended audience. Ratatouille is as much a feast for the senses as it is food for thought.

White House cites privilege in refusing to heed subpoenas

2007-06-30T06:23:00.000-07:00

President Bush moved one step closer to a constitutional showdown with Democrats on Thursday, as the White House asserted executive privilege in refusing to comply with congressional subpoenas for documents related to the dismissal of federal prosecutors.

The move prompted Democrats to accuse the White House of stonewalling, and seemed to put the legislative and executive branches on a collision course that could land them in court. It was only the second time in Bush's presidency that he has formally asserted executive privilege, the power first recognized by the Supreme Court in a 1974 Watergate-era case.

On Thursday morning, White House Counsel Fred Fielding phoned the Democratic chairmen of the House and Senate Judiciary committees, which had issued the subpoenas, to inform them of Bush's decision. Bush also intends to invoke executive privilege to prevent two of his former top aides, Harriet Miers, who was White House counsel, and Sara Taylor, who was political director, from testifying, officials said.

"With respect, it is with much regret that we are forced down this unfortunate path," Fielding wrote in a letter to the committee chairmen, Sen. Patrick Leahy of Vermont and Rep. John Conyers Jr. of Michigan.

Fielding complained the committees had issued "unfettered requests."

Conyers called Fielding's letter "an appalling response to a reasonable question," adding, "This is reckless -- it's a form of governmental lawlessness that is really astounding."

The letter seemed to lay the groundwork for how the Bush administration would respond to a separate, unrelated round of subpoenas issued by the Senate panel Wednesday to the White House, Vice President Dick Cheney's office and the Justice Department for information about a domestic eavesdropping program run by the National Security Agency.

Administration officials said they had not decided how to respond to those demands, but experts said it seemed clear that the White House would refuse to comply in that case as well.

"Given the way in which both the U.S. attorney matter and the NSA matter are now percolating through committees, I would be very surprised if there were not a major showdown over executive privilege," said Peter Shane, a law professor at Ohio State University who is an authority on executive privilege. "It might not get to court, but there will have to be some very high-pressure negotiations at a very late stage to avoid that."

The clash pits the congressional right to oversight -- in this case, an investigation into whether the Justice Department allowed partisan politics to interfere with hiring and firing of federal prosecutors -- against a president's right to unfettered and candid advice from his top aides. Experts disagree about how a court might rule.

Shane said Congress has a strong argument, because it is making a specific claim that it needs information to conduct an oversight investigation, and "specific claims of necessity usually outweigh general claims" like the one the administration asserts, arguing the president's need for unfettered advice.

But David Rivkin, who worked as a lawyer in the Reagan and first Bush administrations, said the president has the stronger case, because Congress has only weak oversight authority into hiring and firing federal prosecutors.

"In this area, executive power is nearly absolute," Rivkin said.

The next step is for Democrats to decide whether to try to negotiate with the White House or to vote on a contempt resolution, a process that could take months and would lay the groundwork for sending the matter to court. Democrats did not say Thursday how they intended to proceed, although by the sound of their comments, negotiations did not seem likely any time soon.

"This is a further shift by the Bush administration into Nixonian stonewalling and more evidence of their disdain for our system of checks and balances," Leahy said.

The dispute dates to February, when Democrats began investigating the dismissals. The White House offered lawmakers access to certain documents as well as private interviews -- not under oath, and without transcripts -- with top aides to Bush, including Miers, Taylor and Karl Rove, the chief political strategist. The Democrats, demanding formal testimony under oath, rejected the offer. That led to the subpoenas, though Rove has yet to receive one.

Some Republicans, including Sen. Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, a harsh critic of Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, have pressed the administration to agree at least to transcripts. But on Thursday, Specter relented, saying that now that the president has invoked executive privilege, Congress should take whatever information it can get "on the president's terms" to avoid a protracted legal battle.

"This investigation is lagging very, very badly," Specter said, adding, "and while the investigation is lagging, Attorney General Gonzales continues to serve."

House votes to ban FCC on ‘fairness’

2007-06-30T06:15:00.000-07:00

The House voted overwhelmingly yesterday to prohibit the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) from using taxpayer dollars to impose the Fairness Doctrine on broadcasters who feature conservative radio hosts such as Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity.

By a vote of 309-115, lawmakers amended the Financial Services and General Government appropriations bill to bar the FCC from requiring broadcasters to balance conservative content with liberal programming such as Air America.

The vote count was partly a testament to the influence that radio hosts wield in many congressional districts.

It was also a rebuke to Democratic senators and policy experts who have voiced support this week for regulating talk radio.

House Democrats argued that it was merely a Republican political stunt because there is little danger of the FCC restricting conservative radio while George W. Bush is president.

Republicans counter that they are worried about new regulations if a Democrat wins the White House in 2008.

Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) said on Tuesday that the government should revive the Fairness Doctrine, a policy crafted in 1929 that required broadcasters to balance political content with different points of view.

“It’s time to reinstitute the Fairness Doctrine,” he said. “I have this old-fashioned attitude that when Americans hear both sides of the story, they’re in a better position to make a decision.”

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), chairwoman of the Senate Rules Committee, said this week that she would review the constitutional and legal issues involved in re-establishing the doctrine.

Sen. John Kerry (Mass.), the Democratic Party’s 2004 presidential nominee, also said recently that the Fairness Doctrine should return.

In 1985 the FCC discarded the policy after deciding that it restricted journalistic freedom and “actually inhibit[ed] the presentation of controversial issues of public importance to the detriment of the public and in degradation of the editorial prerogative of broadcast journalists,” according to a Congressional Research Service report.

Yesterday, the House firmly rejected the prospect of requiring balanced views on talk radio.

Before the passage of the amendment, which he sponsored, Rep. Mike Pence (R-Ind.), a former full-time radio host, forecast a big majority and took a shot at the Senate, saying: “This House will say what some in the other body are not saying, that we believe in freedom on the airwaves. We reject the doctrines of the past that would have this federal government manage political speech on the public airwaves.”

Republican Study Committee Chairman Jeb Hensarling (R-Texas) and Rep. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) also sponsored the legislation.

Conservatives fear that forcing stations to make equal time for liberal talk radio would slash profits and pressure radio executives to scale back on conservative programming to avoid escalating costs and interference from government regulators. Opponents of the Fairness Doctrine argue that radio stations would suffer financially if forced to air liberal as well as conservative programs because liberal talk radio has not proven popular or profitable. For example, Air America, liberals’ answer to “The Rush Limbaugh Show” and Michael Medved, filed for bankruptcy in October.

House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) said yesterday that listeners should be able to decide if they want to hear different political arguments.

“The best way is to let the judgment of the American people decide, and they can decide with their finger,” Boehner said. “[People] can turn it off or they can turn it on. They can go to their computer and read it on the Internet.”

Flake added: “Rather than having the government regulate what people can say, we should let the market decide what people want to hear. That’s precisely why the Fairness Doctrine was abandoned, and that’s why it ought not to be revived.”

At the end of yesterday’s debate, Democratic House Appropriations Committee Chairman David Obey (Wis.) agreed with Republicans that the government should not regulate conservative radio hosts such as Limbaugh and Hannity.

“We ought to let right-wing talk radio go on as they do now,” he said. “Rush and Sean are just about as important in the scheme of things as Paris Hilton, and I would hate to see them gain an ounce of credibility by being forced by a government agency or anybody else to moderate their views enough that they might become modestly influential or respected.”

After Putting It under the Microscope, the Immigration Bill Was Hard to Support (Sen. Pete Domenici)

2007-06-29T09:23:00.000-07:00

This was really a tough situation, because we know we’ve got a problem to solve. A lot of hard work was put into drafting this bill. But the longer we worked on it, the more I began to question whether we had legislation that we truly understood and that could actually be enforced. It became more and more complex and in need of change the longer we worked on it. So I generally would conclude that we should not again, try a bill that’s this difficult unless we let it go through the normal committee channels.

Some of the most important provisions that I was initially optimistic about, like the guest worker program, were amended to the point that they could no longer accomplish what we intended. And once the process was used to limit core amendments that might have made the bill workable, I knew I couldn’t support it.

Now somebody’s got to take the lead and get, in my opinion, a slimmed down, simple bill that would take care of the border enforcement and get the $4.4 billion appropriated forthwith. We can’t wait to secure our borders, and that’s where we must now focus our efforts.

Senate Republicans Are out of Touch with America (Service Employees International Union Executive Vice President Eliseo Medina)

2007-06-29T01:33:00.000-07:00

Today’s Senate vote on immigration reform was a vote against America’s character, values, and best interests. The vote reaffirms that Senate Republicans are deeply out of touch with the American majority. They have failed their own principles, immigrants, and the country as whole.

We know that creating a comprehensive solution to our broken immigration system is hard work. But the choice by Senate Republicans to do nothing inflicts a much greater cost on America. This Republican minority is set upon passing restrictionist measures that offer no solutions and divide America. They have abandoned their responsibility to the American people, and they have sent immigrants an unmistakable message: you are not welcome in our big tent.

We will not forget. The price of the Bush Administration and Senate’s failure means more people dying in the desert. It means more workplace raids and families separated. It means that wages and benefits will continue to decline as bottom feeding employers use immigration status as a tool to increase profits. It means more public anger, and it means more punitive state and local laws that target immigrants.

Our leaders have the potential to restore the rule of law, improve our security, protect our workers, strengthen our economy, and bring us back in line with our most cherished values. It may take longer than anyone would want, but whether it’s tomorrow, next week, or next year, we will not give up until our leaders fix this broken immigration system once and for all.

Get Wired for Health Care IT (Sen. Mike Enzi)

2007-06-29T01:26:00.000-07:00

Yesterday the HELP Committee approved the “Wired for Health Care Quality Act,” a bill that will encourage the adoption of cutting-edge-information technologies in health care to improve patient care, reduce medical errors and cut health care costs.

Doctors, hospitals, health care advocates, and the business community — including small business — are clamoring for Congress to take action and establish uniform health IT standards. Time is of the essence — if we do not act, our health care system will move forward in a highly inefficient, fragmented and disjointed way. I urge the Senate Leadership to bring our consensus legislation to the floor for consideration by the full Senate as soon as possible, so that we can establish an interconnected, nationwide health technology system to improve the quality of care in this country.

This bill will eliminate duplicative tests and reduce medical errors. Moving from a paper-based health care system to secure electronic medical records will save lives and reduce skyrocketing health care costs.

The bill will lay the foundation for technology and information sharing among doctors, hospitals, and insurers to ensure that patient data, insurance and medical histories are available wherever and whenever treatment is needed. A Rand Corporation study projected a potential savings of $162 billion a year for the health care industry under the initiative.

Information is power, and this bill puts that power in the hands of doctors and health professionals for the good of their patients. I look forward to bringing this bill to the full Senate for debate so that we can pass health IT legislation and get the power of information to our doctors as quickly as possible.

Rain Continues to Plague Flooded Texas

2007-06-29T01:03:00.000-07:00

MARBLE FALLS, Texas (AP) - More rain fell Thursday in flood-weary parts of Texas, where evacuations were under way and residents were bracing for even more of the constant downpours that have killed 11 people in recent days.

Officials reported calls for dozens of rescues in San Antonio, and hundreds of people were being ordered to leave their homes near the bloated Brazos River in North Texas.

Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst, acting as governor while Gov. Rick Perry is out of the country, surveyed damage Thursday in the lakeside community of Marble Falls, which was drenched by as much as 18 inches of rain early Wednesday. No one was killed, but there were 32 water rescues and widespread damage.

"I haven't seen so much destruction since I was on the ground right after Hurricane Rita," Dewhurst said. "What these folks need is just a break in the rain and a chance to dry out."

North Texas, rains continued falling west of Fort Worth, and evacuations of about 300 homes were ordered in Parker County as the Brazos River began creeping into some backyards.

Firefighters and National Guard troops went door to door notifying residents of the mandatory evacuation, but some refused to leave, said Lt. Jason Williams of the Parker County firefighters' search and rescue team.

Among those holding out was Donna Thorpe, who said she and her family had been watching the water rise for more than 24 hours and marking it with a measuring stick.

"Every two hours we'd get up and go down and measure," Thorpe said. "Every two hours you get up and go down. You really don't sleep. You're so nervous about it, how quick it can come up."

Overnight rainfall in Central Texas was far short of the 10 inches that were forecast, but more was expected Thursday, and flash flood warnings were in effect. Storm systems near Austin and San Antonio were expected to dump as much as 10 inches Thursday, the National Weather Service said.

In Oklahoma, where all 77 counties are under a state of emergency, 46 homes in Pottawatomie County have sustained major damage, officials said. Three water rescues were necessary Thursday in Kingfisher County in central Oklahoma.

Marble Falls, about 40 miles northwest of Austin, took the brunt of the deluge Tuesday and Wednesday, with numerous people stuck on rooftops, in trees and on houses. The city was spared rain overnight, but a light drizzle fell on and off throughout the day Thursday.

The focus shifted to cleanup even as drizzle continued to fall. Piles of rubble and debris littered street corners, and streets were covered in a layer of mud and tree limbs throughout town.

"We're through the crisis point, and now we're at the point it's time to roll up our sleeves and get dirty," Mayor Raymond Whitman said.

As many as 150 homes and businesses were damaged, city spokeswoman Christine Laine said.
In Georgetown, north of Austin, three homes containing 10 people were evacuated Thursday morning because of flooding on a branch of the San Gabriel River, said Keith Hutchinson, city spokesman. No injuries were reported.

Authorities also closed several impassable roads in surrounding Williamson County. Some cars stalled in the high water, but the occupants were able to escape without the help of rescue workers, county spokeswoman Connie Watson said.

In San Antonio, 47 streets were closed and there were 39 calls for high-water rescues, although it's unclear how many people were rescued, said Sandy Gutierrez, a spokeswoman for the city Emergency Operations Center.

The heaviest rainfall in the region Thursday was in San Antonio's Bexar County and Comal County, where 3 to 5 inches had fallen since 7 a.m., said National Weather Service meteorologist Mark Lenz.

Whitman said some looting had been reported in flood-damaged areas of Marble Falls on Wednesday. Extra police officers were on duty overnight, and no more looting had been reported by Thursday morning, a city spokeswoman said.

Most residents of the town of 7,200 remained without running water after flash floods damaged the city's water plant. Bottled water brought in by state emergency workers was available. State environmental officials were assessing damage to the plant, Dewhurst said.

The Texas National Guard dispatched troops and vehicles to Central Texas, as well as other areas hit by storms from the Oklahoma border to the Rio Grande Valley. About 150 troops and 50 vehicles were mobilized.

It's the wettest year on record in Austin, with more than 30 inches of rain since January, and Dallas-Fort Worth, Waco and Wichita Falls have received near-record amounts. The rainfall has more than compensated for a drought that gripped much of Texas in 2005-06, Lenz said.

Review of Live Free or Die Hard

2007-06-29T00:35:00.000-07:00

It has been more than 10 years since Bruce Willis played John McClane, the resilient old-school cop and sand in the gears of dastardly plots by evil geniuses. Now older, balder, more banged-up, he's just as dogged when an errand-run to pick up smartass hacker Matt Farrell (Justin Long) lands him in yet another elaborate scheme by a criminal mastermind.

This being the age of excess, the fourth "Die Hard" escalates the stakes from a single building ("Die Hard") or an airport held hostage ("Die Hard 2") to the complete structural breakdown of an entire nation: Transportation, communications, finances, power, even defense systems are all disabled and directed by a single super-genius (a blandly intense Timothy Olyphant) out for both the biggest cyber-crime theft in history and a somewhat extreme gesture of payback.

Director Len Wiseman, confidently stepping up from the smallish budget "Underworld" films to mega-budget Hollywood mainstream, opens the film crisply, and he effectively escalates the action from the sinister threat of keyboards clicking and data flashing on video screens to guns blazing and buildings blowing up. The scale of explosions and property damage only increases from there as Olyphant and crew (including a gorgeous and sleek Maggie Q) take on the tenacious McClane to get Farrell, a loose end in their cyber-terrorism scheme.

Where Willis once tossed off his sardonic comments with an "Ain't I cute" smirk, here he has the confidence (or maybe simply exhaustion) to just toss them out there with a gruff pugnacity. Shaggily amiable co-star Long plays well off Willis' urban cowboy of a veteran cop, which helps make up for the glaring absence of a dynamic villain. With no color or personality to Gabriel, Olyphant is left to flash his eyes and glare menacingly as he orders yet another strike force against McClane.

Like a lot of digital-age thrillers, the film treats computer hacking and digital systems as a kind of cyber-magic, in which spells are hacked in seconds with a few keystrokes pounded out like some voodoo drumbeat. And it relies on the distraction of action to hide the plot potholes, which Wiseman fulfills with a mix of impressive stunt-work (love the gymnast hit men) and ambitious set-piece spectacles that start to overwhelm as the film keeps topping itself with high-concept overkill.

Sure, a Harrier jet chasing a big rig down an elevated freeway (it doesn't remain elevated for long) sounds like a great idea, but it's finally just another obstacle to a mission that has (as tradition dictates in such things) become personal.

But there's still something cinematically satisfying in seeing the veteran street cop McClane plugging along like a dogged boxer against a younger and stronger opponent, scraping himself back up after every knockdown out of sheer resilience.
He's no superhero, just a banged-up veteran held together by his scar tissue and roused to action because he's the guy in the place to do so. That's what makes this analog sentinel in a digital world such a riveting hero.

A Crushing Defeat for the Immigration Bill (Sen. Jeff Sessions)

2007-06-29T00:32:00.000-07:00

It was a surprisingly strong defeat for this bill’s advocates, and I think it was really a crushing defeat. It exceeded my expectations, although I thought it might shift — I felt a shift in the air — but I was surprised by the strength of that surge against the bill.

Review of Evan Almighty

2007-06-28T03:45:00.000-07:00

Evan Can Wait
Why in God's name did Steve Carell take the paycheck?

Evan Almighty is the work of an angry God. A sanctimonious sitcom dolled up as the most expensive comedy ever made— $175 mil, so they say, no doubt choking—it marks an unfortunate low point in the history of recent American comedy. There goes Steve Carell's perfect game.

In short, God (Morgan Freeman, who you know is God because his white linen shirts never wrinkle) tells Evan, an anchor-turned-politician, that if he builds it, they will come—"it" being an ark, "they" being animals lined up two by two. The movie suggests, quite frankly, that God's nothing more than a son of a bitch who's willing to drown thousands of people just to prove that one character—and you'll know who, like, 12 minutes in—is up to no good. Rather than use Evan as a vessel to warn innocent people about impending disaster, God turns the poor guy into a Rogaine freak show with a messianic complex toward whom elephants and monkeys migrate.

And why does God choose Evan? Because he was played in the original, Bruce Almighty, by Steve Carell, on a roll till now with The Office and The 40-Year-Old Virgin, in which the former Daily Show correspondent proved he was willing to debase himself for a well-deserved laugh. Who better to build a sequel around than an actor for whom self-humiliation is considered an act of heroism?

Evan Almighty actually stoops, repeatedly, to remind you how much you like Carell. There's a movie marquee advertising The 40-Year-Old Virgin Mary, and the camera actually lingers on it for several seconds. Jon Stewart appears twice from the Daily Show set, poking fun at Evan's transformation from suit-and-tie politician into robed messiah. (In the film's holier-than-thou context, Stewart comes off like a godless heathen, which, blessedly, he is.) And several of Carell's Office and Virgin cast mates make small cameos. Sweet Lord, how they all try—to no avail. This is PG-rated proselytizing tinged with Al Gore self-righteousness, all with the narrative thrust of a film about the apocalypse starring Kirk Cameron.

George Lopez/ Carlos Mencia Feud

2006-12-09T07:02:00.000-08:00

In a 2005 interview by Howard Stern, comedian George Lopez claimed that he and Mencia were involved in a physical altercation at a comedy club. Lopez alleged that Mencia appropriated 13 minutes of Lopez's material, without permission, for Mencia's HBO comedy special. Lopez told Stern, "It's not really a feud, I mean, I think I won."[2] Shortly afterwards, comedian Joe Rogan wrote a post on his website publicly accusing Mencia of being a plagiarist, alleging that Mencia stole jokes from a number of comedians.[3]
Mencia responded to the accusations while being interviewed on Tucson's The Frank Show, stating that Joe Rogan had fabricated these allegations out of jealousy. On his own website, Mencia denied accusations of plagiarism, arguing that the material in question was too generic to be attributed to any single comedian.
- From Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carlos_Mencia
Here's a link to the audio clip/ interview http://www.redban.com/audio/lopez.mp3

Review of UNACCOMPANIED MINORS

2006-12-09T06:38:00.000-08:00

The message of Unaccompanied Minors, a comedy about half-pints wreaking havoc at a snowed-in airport on Christmas Eve, might be, as one character puts it, that "divorced kids are more resourceful." Or maybe they're just brattier.

A noisy, not particularly charming collection of skits and skirmishes - with baggage conveyor belts doing double duty as roller-coasters - this film pits a quintet of smart-aleck kidniks against a barking airport official, played with foghorn subtlety by the comedian and Daily Show With Jon Stewart commentator Lewis Black.

When a blizzard closes Hoover International, a mess of boys and girls en route to respective divorced parents for the yuletide holiday are left stranded.
Black's Mr. Porter, the airport's passenger relations chief - and a man with serious bah-humbug issues - tries to contain the horde in one big room. But kids will go a-wanderin', and before you know it, luggage is being plundered, shops and eateries overrun. So Porter assembles his crack team of security guards (several Kids In the Hall comedy troupers) to round up the delinquents - and to trip over trunks and furniture in the process.

The mischief-making run-amok-ers include sensitive teen Spencer (Dyllan Christopher); rich girl Grace (Gina Mantegna); the tomboyish, martial-arts-adept Donna (Quinn Shephard); bright, tap-dancing Charlie (Tyler James Williams - who must have spent his downtime cribbing Urkel moves from episodes of Family Matters); and roly-poly "Beef" (Brett Kelly), who is off in his own world - with his Aquaman action figure. Joining Black from the ranks of The Daily Show are Rob Corddry, as an eco-obsessed father trying to rescue his son and daughter, and Rob Riggle, the largest and most oafish of the security knuckleheads. Good collection of seasonal tunes, though, including the Kinks' "Father Christmas."

PS3 or Nintendo Wii?

2006-12-08T07:25:00.000-08:00

Would you rither buy a PS3 or a Nintendo Wii?

Homemakers wanted

2006-12-08T07:05:00.000-08:00

Oh how I miss the days where women worked at home with the children and men got out there and did their 9-5 then came home to a warm, loving home with dinner on the table and the children ready to eat. It is SAD that women now days have to get a job, take care of the kids, take care of the house, plan their husband's days, do everything a housewife is expected and then take care of a company. Don't you think that is a lot on one person's shoulders? Yet, that is the expectation now. Who ever said men are the super powers of this world was one a male and two not in their right mind. I hope Hilary runs and wins the presidency! Just so that it can be proven that with or without PMS, we are more equipped and more efficient in running the greatest super power in the world. Oh, and yes-I am a bitter woman. You work more overtime than your boss and supervisor combined and still have to help run a household and take care of yourself, then tell me that you are happy go lucky.

Nici out -peace!

Review of APOCALYPTO

2006-12-08T01:11:00.000-08:00

Here's a thought: instead of rehashing Mel Gibson's Jew-bashing rants when L.A. cops got him on a DUI in July, let's stick to his movie. Apocalypto brings out what's unique and gripping in Gibson as a director. It's pure adrenaline -- a tremendously exciting chase movie, shot in Mexico, that just happens to be set in ancient Maya with dialogue spoken in Yucatec Maya, with English subtitles. Heck, you lived through Latin and Aramaic in Gibson's Passion of the Christ, so don't be a wussy. Actually, you'd better not be gore-shy, because Apocalypto is one brutal and bloody ride.

The plot, cooked up by Gibson and Farhad Safinia, focuses on Jaguar Paw (Rudy Youngblood), a braveheart if ever there was one. Even women and children are killed when his village is attacked by another tribe. After hiding his pregnant wife and young son in a cave, Jaguar goes on the run experiencing adventures that would give Indiana Jones the screaming meemies. The movie flies by fast enough to cause whiplash. Youngblood, 25, is a Comanche and Cree Indian from Texas, and he holds the screen every treacherous inch of the way, suffering penitential hardships from spears, snakes and tribal rulers intent on removing his heart while it's still beating.

This being Gibson, there's more to the film than the rush. It's impossible not to see parallels to our own cultured civilization, one that knowingly destroys its environment and sends troops to Iraq as human sacrifices. Gibson has made a film of blunt provocation and bruising beauty -- it's breathtaking to watch a jaguar racing in the jungle alongside the man who is named after the beast. Say what you will about Gibson, he's a filmmaker right down to his nerve endings.

Illegals Are Victims of Their Own Stupidity

2006-10-16T08:26:00.000-07:00

I keep hearing this argument that Illegal Aliens from Mexico are "victims" of their corrupt government. Well, that's fine. But does that give them a license to victimize us? Of course not, but that seems to be the rationale of many people. Let me remind everyone: when someone is victimized, that DOES NOT give them a right to go and victimize other people. Everyone agrees with this, right? When someone is molested as a child, and they grow up and molest other kids, we don't give them a pass! They go directly to jail. Its not OK for them to hurt other people just because they have it so bad. But you can find plenty of people (Libs, usually) that will actually make this argument. Have you ever heard of anything so ridiculous? As our government(both parties) steals our tax money and taxes us without representation, we are the victims of their thievery. We are also the victims of their total inaction on the border. This gives us the right to strike back at the government. We also, collectively, have the right to kick out all Illegal Aliens. Anything less than that is wrong and invites more disease-ridden illegals to come here and steal some more of our tax money and jobs. Of course, if any Illegal read this blog, I would guess that he or she would be mad at me. Which, of course, is ridiculous and insane. If things were reversed, does anyone have any doubt that the Mexicans would be screaming and demanding that the American leeches get out of their country? Except, the difference would be that they would actually do something about it. So, what's wrong with us? Why do so many people feel sorry for these dirty, criminal leeches? This is the number one issue for Americans. If you are one of these people who feels sorry for the Illegals and thinks that they should get to stay or it wasn't their fault or whatever Pro-Illegal-Invasion-from-Mexico argument you make: you need to have your head examined. Better yet, why don't you illegally immigrate to Mexico and see how much free healthcare you get and how well you're treated? Oh, and good luck on getting past the Mexican Army that sits on our Southern border.

Rosie O'Donnell - Angry at God

2006-09-18T17:06:00.000-07:00

I've given myself a few days to think about Rosie O'Donnell's ridiculous comments. You know, the one from last week where she said that "radical Christianity is just as threatening as radical Islam". First of all, we all know that's ridiculous. There's not even a comparison. First, I thought she must be trying to do that lame thing where people use The Crusades to illustrate that Christianity is evil, but don't most people know that the Crusades were a response to Muslim armies invading Europe? I think they do. So, there's only one reason for her comments that I've been able to come up with: she's angry at Christians and Christianity (and presumably, God) because Christianity does not approve of her lesbianism. Well, good luck to her.

New Orleans Mayor Takes Swipe At NYC

2006-08-25T00:58:00.000-07:00

Confronted by accusations that he is taking too long to clean up his city after Hurricane Katrina, New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin defended himself by remarking on New York City’s failure to rebuild Ground Zero. First let me say this man is a real ass I mean look at his record of accomplishment on Hurricane Katrina he did nothing but find a working TV crew and talk about how President Bush and FEMA were not doing enough for him. Both Don and I have talk about this on the show what was President Bush suppose too come down and hold you and tell you it will be ok. Few people talk about the fact that the mayor of New Orleans held the responsibility to activate the city's evacuation plan, that the governor is in charge of the National Guard in his or her state, and that the federal government steps in only when asked to. Not sure, about you but I think you should use all the resources you have at your disposal before you go crying to daddy Bush case in point I remember the hundreds and hundreds of school buses that were parked and then flooded. Buses that could and should have been used to help people get out but what did Nagin do he set on his ass and did nothing. Mayor Ray Nagin wants to talk about 9/11 and Hurricane Katrina as if they are one in the same well they are not the same. On 9/11, New York was attacked by terrorist and killed 2,740 Americans and 236 foreigners these people were not killed by a natural disaster an act of God no but by mad men who should be killed so tell me again Mayor Nagin how the two are the same. Let us see you said, “That’s alright. You people in New York cannot get a hole in the ground fixed and its five years later. So let’s be fair." You’re right let’s be fair New York had to remove about three thousand bodies from the rubble how many bodies did you remove New York had to recover from one of the most destructive attacks in US history you had to rebuild a modest size city and you cant even do that right. Mayor Nagin all I have to say to you is clean up your own back yard before you start talking about someone else I think you should be made to apologize to the people of New York and all the families of the 9/11 victims.

More of the Same

2006-08-23T12:53:00.000-07:00

Well, Iran wants to sit down and talk. The funny thing is, those wackos consider it some kind of victory if we even sit down and listen to them, so it looks to me like we're still in a pretty good spot. Of course, they will not give up their nuclear programs. I believe that this is just another devious plan. I think its a stalling tactic, so they can rush to finish their first load of nuclear bombs. These people, the leaders in Iran, are huge hypocrites. They bemoan us for killing civilians, when their proxy group (Hezbollah) is the one causing the civilians to be killed. Achmadinejad continually vows to destroy Israel; civilians, fellow Arabs, and Muslims included. Thats the most glaring of all hypocrisy. All the terrorists in Iraq do is kill civilians. They rarely get American soldiers. They've killed a considerably higher number of civilians, intentionally. So, there you go. More of the same.

2006-08-21T19:06:00.000-07:00

Am I the only one who tunes out and flips over to the History Channel when Fox News and CNN and everybody else goes to 24-hour coverage of something so ridiculous as this crazy pervert who claims that he killed JonBenet Ramsey? I can't believe that they were all covering the landing of the plane he was on from Thailand last night. Absolutely shocking how ridiculous that is. Why do they insist on doing this? I can't imagine that they have good ratings during these periods, but maybe they do. It just blows me away that they make all their hosts cover these stories. What a joke it is. The problem is that they go full-tilt with all kinds of conjecture, all day long. Then, they go all night long, saying nothing. They should just wait until there actually is some news about the subject. I realize that they need something to fill their 24 hours, but I'm willing to bet that there are alot more ideas for topics to cover, in the minds of the employees, at their respective broadcasting companies, that they could easily tap into. For some unknown reason, they do not do this. As a matter of fact, I just checked the TV, and now Greta Van Susteren, the highly-rated Queen of Fox News, is delving into some minutia about how some guy met some other guy and blah, blah, blah this pervert was arrested. It just sickens me that this is going on. I paid attention long enough to find out, 3 days ago, that there is no story. This guy might have done it and he might NOT have done it. That's it. That's all. They'll do DNA tests and a couple of other things, and then we MIGHT know if he did it. End of story. Get back to us, Fox News, when there is a story to tell. Yeah, we already know that this guy is a total perv and is at the very least, extremely disturbed, and that he wants to be a woman. We wish we didn't know these things, and once again......please get back to us when there is a story.

For instance, they could cover the gigantic threat that Iran is making to the Western world. (I know everyone's been distracted by the pervert, but.......remember? August 22nd is the day that the former hostage-taker "President" of Iran will give his answer to the rest of the world about whether or not they will stop their nuclear weapon development programs) Tomorrow is the day that we find out if this crazy Hitler-ite, Ahmadinejad, is going to carry out his evil plans, or if he's still in the threatening stage. So, assuming we don't get nuked into oblivion tonight by these crazy, fascist, bloodthirsty Muslim extremist wackos in Iran, I'll give you my analysis of what this little-bitty crackpot, who Mike Wallace thinks is "an attractive man", says or does, tomorrow.

Next Solution Please....

2006-08-14T06:45:00.000-07:00

At this moment, I'm hearing news reports that the cease-fire in Lebanon has been holding for the past 8 1/2 hours. This won't last. The idea that Hezbollah is going to lay down its arms is ludicrous. They are maniacal, psychotic murderers and they will not stop trying to wipe the planet clean of Jews. How terribly naive it is of the U.N. to believe that Hezbollah is going to behave with any integrity. The U.N. is an inept, impotent, and totally corrupt body. The U.N. should be dissolved. At the very least, we shouldn't have it headquartered in this country and we shouldn't fund it at all. Did everyone forget about the Oil-for-Food Scandal? Didn't Kofi Annan have a big part in that? How come that just disappeared? Regardless, I can't think of one instance where the U.N. has been successful at something like enforcing a cease-fire. They've been on the border of Lebanon since 1978, apparently either doing nothing, or helping Hezbollah. They've had 28 years to keep the peace, and they can't do it. So, lets all face the truth: the U.N. is unable or unwilling to do anything constructive. Next solution please........

Review of World Trade Center

2006-08-12T15:30:00.000-07:00

What a strange, sobering trip it must have been for the sporadically talented blowhard Oliver Stone and Nicolas Cage to efface their outsize personalities and make a film like World Trade Center. No speed-freak editing. No lefty tub-thumping. No conspiracy theories. Just a celebration of American valor in the face of devastation. Why not accentuate the positive?

Their film is gripping—and should be: It has its tentacles around you from its stark title on. It’s a title that means so many things to so many people. The mass murder of civilians in the world’s greatest metropolis. The arrogance of Western global financial markets. And now, an uplifting tale of two people who weren’t vaporized along with nearly 3,000 others. It is, as the ads say, “a true story of courage and survival.”

The men are two of New York’s (and New Jersey’s) Finest: Port Authority police officers John McLoughlin (Cage) and Will Jimeno (Michael Peña, the beleaguered Latino locksmith in last year’s Crash), part of a team that’s going into Tower One to rescue trapped inhabitants. In the underground concourse, McLoughlin improvises: There’s no plan, and he can’t even confirm that the second tower has been hit. He certainly has no inkling that the random explosions and groans of steel he hears are harbingers of the implosion to come.

Those sounds are probably the scariest thing in the movie—the death rattles not just of one of the world’s tallest skyscrapers but of American impregnability. Stone and his cinematographer, Seamus McGarvey, view that terrible morning with the heightened clarity of grief; the cops and firemen who move in and out of the frame—amid pieces of paper that flutter down like confetti—already seem like ghosts.

The opening makes you think World Trade Center might be a Towering Inferno kind of disaster picture, but Stone backs off from spectacle. There’s almost no carnage. We don’t see the planes hit—only the shadow of one over the Port Authority. The collapse of both towers is experienced from inside, a massive boom and then a lethal shower of steel and concrete. For most of the film, we’re with McLoughlin and Jimeno (the camera tight on their faces) as they lie pinned under slabs, waiting for help, talking about their wives and children—anything to keep from losing consciousness.

That’s when Stone cuts to their spouses in their respective towns—Maria Bello as Donna McLoughlin and Maggie Gyllenhaal as the very pregnant Allison Jimeno, both nearly going mad as they hold out for word of their husbands. Bello’s escalating anger is deeply affecting, and Gyllenhaal uses her natural spaciness to suggest how a woman in her third trimester in that situation might be half in and half out of her body.

But I was disturbed by this sudden shift in the movie’s scale, and not just because these scenes are so soap-opera manipulative. It was because my thoughts kept drifting to the tens of thousands of others (spouses, children, parents) who feared the worst and would hear the worst—or nothing at all, because the bodies of their loved ones would never be recovered. A true story of courage and survival, yes. But viewing the destruction of the World Trade Center—in a film called World Trade Center—through this kind of prism represents a distinctly Hollywood brand of tunnel vision.

What if Mexico did it???

2006-08-12T08:32:00.000-07:00

In response to the comment that was made about my last posting......What would you do, Mr. Anonymous, if some group of people, in Mexico, was shooting rockets into American cities all the time, trying to kill you and your family? I guess you would cry, "Peace! Peace! Let's all just get along! Why don't you psychotic murderers come over for dinner and we'll all talk about it in a culturally sensitive way...???" I bet they would take you up on your offer, and when they arrived at your home for the discussion, they would blow themselves up and everyone present would die. Does that sound like a good idea? I'm willing to bet that if rockets were raining down in America, alot of you non-violent, peacenik-types would suddenly change and demand that our government do something about it - like, kill all the people shooting the rockets and anyone who's helping them or allowing it to go on, for instance. (but maybe I'm giving you guys too much credit- perhaps you would just lay down and die, feeling so good about yourself that you were never "mean" to anybody) Can anyone imagine what we would do in Israel's situation? I don't think we would put up with it for one minute....Wouldn't we invade Mexico immediately? Can you imagine, if this was going on and the Mexican government just sat there, twiddling their thumbs, saying that they can't stop their own citizens from firing rockets into Texas, Arizona, New Mexico, and California? I know that there's alot of people out there who just want everything to be OK, but its not. And when its not, you can't just ignore it and hope it goes away. Let me remind everybody, Israel does want peace. They pulled out of Lebanon 6 years ago, they gave up a bunch of territory to the "Palestinians", they waited, I believe foolishly, until those dirty, terrorist scumbags kidnapped their soldiers to even respond. Israel should be given an award for practicing so much restraint. You peaceniks should be kissing Israel's feet for being so peaceful. I just don't get how anyone can defend Hezbollah or any other terrorist outfit. It is insane, not to mention, suicidal. You've got to pick a side, and if I was you, I would pick the side that does not want to murder you and your whole family - that would be our side, the United States and Israel. The side of freedom.

Israel Must Kill "Civilians" in Lebanon

2006-08-11T12:58:00.000-07:00

I'm being made sick by all these countries and people who, right after the Israel/Hezbollah war began, came out screaming "Cease-Fire" and "Stop the violence". How ridiculous! Where were all these people for the last 6 years, as Hezbollah launched rockets into Israel, killing civilians? It just blows me away that, apparently, so many fools out there believe that its OK for Hezbollah to kill Israelis, but when Israel fights back, they say, "Stop the Violence!". Its absolutely, certifiably INSANE. Israel should not stop the violence. Everything Israel has destroyed, deserved to be destroyed. The government of Lebanon has not lived up to its part of the bargain. Lest we forget that the Lebanese government was supposed to disarm Hezbollah, and they did not. They just let them continue slaughtering innocent Israeli men, women, and children - EVERYDAY for the last six years. So, thats it. The Lebanese government and of course, the evil Hezbollah itself are the ones responsible for the "civilian deaths" in Lebanon. When Lebanese citizens, whether they claim to be members of Hezbollah or not (as if there was some way to verify this), let Hezbollah fire rockets from their house, their backyard, or their town, THEY ARE NOT CIVILIANS!!! The minute they do that, they are becoming members of Hezbollah and should be killed ASAP. The people that do this and then cry that their children have been killed by the Israelis are totally psychotic. This is the game that they play. They want Israel to kill them, so they can have some idiot news outfit take pictures of it and try to garner sympathy from the West and anyone else who's looking. So, the answer is that Israel should, justifiably, kill everybody, in any town, where any rocket is fired from. I will applaud Fox News for one thing: the other night they had a guy on there by the name of Walid Shoeyat (I'm sure I'm misspelling the last name) who is a former PLO terrorist, who confirmed quite clearly that all these " civilians" who let Hezbollah, or any other terrorist use their houses and backyards and towns as storage facilities and rocket-launching bases do it because they want to, and because they agree with the terrorists, and because they want to be martyrs. So, for Fox News, and CNN , and everybody else to even report these as "civilian" casualties is just wrong. Its a lie. Here's to hoping that there is no Cease-fire agreement, and that thousands more Lebanese "civilians" are killed today by Israeli bombs, rockets, and bullets.

Review of Nacho Libre

2006-06-22T18:50:00.000-07:00

Like the abominable Napoleon Dynamite, director Jared Hess’ second feature will doubtless capture the hearts and minds of 12-year-old boys everywhere, even if Nacho Libre sacrifices the earlier film’s aggressive mean-spiritedness in favor of gentle slapstick lunacy. Hess (who also co-wrote the script with his wife, Jerusha, and School of Rock’s Mike White) still can’t fully suppress his contempt for the obese, the poorly coifed and the orthodontically challenged, but the exuberant sweetness of Jack Black’s performance, as a Oaxaca monastery cook who moonlights as a masked Lucha Libre wrestler, provides a powerful corrective.

Black’s quixotic Nacho isn’t as deep or fully drawn as was his inspired schoolteacher character in Rock, consisting more of a series of surface affectations — a mustache, a come-and-go Mexican accent, a flatulence problem — but even Black in a minor key is something to get excited about in today’s movie-comedy wasteland.

The sharpest scenes, rendered by Hess with a fair amount of local color, have Nacho, attired in turquoise tights and red tablecloth cape, taking to the ring and taking on an array of eccentric opponents (including a pair of shrieking midget gnomes) with the aid of his rail-thin, atheistic partner (a scene-stealing Hector Jimenez). But too often, Nacho Libre expects us to be tickled by the mere sight of Black shirtless, or going to the toilet, and well before the end, the movie’s one-joke premise — that sometimes a loser can be more endearing to audiences than a winner — has been stretched as thin as a tortilla chip.

Review of Click

2006-06-22T18:45:00.000-07:00

Click is yet another uninspired Adam Sandler goof-fest with a long suffering leading lady, mildly bawdy gags—see Joe Schmo ogle female jogger—and a predictable ending. For anyone else, that might make for a forgettable dud. But this is Adam Sandler, a man who perfected this formula a decade ago, so chalk up this one as yet another forgettable hit.

Michael Newman (Sandler) is a workaholic architect with a neglected wife (Kate Beckinsale) and two kids. Obviously, he becomes consumed by his work and begins to neglect his family. He quickly learns that the new universal remote control he bought from a dubious mad scientist (Christopher Walken) at his local Bed, Bath, and Beyond has the power to stop, pause, and fast-forward his life. It’s a workable premise, sure, but also an overused one. Remember when it was a classic episode of The Twilight Zone? How about the 2001 Jesse Bradford tweener flick Clockstoppers?

It would be easy to look beyond the plot’s lack of originality if the film had something else going for it. It’s not particularly funny, it’s obnoxiously rife with product-placement, and aside from Christopher Walken, who does a good job, the acting is nothing to write home about either. Sandler is capable of convincingly stepping into character: witness his turn in 2004’s underrated Spanglish. Here, it’s just a rerun of the same old Sandler movie comedy tricks. Kate Beckinsale’s performance is fine, but the alluring starlet just isn’t believable as an ordinary housewife. There was also a notable lack of chemistry between Beckinsale and Sandler.

Ultimately, if you like Adam Sandler movies—and there are a lot of you—you will probably like this one too, but no matter which side of the Adam-Sandler –comedies-rule / Adam-Sandler-comedies-suck side of the fence you’re on, this hour-and-a-half of Click feels like nothing more than hitting rewind and play on a stale plot and jokes you’ve seen 100 times before.

Kofi's Logical Fallacy on Immigration

2006-06-06T09:24:00.000-07:00

LOGICAL FALLACY REPORT – Kofi Anan on immigration wrote this week about immigration in the Wall Street Journal. In doing so he committed Logical Fallacy # 2 in Don’s list of logical fallacies. This is the Categorical Fallacy in which a person places something in the wrong category or group. How does Kofi do this. Well, he actually makes a double categorical fallacy.

First, he generalizes two categories as one by not distinguishing between legal and illegal immigration. Of course, every nation in the world has laws about what immigration is legal and what immigration is illegal. The UN Secretary General implies that the U.S. (his clear target in whose affairs he is attempting to interfere with this speech) is wrong by trying to stop illegal immigration, never mentioning that we allow more legal immigration, a million a year, than any other country one earth.

Perhaps he could hold us up as a model and encourage other nations to copy our legal immigration standards. Secondly, he implies that all immigration is always beneficial to the immigrants and to the nations to and from which they migrate. Of course, this is a categorical fallacy as well, confusing “some of” or “most of” with “all of”.

Here are a few of the things he had to say:

U.N. DISPATCHIn Praise of Migration Nations that welcome immigrants are the most dynamic in the world.

BY KOFI A. ANNAN Monday, June 5, 2006 12:01 a.m. EDT

Ever since national frontiers were invented, people have been crossing them--not just to visit foreign countries, but to live and work there. In doing so, they have almost always taken risks, driven by a determination to overcome adversity and to live a better life. Those aspirations have always been the motors of human progress. Historically, migration has improved the well-being, not only of individual migrants, but of humanity as a whole.

And that is still true. In a report that I am presenting tomorrow to the U.N. General Assembly, I summarize research which shows that migration, at least in the best cases, benefits not only the migrants themselves but also the countries that receive them, and even the countries they have left. . . .

All in all, countries that welcome migrants and succeed in integrating them into their societies are among the most dynamic--economically, socially and culturally--in the world.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110008473

Islamo-fascist war against the free world is alive and well

2006-06-06T09:21:00.000-07:00

Islamo-fascist war against the free world is alive and well and the enemy is not generic “terrorists”, but Islamo-fascists!

We have been reminded of this by Canadian terrorist in Toronto who wanted to attack their radio tower/space needle and the suicide bomber death vests in London-- while the media, the Despocrats, and the extreme left sleep.

Lessons here:

1-Canada says these perpetrators are Al Qaeda inspired, but not Al Qaeda linked. These terrorists are like a cancer that has metastasized, spreading all over the body. But the left keeps arguing about Saddam not having a connection to Al Qaeda and Bin Laden. AND they were connected to two Atlantan’s who were arrested last week.

The whole intent here is to mislead the American people so we will put down our guard!
2-Canadian phone wire taps played a leading role in this. What does this tell us about the NSA program and other programs that track who known terrorists talk to and who talks to known terrorists?

3-We are at increasing danger as the left and the media attacks our military and our efforts to defend ourselves. More terrorists states like Iran and more self-initiating terrorists in mosques in the west are deciding it is safe to ignore America and the West’s resolve to defend itself.

4-Six of the seventeen terrorists in Toronto were from the same mosque. And the leader of the group was a 42 yo bus driver about whom it has been said by lots of people, “Oh yeah, he preached fiery sermons in the mosque stirring up hatred toward Canada all the time.” We cannot allow freedom of speech to be used to advocate the overthrow democracy or to justify killing of innocents in the name of God. This is not different than inciting a riot or provoking violence.

5-The left in Canada is already raising issues like, “Was this a sting operation?” “Was this fair?” “Was this motivated by racism?” And did you see the leader of the mosque reminding us that “Everyone is innocent until proven guilty.” Oh, really? Is everyone “innocent until proven guilty?” A man who murders a child is innocent until it is proven he did so?

No. Everyone is “innocent under the law until proven guilty.”

And isn’t it interesting that this is the point the leader of the mosque wanted to talk about, not about love, not about the evil of hatred of those with whom one disagrees, but the innocence with which terrorist should be regarded?

The left hates honest decent people and wants to destroy EVERY THING that protects and defends the rights, security, and lives of the innocent. The left must be made to SHUT UP! Not removing their freedom of speech, but shaming, embarrassing, and rightly humiliating the left and those who financially support their insane statements and their political activities. Including the leftist media. Don’t watch, don’t listen, don’t buy.They have freedom of speech and association. But so do we. And more of us need to start using it. Before we lose those freedoms.

Marriage Protection Amendment has the Despotcrats and the left triangulated again.

2006-06-06T09:18:00.000-07:00

Amazing—Democrats suddenly are for state’s rights! The problem, however, is that 2 states had their people vote democratically for marriage protection laws, and leftist judges threw out those laws.

Logical Fallacy: Joseph Biden: Republicans are focusing on this when they need to focus on (a litany of Democratic causes). Logical Fallacy # 19: This logical fallacy is a False Dilemma--acting as if you can do only one or two or three things rather than some other needed things. Why can't you do all of them?

By the way, did you see Biden on Fox? What has happened to him? He looked more like a cadaver than any living person I have ever seen.

And NOT amazing: Democrats describe this as motivated by hate. Of course, to Despotcrats, anything wanted by most Americans is motivated by hate. Alan Hevesi, New York's Democratic state comptroller said last Thursday that Sen. Chucky Schumer would like Bush to be shot between the eyes.

What marriage is:

1-The protection of the weaker gender from being victimized by men as they are in all primitive and third world nations. Why marriage between one man and one woman.

2-To protect the progeny that comes from that union—to provide stable heterosexual parents who care for the development of a child in a physically secure environment created by a male and an emotionally stable environment created by a female in which they learn self-love and self-confidence from the nurturing of the female and personal responsibility

Perfect parents. NO. But on the large scale, children with a mother and father are healthier emotionally and in giving love to others, and more are more productive and responsible people. This is why it is the foundation of a healthy society. All the efforts in the 60’s and 70’s to redefine marriage have been abysmal failures in terms of the health of human being within our society.

3-Marriage is not a personal feeling of commitment and love, but a commitment to one’s society—that henceforth you may see and treat us as a couple and any children we have as a unit, as one entity, as a family. This commitment to society is why shacking up does not work.

4-Marriage is the union of one who is like yourself as a human, yet is a union with one who is entirely different than yourself. This is part of the mystery and wonder both of sex and marriage. That you are two halves of a complete whole, neither of which is whole alone. It is a training ground for loving one exactly like yourself, and yet wholly different than you—God.

A homosexual union on the other hand is loving one totally like yourself, or love of self.Want to bankrupt cities? Give equal rights to homosexual unions! Should committed partners have certain rights other than insurance coverage that is given to husbands and wives—such as inheritance rights, medical decisions, and hospital visitation? Certainly. But not all the rights and recognition of a marriage. Because such a union is not a marriage in any sense of the word.

Two Legal Systems, One For Despotcrats and Elites, and One For The Rest Of Us?

2006-06-06T09:17:00.000-07:00

Patrick Kennedy out of rehab, but he still can’t remember! And has Cynthia McKinney crime been forgotten? Do we have equal justice under the law, or is that one justice for you and I, and another one for the elites such as Cynthia McKinney, the Kennedy’s, William Jefferson and other politicians, and their favored agenda groups in America? Law is only as good as a people’s respect for the law, and these guys are undermining respect for the law.

Children sold in Family Values Mexico. How's That Possible?

2006-06-06T09:16:00.000-07:00

Did you see the story of couple selling their six children in Mexico?
American couple busted in Tiajuana, Mexico for selling their 6 children in Mexico. Five of the children have been found! Selling in Mexico. I thought Mexico was this wondrous place of family values. How could you possibly sell six children in Mexico. I bet illegal aliens—probably some racist Americans--who bought the children!

Are we sure we want female cops?

2006-06-06T09:12:00.000-07:00

Did you see 5’3” female cop on Fox News wrestling with a 6’9” male? It was comical. But this is how political correctness endangers cops.

There was this past year a case in Austin—yes, Lost In Austin—in which a female cop and another cop were fighting with suspects, the female lost her tazer and was knocked to the ground, and when she saw the suspect going to pick up the taser, she recognized both she and her fellow officer were in great danger, and she shot and killed the suspect.

Now it’s a big frufrafra in Austin. Resist a cop, you're going to get shot! Dare to resist, cease to exist! Or else get rid of small and/or weaker cops including women who are smaller and weaker than a large strong male.

Review of X-Men: The Last Stand

2006-05-28T23:37:00.000-07:00

X-Men: The Last Stand is, like The Da Vinci Code, undermined by impersonal direction, but this time it isn’t fatal: There are still lots of neat-o special effects. As in the Marvel comic and the last two film installments (directed by Bryan Singer), the gimmick is that evolution has produced a class of special individuals reviled or feared by the rest of humankind (and in heartbreaking cases, disowned by their own parents). We’re talking about shape-shifters, mind readers, telepaths, flame-people, ice-people, people with odd protuberances, and people who don’t just complain about the weather but actually do something about it. Under the care and tutelage of Professor Xavier (Patrick Stewart), more and more of these lost souls have embraced the label mutant the way gays have embraced the label queer: They are Mutant and Proud. The problem is the ones who are Mutant and Angry, led by Xavier’s combative counterpart, Magneto—played by Ian McKellen, once again stirring the pot.

In this (alleged) Last Stand, a mutant’s wealthy and distraught father (Michael Murphy) has developed a serum that can instantly de-mutanize, which enrages Magneto and a like-minded troupe of hothead young’uns, including a guy with retractable porcupine blades and a muscle-bound Cockney (“Juggernaut”) who has never met a wall he couldn’t pulverize. They liken the use of the serum to genocide and vow to destroy the “cure”—along with a lot of Homo sapiens (the term is an insult and always hissed). The movie has a very wild card that could turn out to be the militants’ ultimate weapon: Xavier’s dull assistant Jean (Famke Janssen), who sacrificed herself for her comrades at the end of X2, emerges from a lake with certain protective psychological barriers in her brain removed (long story). Her uncontrollable female fury unharnessed, she’s now called Phoenix and itching to suck dry or disintegrate the men who thought they could tame her. Janssen isn’t the world’s most animated actress, but she doesn’t need to be with FX like this.

Too bad the FX people couldn’t jazz up the new director, Brat—I mean Brett—Ratner, a youngish Hollywood hotshot with the skills of a briskly competent traffic cop but no discernible vision. With all the apocalyptic doings in The Last Stand—including the disintegration of some major characters—there ought to be a sequence or two that is not just impressive but lyrical, awe-inspiring, operatic. But there’s nothing as showstopping as the scene in X2 in which Magneto sucked the iron out of a guard’s bloodstream and, with supreme elegance, sailed out of his prison cell on a sort of metallic carpet. Ratner doesn’t do elegance, so this is just another big-budget B-movie.

It’s a fast and enjoyable B-movie, though, and Hugh Jackman’s Wolverine brings some good stormy drama to the proceedings. (It’s not going to come from the character called Storm, played by the monotonic Halle Berry, or the increasingly stick-in-the-mud Rogue of Anna Paquin’s.) As a mutant-human diplomat, a blue hairy beast, Kelsey Grammer is all backslapping heartiness. Why is it that the only genuine uniters-not-dividers are in monster movies?

President Bush, PLEASE, Close Our Borders! Now

2006-04-06T14:55:00.000-07:00

Mr. President: Thirteen months ago, I wrote an open letter to you expressing my concern about the pejorative effects of your misguided proposals concerning illegal immigration. I am writing this second letter to you to say that my worst fears are not only being realized, but are being exceeded.

I can tell you--and the Republicans in the Senate--that if you do not listen to the American people and reverse your “illegal immigrant worker” proposals, the leftist Democrats will win back control of congress with devastating consequences. The first consequence will be that the war on terror will abruptly end in surrender to the terrorists and a premature withdrawal of our troops from Iraq.

As you clearly understand, this will result in a catastrophic repeat of the killing fields of Cambodia, this time on the desert sands of Iraq with millions of innocents being exterminated merely for having desired freedom and having mistakenly trusted America as an ally. The war will have meant nothing more than the sad senseless catastrophe of 2,300 plus U.S. soldiers killed and 17,000 plus injured--who will have aimlessly sacrificed their lives and health--and the undermining of any future ally ever again trusting us to carry through on our promises.

The long term consequences of a return of Democratic control of congress will be the inevitable repeat of 9-11 by terrorists who will have easily crossed our open borders; the trashing of America’s democracy and our electoral system by the Democrats who will eradicate the distinction between citizens and illegals in exchange for political power; the destruction of our economy and the bankruptcy of our social security system as millions of illegals obtain welfare benefits and retroactive social security credit for alleged contributions based on the scantest of evidence; and the loss of American strength and freedom as the Democrats again dismantle our military—in the middle of a war.

President Bush, FDR made two catastrophic miscalculations. First, in order to enter World War II and save China from Japanese imperialism, he coerced Japan into attacking the U.S. Second, he naively trusted Stalin whom he affectionately called “Uncle Joe.” This misplaced trust led FDR at Yalta to bend over backward in order to persuade Stalin to enter the war. Thus, Manchuria was sacrificed to Stalin, which led to the Chinese Communists being able to enslave their people for over fifty years, a destiny far worse than Japanese imperialism possibly could have been. And FDR sacrifice Poland to Stalin, paving the way for Russian enslavement of all of Eastern Europe for 40 years.

You seem blind, as did FDR, to the consequences of your naiveté. Thus, you refuse to listen to the will and judgment of the American people, a despicable disregard of the sovereign of this nation that is fundamentally different from your courage in ignoring the fanaticism of the politically correct left and the mainstream media. Perhaps a military analogy would help you to understand the intensity of the American people on this issue which you attempt to sweep away with the disingenuous charge of “racism”.

Mr. President, suppose that during WW II that were stationed at a base on a South Pacific Island that recently had been overrun by Japanese insurgents from a neighboring island. And suppose you found that the base perimeter was non-existent, having been destroyed by the insurgents. So, you suggest that the perimeter of the base be rebuilt and adequately defended against further actions by insurgents hidden among the island’s population. However, the base commander tells you that the base’s priority is to send its best units and equipment to attack the island held by the insurgents.

On top of this, you slowly realize that there is no safeguard against the insurgents being hired into civilian positions on the base from which they easily can access key areas including the ammunitions depot, the food supplies, the communication center, the base bank, etc. Moreover, the bank and the base stores are regularly robbed so that some of the troops are going without food and basic supplies, and there is a shortage of cash on the base. And you keep worrying about that ammunition depot.

When you protest this idiocy, you are reprimanded by the commander as a racist against the natives of the island. You are told your concern needs to be defeating the enemy on the other island rather than protecting the base.

If you can only slightly imagine the anxiety and frustration such a situation would create, then perhaps you can understand the frustration of the American people and that it has nothing to do with racism.

Mr. President, if you and your liberal Republican allies in the Senate don’t wake up, and quickly, you will be out of power, and your infamy in history will make FDR at Yalta look like a genius. This is because you are in danger of losing not only an election, but with it the entire war on terror, our national security in the face of increasing global fascism by the Islamo-fascists, and the health of America’s democratic electoral process and our free-market’s economic prosperity.

President Bush, there is still time, but not much. If you love America; and if you really believe that our national heritage, the war on terror, and national security and prosperity matter; PLEASE, close the borders now—whatever it takes—before it is too late!

Don Crawford, 4/6/06

Strip Club Operator Runs for School Board

2006-03-01T05:49:00.000-08:00

The president and director of a Colorado-based adult entertainment company is running for the school board of a suburban St. Louis district, and already many residents are giving the candidacy a thumbs down.

"I wouldn't want that kind of guy running a school board," Jeremy Parks, 21, told the St. Louis Post-Dispatch. "If he's that great of a guy, with good morals, he wouldn't be running strip clubs."

Micheal Ocello is president and director of VCG Holding Corp., based in Lakewood, Colo., a company that says on its Web site that its clubs feature "premium quality female performers" with "highest standards" for "appearance, attitude, demeanor, dress and personality."

The Web site says the company owns and operates a dozen adult entertainment nightclubs, featuring exotic dancers, in St. Louis, Denver, Indianapolis, Phoenix, Louisville, Ky., and Sauget, Ill.

Ocello, 46, a husband and father of three, hopes to win one of two seats on the Mehlville School Board in south St. Louis County.

He said he knew the race would be tough, but is tiring of the strip club questions, and finds remarks about the business offensive. He was once a male dancer himself.

Today, he enjoys playing with his grandchildren, riding motorcycles with his wife, watching old movies with his daughter and boating on the Mississippi River with his family.

The others candidates, including two incumbents, are a Union Pacific worker, a pressroom supervisor, a salesman, a retired teacher and a church fundraiser.

Several candidates said it will be rough for a man in adult entertainment to win the hearts of suburban, conservative district residents.

"I don't want to say anything negative about anybody," said Tom Diehl, a nonprofit fundraising consultant. "I imagine it might be tough for some voters to get beyond that issue."

Privately, at least one candidate asked Ocello what he's doing, Ocello said.

"I knew going into it I would receive a lot of scrutiny," Ocello said. "I think it's important enough to go through with it."

Several district residents told the Post-Dispatch a strip club executive would never get their vote.

But those who know Ocello speak highly of him.

Barbara Geno, executive director of Clayton Child Center, said Ocello has been a strong board member for 10 years at her school, and has "very high morals and ethics."

The candidates say they hope the race sticks to the issues.

NBC's coverage of the Olympics: The good, bad, and ugly

2006-03-01T05:30:00.000-08:00

As the Turin Games come to a close, here is the good, the bad, and the ugly from two weeks of NBC Olympic coverage.

Overall, NBC's prime-time ratings for these Olympics have been a disappointment. Figure skating delivered in a big way, but the rest of the Games did not meet NBC's expectations.
Here's why: Intense competition from FOX and ABC with red-hot shows like "American Idol" (a four-letter word to NBC executives), "Grey's Anatomy" and "Desperate Housewives" taking on the Olympics and, in most cases, winning the ratings battle. The Olympic mystique has been pierced and bold counter-programmers will attack going forward. The top U.S. stars failed early in the Games and there was no viewing momentum coming out of the first weekend. With Bode Miller failing early and Michelle Kwan's withdrawal, the "buzz" suffered. Snowboarders like Shaun White and Hannah Teter won early golds, but they don't have enough broad national appeal to carry a network in prime time. They are a great supporting cast, but not stars. Many people still love the Olympics, but these Games never fully captured the imagination of the country. With tape-delayed events, the Internet changes viewing habits when the U.S. team struggles. Like it or not, many viewers watch to see American athletes win, and when the word gets out that Bode Miller fizzled or Johnny Weir stumbled, Americans watch less coverage, if any at all. If the U.S. had won in those and other instances, viewers would have watched even if they had known the results.

NBC did everything it could to promote these games. "Nightly News" had Brian Williams in Turin for two weeks and the mighty "Today Show" was on point for the entire Olympics. In fact, virtually all of the show was dedicated to the Olympics. If you add the cross-promotion of USA Network, CNBC, and NBCOlympics.com, it was an eye-opening promotional assault. Despite the blitz, the Games never caught fire with American viewers. Most Americans woke up the last two weeks thinking about the final contestants on "American Idol" or who was left on "Dancing with the Stars" – not who won the women's super-G. In the mind of the viewers, the Olympics were simply not as relevant as the reality shows offered up by the other networks. This is a problem that will be tough to combat. How does NBC keep the Olympics relevant enough to justify its $1 billion-plus commitment going forward?

The U.S. is second to Germany in medals – a pretty good performance given the team's historical struggles in the Winter Olympics. The problem is the wrong people won at the wrong times. To the viewer, all medals are not created equally, and the American public saw this Olympics as the "what could have been" Games. Americans led in events and folded under the Olympic pressure time and time again. Skier Bode Miller, the most-promoted and most-publicized U.S. athlete coming into the Olympics, laid the ultimate golden egg, winning zero medals in five Alpine events. That lack of success after the buildup hurt NBC badly.

So, what are the lessons for NBC? The next Olympic Games will begin in just two and a half years in Beijing. The time difference between Beijing and the East Coast is 13 hours, so this will be a tape-delayed Games with the winners and losers widely-known before NBC airs the events. NBCOlympics.com could be even more important in 2008. It has been very popular during these Games and NBC says it will make "$5-6 million in pure profit" on the site. So, how does NBC integrate video and results into the Olympic package without hurting prime-time ratings? There is the challenge. NBC is paying $894 million to televise the Beijing Games, so prime time is where the events will have to be. But if NBC can convince Olympic advertisers that pay the same amount of money for an advertising package that is split between the Internet and prime time, we might see video of some live events on NBCOlympics.com. My guess is that it will start with preliminary races and events where no Americans have a chance for a medal. NBCOlympics.com simulcasted the gold medal hockey game Sunday in what could be a precursor of things to come in 2008 and beyond. A bigger challenge for the International Olympic Committee and NBC is making the Olympics more relevant to today's viewer. The IOC has tried to respond by adding more "Generation Y" sports like snowboarding, but the challenge is deeper. With a growing investment through 2012, NBC is not going to sit "idly" by and let the Olympics fade away. Oops, there's that four-letter word again.

Review of FINAL DESTINATION 3

2006-03-01T05:06:00.000-08:00

If nothing else, the original Final Destination deserves credit for cutting out some of the crap. most horror films waste time on. Not bothering with a werewolf or a killer videotape or any of the usual devices, it pits its protagonists directly against death, which comes looking for them after they instinctively avoid a doomed airplane flight. The message beneath it all is the message that predominates the genre: You can't defeat death, only forestall it, and even forestalling it can be pretty scary.

Not that the movie itself was all that scary, or—apart from its choice of opponents and some Rube Goldberg-inspired death-by-a-bunch-of-objects-bumping-into-one-another bloodshed—all that inventive. It didn't really call out for a sequel, either, much less two. But here we are again, six years and many more dead teenagers later. After sitting out Final Destination 2, writer-producers Glen Morgan and James Wong return to do the slaying. They get the best bits out of the way early with an inspired, albeit physically dubious, disaster aboard a roller coaster. Star Mary Elizabeth Winstead and a handful of friends escape thanks to a last-minute premonition, but Winstead's psychic flash essentially ensures that they'll die even grislier deaths later on. The film has 93 minutes to fill, after all.

And fill them it does, with more bloody setpieces that don't quite live up to the opening sequence. (Here's a hint: If you ever find yourself in one of these movies, do your best to avoid sharp objects and nail guns.) Fans of the genre might appreciate the decidedly R-rated violence and nudity, but that's really all the film has to offer. Though one moment is interesting for all the wrong reasons: In one of several scenes in which Winstead and perennial horror-movie victim Ryan Merriman discover that photographs can sometimes predict disasters, they use a photo of a plane casting a shadow on the World Trade Center as an example.

Review of DATE MOVIE

2006-03-01T04:50:00.000-08:00

When it comes to romantic comedy these days, there's screwball and then there's lowball. Which do you expect from two of the Scary Movie writers? Whatever you think, think lower. From human hairballs to corpse abuse, Date Movie puts the gag in comedy gags.

In Date Movie, the parody of movies you're pretty sure you've seen come so fast and furious (no, not that one) that part of the entertainment is merely keeping score. Be it bragging rights or cause for despair, we quickly recognize Bridget Jones, Napoleon Dynamite, My Big Fat Greek Wedding, Bend It Like Beckham, Hitch and a TV episode of Pimp My Ride - and that's just the first 10 minutes.

Still to be splattered with all manner of bodily fluids are dating staples like Meet the Parents, The Wedding Planner, My Best Friend's Wedding, When Harry Met Sally ... wait, is there a real movie in there somewhere?

Not quite. But enough to hang the sketches on. Date Movie works - and it does work - on the philosophy that if you didn't think the last joke was funny, wait 30 seconds and we'll find you a movie you were dying to make fun of.

To spoof romantic comedies, Scary Movie and Spy Hard writers Jason Friedberg and Aaron Seltzer started with the basic romantic-comedy plot. Alyson Hannigan of "band camp" fame in American Pie is a fatty named Julia Jones, who blissfully dances down her block and turns "Milkshake" into an earthquake.

At her parents' Greek restaurant (run by her father, Eddie Griffin), she chances to meet a smashing Brit named Grant Funkyerdoder (Adam Campbell). Of course, Julie must transform into a beauty, meet the parents, and overcome the hellcat of an ex-girlfriend before the hefty wedding.

Scenes you won't believe they pulled off - and then again maybe they didn't - include a man-in-drag version of the famous streetwalking scene from Pretty Woman, a long overdue comedown for the boom-box scene in Say Anything and a dead-on Brad-Angelina take from Mr. and Mrs. Smith.

Hey, any put-down of Meet the Fockers has got to be better than Meet the Fockers. Any movie that tries to parody Kill Bill and Dodgeball in the same scene is OK by me.

Parents be warned: If Date Movie is PG-13, then Dick Cheney is Sportsman of the Year. Date Movie may be R for raucous, but it's definitely an R.

Review of BLOODRAYNE

2006-01-22T19:45:00.000-08:00

Half woman, half vampire, total baloney: The flesh is either displayed or digested in this inane takeoff on the video game of the same name.

The only thing left unsliced is the ham in "BloodRayne," yet another video-game adaptation by German genre specialist Uwe Boll and a movie with more fading or faded talent than an Italian basketball team. Star Kristanna Loken does a lot for a leather bustier but very little for the Rayne of the title, a dhampir -- half vampire, half human -- who thirsts for the blood of the undead. A sip here, a slurp there. The next thing you know, you're a Veg-O-Matic with hips.

Judging by the movies, 18th century Romania must have had more ghouls running around than Washington has lobbyists, and they're coming out of the wormy woodwork in "BloodRayne." Ben "Call Me Sir" Kingsley -- looking frighteningly like Geraldine Fitzgerald in "Arthur" -- is Kagan, king of the vamps, and his daughter, as it turns out, is Rayne. Michael Madsen, apparently having decided he was doing way too much legitimate work in "Kill Bill Vol. 2," is Vladimir, a debauched buccaneer who leads something called Brimstone, a society that specializes in hunting down the undead, dispatching them via various impalings, decapitations and a little bit of pyromania. There isn't much more of a story. In fact, there isn't any story. Luckily, Loken is there to provide something to stare at, vacantly.

There is a story, perhaps, in Romar Entertainment, the indie outfit distributing "BloodRayne" to about 2,000 theaters.

Somehow, Romar pulled together this considerable cast and crew, the most unlikely member of whom is Guinevere Turner, who wrote the script, as it were. Turner, who has penned screenplays for "American Psycho," cable's "The L Word" and the indie hit "Go Fish," contributes such lines to "BloodRayne" as "If they want a fight, a fight they will get," and "Keep your friends close and your enemies closer." Apparently, back in vampire-ridden, 18th century Romania, they could quote Michael Corleone.

Review of UNDERWORLD EVOLUTION

2006-01-22T19:37:00.000-08:00

If current cinema is to be believed, everywhere we humans are not looking, vampires, werewolves, advanced machines, and other nightcrawlers are living in alternative societies. Underworld brought such a society to the fore, shining a torch (and some flattering designer light) on a leather-clad group of vampires embroiled in a feud with an ancient race of werewolves known as Lycans. In Russia just last year, Night Watch took us into the gloaming to witness similar shenanigans. Perhaps fearing that six months is too long between gothic, O-negative drinks, the makers of Underworld have offered us its unnecessary, unanticipated, and unexpectedly OK sequel, Underworld: Evolution.

Beginning for beginners with a flashback to 1202 A.D. where two siblings – Marcus (Tony Curran), the original vampire, and William (Brian Steele), the first Lycan – are battling each other in a frosty village, the film does much to quickly remind us of its vampirical mythology. Marcus is betrayed by Viktor (Bill Nighy), stored away in the vaults of the family mansion, and William is trapped in a steel coffin for all of eternity. The twins are separated. With this effective piece of prehistory portrayed with some pizzazz and a lot of furrow-browed earnestness, director Len Wiseman treats us then to a series of flashbacks from the original film. Selene (Kate Beckinsale) has killed Viktor and his blood has revived a hybrid Marcus, now with wings. What he wants, and the very nature of his resurrection, are muddily explained in a film whose plot is too convoluted to be enjoyed, but whose occasional sparks of light work hard to make it float.

It is almost redundant to accuse Underworld: Evolution of being an unoriginal mishmash of The Matrix, Blade, and certainly Night Watch, but nonetheless this is definitely the case. Yet for what it is, and for where it fits in the pantheon of great or not-so-great sexy vampire movies, it is perfectly agreeable. It is not good, but it does have its moments. Some of the set pieces are truly impressive; Marcus’s winged attack on Selene and Michael’s (Scott Speedman) truck is exciting stuff, and the look of the film is admittedly interesting and consistent with the original. Performances are OK, too. As Selene, Beckinsale might be onto something with her bright blue contacts and emotionless Britishness. I don't know if it's acting, but there is a certain charisma in it. Speedman is serviceable, as workmanlike as one expects, but his character is unneeded in a film that barely acknowledges his existence. Michael is a plot device, there to die, be resuscitated, and save the day, oh, and of course make for some nice soft-focus lovemaking. During all of this, stage actor Derek Jacobi lends an unnecessary air of dignity to the affair, an air that is in fact the film’s greatest failing.

With its confused octopus plotting and copious splatterings of blood, a little levity would not have gone astray. Alas, Wiseman and writer Danny McBride have created a film that is entirely humorless. Where is Buffy when you need her? Whether or not this film is better than the original Underworld is as moot a point as this review: It would be like comparing apples with apples -- from the same orchard. The only difference is the setting; if the 2003 movie was a city mouse, this is perhaps a country mouse. If you liked staying with the city mouse, you will probably enjoy these more rural settings. For me, Underworld: Evolution may not be a new breed of woe, but it's hard to drum up the enthusiasm to call it anything more than a hybrid of unnecessary and average.

“Culture of Corruption” Equals “Culture of Clinton”?

2006-01-20T06:58:00.000-08:00

The Dem talking point this week has been “The C of C”, “The Culture of Corruption”. The timing is propitious to remind us that the Democratic Party really is the “Culture of Corruption” ever since it sold its soul to become the “Culture of Clinton”, allowing him to sell out the United States of America in exchange for keeping them in power.

Why is the timing propitious? Well, let’s see. Yesterday, January 19, Bill Clinton got back his license to practice law after 6 years of having it suspended for the felonies of perjury and suborning perjury from others before a federal court. The first President in history to be found guilty for a felony while in office. And the Democrats, the Culture of Corruption, refused even to censure Clinton. Moral outrage my eye.

Oh, that’s not all for the intriguing timing of the Despotcratic campaign. Because this week also came out the special prosecutors’ report on theClinton Administration interfering with an IRS investigation of Clinton’s Secretary of Housing, Henry Cisneros. The report details endless efforts by the Clinton administration, and since 2001, the Despotcrats in Congress, to interfere with the special prosecutor’s investigation. And the Despotcrats have succeeded in keeping 100 key pages of the report from being released. It has long been reported that these 100 pages include significant evidence of Hillary Clinton having participated in the interference with the investigation. Sadly, but in this case fortunately, it is anticipated by all that those 100 pages will soon be leaked into the public domain.

Of course, all this is from the party that blocked all efforts to deal with Clinton illegally taking huge Communist Chinese donations as payment for his selling them our national security and giving them the missile technology they needed to deliver nuclear weapons to the continental U.S., taking illegal donations from Buddhist monks, selling overnight visits to the Whitehouse at $100,000 per night to all takers including international weapons dealers and to convicted drug dealers. And the party also allowed John Kerry to sell out our Vietnam MIA’s and our Vietnam allies, the Montonyards on whom the Vietnamese government is still practicing genocide in exchange for exclusive and very lucrative contracts for his family to modernize the Vietnamese ports.

And Abramoff? It is yet to be seen if congressmen who took contributions from Abramoff broke any laws. If they did, they should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. However, whatever comes to light there, one thing is clear: Ambramoff was an equal opportunity contributor, spreading his money around to many congressmen in both parties. If congressmen in either party are serious about corruption, they should quit using this fiasco as a political ping pong ball and instead to begin to take action on real reforms described in my other entry below about Jack Abramoff and Corruption.

But for the Despotcrats, there seems to be a double standard on corruption, contributions, gerrymandering, politicizing Supreme Court nominations, crimes up to murder by congressmen (Teddy Kennedy blatantly and amazingly callously flaunts his by naming every dog he has had since Chappaquiddick “Splash”), releasing top secret documents, lying about their testimony and documents, selling national secrets, sexual harassment, racist language and policy, etc. based on whether the issue in question involves a Democrat or Republican. Hummmm??? Isn’t one definition of corruption that a behavior is treated differently depending on who the alleged perpetrator is or whether than person is one of our group or not?

But for Despotcrats to start bantering about the C of C is comical when they truly have become the party, the Culture of Clinton. Now on the ethical scene, that is scraping the bottom of the barrell and soiling oneself as badly as Monica’s blue dress. And amazingly, like Monica, they seem to proudly continue to insist on preserving the scum rather than sending the stain out to the laundry.

Why does the left hate America so much?

2006-01-19T09:13:00.000-08:00

In Patrick Sovereign’s comments to me on my entries both about Martin Luther King and about Abramoff and Political Corruption, he does what so many on the left do in distorting history for his purposes, giving only some facts but ignoring other ones and ignoring the meaning of the facts he gives.

But it raises a question I have addressed on other occasions, but that might be useful to repeat here.

First of all, many that hate America seem oblivious to the obvious fact that if America’s government were miraculously disbanded, this country would not remain with no government. As the founders recognized and therefore held the Constitutional Convention, and as Thomas Sowell so powerfully describes in Conquest . . . , the whole history of civilization is that if a nation is not strong enough to defend itself, it will be taken captive and enslaved by an aggressor nation.

Second, why on earth do so many like Patrick seem so out of touch with reality that they don’t grasp that they live in the greatest nation in the history of the world in terms of freedom and the ability to protect their freedom to be so stupid? Therefore, instead of feeling immeasurable gratitude for America, the rational emotion for any citizen of the U.S.A., they incredibly feel hatred toward her. There are three basic reasons:

First, many do so because they are lackeys of others who indoctrinate them for their own purposes. This describes all the war and Bush protesting groups who seem to have no cognizance that their protests are organized and paid for by the communists of the world, with a number of Islamo-fascist organizations joining in for good measure. In short, they are simply the useful idiots of the true totalitarians of the world.

Second, others do so because of naïve altruism that compares America with an imaginary utopia rather than with other nations in the real world. While altruism is an admiral thing in terms of what it reveals about one’s heart, it reveals an amazing lack of maturity when it becomes the basis for forming one’s attitude about America (or about parents, school, or anything else).

Third, still others do so because of transference and displacement--because is it emotionally safer for them to project their anger onto America than to admit that their parents, family, or immediate community in which they grew up are the ones who failed them or mistreated them. It is emotionally tough to say, “I am miserable (or angry, or frustrated, etc.) in life because my parents were so crappy and so mistreated and ill-prepared me to function in the world.” This is so devastating to face that, as described by Freud, they transfer all their hurt and hostility onto their nation (or church, or some other entity) that is not so painful psychologically to blame for one’s unhappiness and misery.

I believe this last cause describes many people who become part of and leaders of radical fringe groups on the extreme left and right and who dedicate their lives to fomenting turmoil in America.

What do you think?

Review of THE RINGER

2006-01-16T09:29:00.000-08:00

Of the many ancient truths we’ve learned from the likes of The Dukes of Hazzard and Walking Tall, it’s that Johnny Knoxville is in no danger of garnering an Oscar nomination any time soon. Unless, that is, the Academy creates a new category for Best Compound Leg Fracture or Best Football to the Groin.

But with “The Ringer,” we have a bit of a conundrum. The list of past Best Actor winners is chock full of guys who impressed voters with their roles as autistic (Dustin Hoffman), schizoaffective (Geoffrey Rush), or psychotic (Anthony Hopkins) characters. Now, Knoxville has his chance to electrify audiences with his sensitive and nuanced portrayal of normal guy Steve Barker (a man in rather dire financial straits) who decides to pose as a mentally challenged man named “Jeffy” in order to fix the Special Olympics with his unscrupulous Uncle Gary (Brian Cox).

Or maybe not. Look, there is one major assumption we need to do away with quickly: the one that says “The Ringer” is awful because of the terrible way it treats the mentally handicapped extras. Considering it has the blessing of the Special Olympics, whose observers were reportedly monitoring the proceedings, this seems unlikely. Besides, half the athletes portrayed are actually played by non-“special” (albeit goofy looking) actors.

No, “The Ringer” is astoundingly craptastic not because the handicapped are handled poorly (though if they were paid more than union scale I’d be surprised), but because it’s one of the most singularly unfunny films ever made. Recent years have seen their share of horrifically bad comedies (The Man, any so-called comedy Steve Martin’s made since 1988), but “The Ringer” deserves special censure for being almost entirely bereft of laughs. Every gag is set up to such an extent that even a developmentally disabled person could see them coming. Knoxville almost seems ashamed of himself, if that’s even possible, and his scenes with Cox and co-star Katherine Heigl are even less believable than the already low performance standard we’ve come to expect from him.

It’s hard to imagine a more unpleasant experience than sitting through “The Ringer,” but if I had to take a stab at it, I’d say the only situation that comes close is sitting in your doctor's waiting room, simultaneously suffering from a migraine headache, walking pneumonia, and prolapsed hemorrhoids while the guy next to you loudly opines about yesterday's episode of Dr. Phil and repeatedly empties his colostomy bag on your shoes. That might come close.

I said there were no laughs, and there really aren’t, unless (like the Rhodes scholars at the screening I attended) hearing a retarded man make sexual innuendoes or seeing Knoxville get hit in the balls for what is probably the millionth time in his life makes you cackle. Steve/Jeffy obligingly gets the crap kicked out of him throughout the film, which might also be to your liking. If so, please buy a ticket for “The Ringer” with my compliments.

Just do us all a favor and also register for voluntary sterilization. It’ll be for the best.

Review of THE CHRONICLES OF NARNIA: THE LION, THE WITCH AND THE WARDROBE

2006-01-16T09:23:00.000-08:00

Alice, down the rabbit hole, tumbled into a Wonderland of vanity and vice — the real world etched in satirical acid — and her early-20th-century American counterpart, Dorothy, found Oz, with its surreal yokels and charlatans, to be just as crackpot a place. But when C.S. Lewis wrote his own variation on rabbit hole metaphysics, The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe, in which he dispatched four very proper British children into the haunted and mystical winterland of Narnia, he wasn't fooling around, or even cracking a smile. You can read the seven volumes of The Chronicles of Narnia as a Christian allegory or as an ornate book of wonder (or both), but either way it's marked by the devout, almost pristine earnestness of Lewis' sincerity and gravitas. Narnia, a land of fauns, talking beavers, a dastardly White Witch, and a solemn savior of a lion, may sound like the stuff of filigreed fairy tales, but it's really a place of holy war, where the imagination darkens the more it expands.

In the lavish, spirited, at times naggingly literal-minded movie version of the hugely popular first Narnia tale, you're often aware that you're watching child actors romp through a land of concocted creatures and special effects. The snow is too studio-set frosty, and Mr. and Mrs. Beaver, voiced by Ray Winstone and Dawn French as an engaging pair of fussbudgets, come a little too close to the goofy polar bears in Coke commercials; you can see the digital seams. The centaurs, satyrs, and assorted other magic folk of the wood often look as if they'd just stepped out of a makeup trailer. Director Andrew Adamson, in his live-action debut (after Shrek and Shrek 2), stages The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe with a wide-eyed prosaic eagerness that reminds me a little of the Hollywood fantasy films of the late '60s. Even when Adamson brings off a lovely touch, such as the White Witch (Tilda Swinton) tempting young Edmund (Skandar Keynes) by creating ice sculptures that turn into fruit-filled Turkish Delight, we don't quite feel how the devilish dessert has corrupted the boy's heart.

Yet the movie, for all its half-baked visual marvels, remains remarkably faithful to Lewis' story, and the innocence of his passion begins to shine through. It's there, most spectacularly, in Aslan, the lion-king messiah. For once, a computerized beast looks like he's talking, and he's voiced, by Liam Neeson, in velvet seductive tones of lordly compassion. Swinton, as the White Witch, makes a worthy enemy, rearing up during the climactic battle like a rock star of cold self-love. The war itself, with its digital tumult, will look familiar to anyone who saw the Lord of the Rings films, but if Peter Jackson did it better, The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe, by summoning C.S. Lewis' spirit, creates a different kind of spectacle — a starry-eyed crusade.

Jack Abramoff Scandal and Power Brokers Selling Out America

2006-01-16T09:02:00.000-08:00

Don’s thoughts on Jack Abramoff Scandal and Power Brokers Selling Out America.

On the FLIPSIDE Show Saturday night, listeners really responded to my list of solutions to entrenched power brokers who are selling out America. I promised to post these on the blog, so here they are.

Preliminary thoughts:

1. This is not a partisan scandal, in spite of bizarro land of Harry Reid, Harry Dean, etc. in the Despotcratic Party who claim that Republicans who got money from Abramoff are part of the “party of corruption”, but that Despotcrats including themselves who got money from Abramoff were not doing anything corrupt, but were just taking honest contributions. Huh?? They really are living in some sort of “opposite world” from reality.

2. The fact someone took money from Abramoff does not prove they were corrupt. There has to be demonstration of some quid pro quo in which a congressman sold his vote on some matter before congress for this to be corruption.

3. And if we must compare corruption in a partisan way, what about the Despotcrats not only ignoring the corruption of Bill Clinton selling national security to the Chinese, taking contributions from foreign agents and illegal arms dealers, as well as from Buddhist monks, and selling one-night stays in the Whitehouse for $100K per night?

4. But the important point here is that there is a sure test to see if the Despotcrats or Republican politicians are serious about cleaning up corruption in our elected officials. If they really mean it, let’s see them propose some constitutional amendments and laws that would remove about 98% of the corruption. Here are eight points of that plan. Let’s see if anyone in either party will pick up on them.

Don’s Plan to Stop corruption:

1. First, the problem is not bribery, but extortion. To call it bribery places the power in the wrong hands. The power is in the hands of the entrenched politicos in congress. Just look at poor Bill Gates whom they went after in spite of his economic power until he started making campaign contributions. And the primary power of coercion that congress uses to get contributions is the IRS tax code. They coerce contributions because to have your business or industry considered for tax breaks, to get such a thing out of committee, you have to make contributions to the guys sitting on the committee.

To solve the problem, GET RID OF INCOME TAX, GO TO THE FLAT TAX, and except for exemptions on food, medicine, and utilities, have no exceptions. Make it a constitutional amendment, and include as part of the amendment that NO EXEMPTIONS beyond the original ones included so that the poor are not taxed for the basic essentials of food, medicine, and utilities.

2. Entrenched politicians who hold powerful seats on committees and who can block getting your matter out of committee are able to extort huge amounts of money from anyone who wants to get some issue before congress. The solution: TERM LIMITS! Limit the time that any person can serve in congress, and therefore can accumulate seniority and a powerful committee seat, as 14 years. You can serve in the House for 7 terms. Or you can serve in the House for 4 terms and the Senate for one term. Or you can serve in the House for one term, and then in the Senate for two terms. Then you are out—for good.

3. Stop all political contributions from any source other than individuals who live within the legislative jurisdiction of the candidate to whom they are contributing. NO CONTRIBUTIONS FROM—any non-citizens, any foreign governments or organizations, any organizations (including businesses, labor unions, associations, clubs, affiliations, PAC’s, or any other organization. And individuals can only contribute $10K to any one candidate, and the candidate must disclose all contributions. What this means is that a candidate has a lot of financial power in a campaign only if he has a lot of contributions from individual constituents.

4. However, unlike McCain-Feingold, this does not abridge the 1st amendment’s guarantee of freedom of speech. So, individual citizens or organizations of citizens can run campaign ads on any political issues they want just as long as they do not endorse or attack a particular candidate. But this is limited to citizens. No political ads can use ANY money from foreigners or from organizations who represent foreigners. More about why as our last point below.

5. What about international businesses and organizations? They can run ads per # 4 above IF they have strict isolation of funds so that no foreign funds or funds from foreigners or used or mixed with the American operation.

6. Still in line with the 1st amendment, any American business or organization may endorse and campaign for any candidates within their own membership. And they can recommend contributions be made by their members to candidates. However, they cannot handle any contributions, convey funds, or otherwise have any access to the funds at any time. The funds must be given by individuals to the candidates of their choice. And the organizations cannot campaign in the general public for a particular candidate.

7. All the restrictions on foreigners is to insure that American government is by the consent of the governed, not by the consent of foreigners. Why? Because it is the governed who have to live under the government, live with the consequences of their government’s decisions and actions, and pay for those decisions and for any consequences of those decisions. Only citizens should be allowed to influence those decisions.

8. NO PAID LOBBYISTS MAY EVER CONTACT CONGRESS ABOUT ANY ISSUE. The only people in the U.S. able to lobby congressmen about any political issue before congress are constituent citizens of the particular congressman who are not paid or supported to do their lobbying. If the National Education Association wants to convince congress to do something, then for instance, an NEA officer in Indiana can talk to her Indiana congressmen about the issue as long as her job description and salary are not for doing lobbying. If General Dynamics wants to influence congress, their VP can talk to his California congressman about the issue as long as he is not paid as a lobbyist.

All of this is intended to give the power to the people and to preserve the principal that our political leaders have power based on the consent of the governed rather than based on the consent of power brokers. If a politician wants to retain power, he has to please one group and one group alone: his constituents.

The Great Chasm Between MLK, Jr., and Contemporary Civil Rights Leaders

2006-01-16T06:58:00.000-08:00

He was for civil rights. They oppose their own nation. The contemporary civil rights movement again shows that they have little in common with MLK. (see article below)

Martin Luther King, Jr., like Ghandi, was for changing his own society through peaceful protest. He was not for destroying his society. The contemporary civil rights movement is a leftist movement that has nothing to do with civil rights, but instead is for doing anything it can to undermine the greatness of America or to create racial discord.

That is why you listen to his speeches and it is like listening to a grand orchestra. You listen to the shrill whining of the contemporary “Civil Rights movement”, and next to King it sounds like the shrill screech from some dime store tin horn with no depth or clarity—just noise which we hope will mercifully go silent as soon as possible.

I honor MLK today for the courage to step into a pivotal point in history and make a difference for the good of man of and of his nation. I disdain those whose leftist political agenda, parading as “civil rights”, requires them to reject an honor offered to King by his nation because of their disdain for the American military or anything else that makes America great.

Activists Angered by Flyover at MLK March
The Associated PressFriday, January 13, 2006; 9:52 AM

SAN ANTONIO -- Peace activists are protesting plans for a military flyover at the city's annual Martin Luther King Jr. march, saying the gesture runs counter to the nonviolent beliefs of the civil rights leader.

The city's MLK Commission said the flyover by two fighter jets from Randolph Air Force Base is meant to be patriotic and an honor to King in a city with a strong military presence.
The Rev. Herman Price, the commission's chairman, said he was dismayed by the divisiveness the flyover was causing.

"They say the planes represent war and bombs and death, but at the same time those planes can also represent our freedom and peace," Price said.

The San Antonio march is in its 20th year and has drawn as much as 70,000 people, making it one of the nation's largest Martin Luther King Jr. Day commemorations.

The commission voted to add the flyover at a November meeting, and peace activists say an attempt to rescind it failed at a meeting this week. Some said they would stay home this year or wear yellow ribbons during the march Monday as a show of protest.

"If you're going to honor Dr. King, you have to honor the nonviolent point. It's fundamental," said Tommy Calvert Jr., who attended the meeting.

link to article

One-Eyed Cat Had Medical Condition

2006-01-11T09:00:00.000-08:00

A photo of a one-eyed kitten named Cy drew more than a little skepticism when it turned up on various Web sites, but medical authorities have a name for the bizarre condition.

"Holoprosencephaly" causes facial deformities, according to the National Institute for Neurological Disorders and Stroke, part of the National Institutes of Health. In the worst cases, a single eye is located where the nose should be, according to the institute's Web site.

Traci Allen says the kitten she named Cy, short for Cyclops, was born the night of Dec. 28 with the single eye and no nose.

"You don't expect to see something like that," the 35-year-old Allen said by telephone from her home in Redmond in central Oregon.

Allen said she stayed up all night with the deformed kitten on her recliner, feeding Cy a liquid formula through a syringe. She says she cared for the kitten the next day as well, until it died that evening.

Cy the one-eyed cat may be dead, but it has not left the building Allen said she's keeping the cat's corpse in her freezer for now, in case scientists would like it for research.

She said one thing's for certain: "I'm not going to put it on eBay."

From 'You're Hired!' to 'You're Elected!'

2006-01-11T08:48:00.000-08:00

Dick Cheney, Bill Clinton, and even Les Aspin, the late congressman and Clinton's first Pentagon boss, can take credit for helping make Kelly Perdew, a former Army Ranger, Donald Trump 's Apprentice 2 champ in 2004. And if Perdew follows his gut to run for office, he says, George W. Bush can claim he predicted it first. Why? Bush touted him at a 2004 inauguration concert in Washington and proclaimed: "Next thing you know, the guy will be running for president."

Perdew's story, revealed in an interview and hinted at in the new Regnery Publishing book Take Command, is more than just name-dropping. As a Wyoming high schooler, Perdew recalls being wowed by a Cheney speech when the veep was the state's representative. That led to an appointment to West Point, granted by Cheney, and a school internship with Aspin, then chair of the House Armed Services Committee. When Clinton cut the size of the military, Perdew left the Army and eventually made it to The Apprentice 2. The Bush twins wooed the new TV star to the inauguration, where he met the prez. Naturally, Perdew caught Potomac fever despite his Trump job and an upcoming Military Channel show: G.I. Factory. Is politics calling? Sure, he says, suggesting a race in New York, Kentucky, or Florida, all states where he's lived. "I've definitely considered doing something like that."

Review of THE FAMILY STONE

2006-01-09T13:15:00.000-08:00

Every drama needs conflict, and sometimes that conflict comes from fundamentally good people making poor decisions or behaving in ways that don't speak to their essential decency. Surely, writer-director Thomas Bezucha intended the key characters in The Family Stone to be flawed, irreverent, and maybe a little off-putting at first blush, at least until viewers get to know them. On this front, he's severely miscalculated: These people are awful, and it's hard not to want bad things to happen to them. Some of the problem can be blamed on the holidays and the irritating conventions of holiday movies, which are all about jamming a two-story suburban home full of bickering family members who can't get through a meal without a meltdown. But most of it falls on Bezucha, not just for devising these monstrously cruel characters, but for putting them in situations that are far too serious to be resolved by Christmas morning. When the melodrama gets too intense, the film collapses in slapstick.

Whether by design or miscasting, Sarah Jessica Parker shoulders most of the ill will as an uptight urban businesswoman whose posture suggests a body temperature cold enough to crack a thermometer. First seen barking into a cell phone—which has replaced mustache-twirling as the cinematic shorthand for evil—Parker gets thrown to the wolves when her boyfriend Dermot Mulroney brings her home for Christmas. Mulroney's spiteful sister Rachel McAdams has already had a chance to damn Parker on first impression, but much of the family follows in line, especially mother Diane Keaton, who wants the best for her golden boy. Others, such as father Craig T. Nelson and brother Luke Wilson, are a little more tolerant of Parker's abrasive qualities, but Keaton possesses the family diamond, and she refuses to give it to Mulroney when he asks for it as an engagement ring. After a particularly horrific dinner, Parker calls on her own sibling Claire Danes for emergency reinforcement, but Danes' appealing presence introduces another set of problems.

Because holiday movies apparently need to be bristling with activity, Bezucha clogs up the screen with more characters than he can manage, including a gay relationship so discreet that it makes In & Out look like hardcore pornography. Paul Schneider turns up as an ambulance driver with an old crush on McAdams, and a pregnant sibling (Elizabeth Reaser) mostly lurks in the back corner of every scene, worrying about whether her husband will show. At the core of The Family Stone are heartbreaks and betrayals of almost Bergman-esque magnitude—Keaton's obstinacy over the ring isn't even the half of it—but Bezucha needs the holiday spirit to prevail, no matter the tonal consequences. It's a Christmas miracle that this family even stays together, though the movie hardly feels like one.

McCarthyism Alive and Not So Well in The Despotcratic Party of Politics of Personal Destruction

2006-01-09T09:09:00.000-08:00

McCarthyism Alive and Not So Well in The Despotcratic Party of Politics of Personal Destruction.

Matt Drudge reported on Friday reported
that the final star witness the Despotcrats had scheduled against Judge Alito in the Senate Judiciary hearings was to be Stephen Dujack, an environmental writer who was a ’76 graduate of Princeton University, who has written articles excoriating Concerned Alumni of Princeton (CAP), which during the 1970s criticized the University's move to coeducation and adoption of affirmative action.

According to the DailyPrincetonian.com on January 7: “In a Nov. 22 op-ed for The Daily Princetonian, he (Dujack) wrote that Alito ‘will have to explain how he permitted himself to belong to an organization that was overtly racist and sexist for its entire 14-year existence — at times passionately so, too.’” Dujack’s evidence? That one editor of CAP’s newsletter on one occasion wrote an article in which he asserted that there was evidence of differences in IQ based on race. Now that is certainly controversial. But is it out of bounds for scientific investigation and intellectual evaluation within the searching for truth that occurs within academia?

I don’t know what that editor had to say about the significance of this data to which he referred. I can see how this could easily become fodder for racists. But Dujack presented no information that would demonstrate that this one article advocated any kind of racism as a result of his assertion about the evidence.

But what if he had done so? Does that one article published in a newsletter of a group prove that the group is racist, or that the newsletter supports racist positions? And does it demonstrate that if Judge Alito belonged to the group in order to protest the Princeton policy at the time of not allowing ROTC on the campus (which was why he at the time said he belonged to the group), does that prove, or even give evidence, to the idea that Judge Alito is a racist? Hardly.

Does this seem a bit of McCarthyism on the part of the Despotcrats? Naaahhh! Surely not. Anyone with any since of bigotry knows the Despotcrats can’t be McCarthyistic. But if a Republican made a charge against a Democrat of being a pinko commie because the Democrat on one occasion joined a group in order to advocate higher taxes for the rich which group had a newsletter that on one occasion published an article by a volunteer editor which article advocated the advantages of communism—now that would be McCarthyism! Right?

Now it is reported in the Jan 7 Daily Princetonian that the Democrats have withdrawn Stephen Dujak as a witness. Because this bit of politics of personal destruction was too McCarthyistic? Of course not. Rather, it was because “some observers believe he was vulnerable to attacks over an April 2003 Los Angeles Times column he wrote that compared animals killed in slaughterhouses with victims of the Holocaust.”

In other words, the Democrats realized the Republicans were salivating at the idea of being able to question such a left-wing nut as the Despotcrats star witness against Alito. They had no problem with the McCarthyistic (this label, of course, is an insult to McCarthy who nowhere came close to the guilt by 3 degrees of association common to today’s Despotcratic campaigns of personal destruction on any of their enemies) assault on Judge Alito or any other Republican nominee to the Supreme Court.

USC's Bush still looks like safe pick for Texans

2006-01-09T01:37:00.000-08:00

If the Houston Texans are smart you will see them take Reggie Bush with the top pick and not Vince Young or Matt Leinart, and then trade him off for an offensive line. Now that Dom Capers is on his way out and with Houston picking up the $8 million bonus on QB David Carr's contract, keeping him under contract with the team through the 2008 season. What Houston needs is to build around him he has not had an adequate supporting cast, you go away from Carr, you're starting over. You have a quarterback now get an offensive line that can give Carr time to get the ball to the backs Houston has now.

Israeli PM Sharon, Baalam’s Beast, and Pat Robertson

2006-01-06T13:45:00.000-08:00

Baalam’s Beast Award For the Stupidest Thing Done In the Name of God

Heeeee Haaaawwwwww!!! Well, the Baalam’s Beast Award For the Stupidest Thing Done In the Name of God for this week goes to Christian broadcaster Pat Robertson for suggesting that Ariel Sharon's stroke was divine retribution for "dividing God's land" of Israel. Robertson on his "700 Club" television show commented that Israeli Prime Minister Sharon was being punished for his policies in Gaza and the West Bank. Robertson said,

"The prophet Joel makes it very clear that God has enmity against those who, quote, 'divide my land.' God considers this land to be his.” "You read the Bible, he says, 'This is my land.' And for any prime minister of Israel who decides he's going carve it up and give it away, God says, 'No. This is mine.'"

Oh, Pat, Pat, . . .Pat. You do some good things, but you need to learn when to keep your mouth shut. You are giving Christianity a bad name.

Jesus on multiple occasions rebuked the idea that evil things happen because the victims are being punished for their specific sins. One such case was in Luke 13.

1Now there were some present at that time who told Jesus about the Galileans whose blood Pilate had mixed with their sacrifices. 2Jesus answered, "Do you think that these Galileans were worse sinners than all the other Galileans because they suffered this way? 3I tell you, no! But unless you repent, you too will all perish. 4Or those eighteen who died when the tower in Siloam fell on them—do you think they were more guilty than all the others living in Jerusalem? 5I tell you, no! But unless you repent, you too will all perish."

Don

Is Representative Murtha a Benedict Arnold?

2006-01-06T08:36:00.000-08:00

Well, it’s about time. General Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, yesterday was asked about the statement this week by Rep. John Murtha, D- Pa., a Marine Corps veteran, during an ABC News interview that if he were eligible to join the military today he would not, nor would he expect others to join.
General Pace responded, "That's damaging to recruiting. . . It's damaging to morale of the troops who are deployed, and it's damaging to the morale of their families who believe in what they are doing to serve this country." Pace went on to say, "When a respected leader like Mr. Murtha, who has spent 37 extremely honorable years as a Marine, fought in two wars, has served the country extremely well in the Congress of the United States _ when a respected individual like that says what he said, and 18- and 19-year- olds look to their leadership to determine how they are expected to act, they can get the wrong message,"
http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/01/05/D8EUPP1O3.html

We always here that Representative Murtha is a decorated war hero. So was Benedict Arnold. That did not mean that he was not an enemy of our nation. Which Murtha most certainly is.

And by the way, why did we never hear that the leaders of the swift boat vets were decorated heroes?

But more importantly, Murtha is repeating the lie that there was no connection between Saddam and the Al Qaeda attacks on 9-11. The left is repeating the lie so much that it is sinking into the popular psyche. And it is a HUGE LIE! Even if you buy the lie that we found no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq—and why does the Bush administration keep repeating that lie instead of refuting it?—this in no way means that Saddam was not cooperating with Al Qaeda and was not involved in the 9-11 attack.

QUESTION: What do you think should happen to traitorous veterans like Murtha and Kerry who speak out against American interests in time of war?

For verification of that collaboration, go to any of these links of stories on the Flipside website:

a. Press spins 9-11 Commission, Ignoring Most Important Findings!
b. Clinton 1st made Al Qaeda-Saddam link
c. Putin warned U.S. after 9-11 that Saddam was planning terror attacks.
d. Link established at Bagdad meeting in March, 1998.
e. Ahmed Hikmat Shakir, officer in Saddam's elite Fedayeen, attended January 2000 Al Qaeda "summit" in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
f. Full story of the Saddam-Osama connection summarized.
g. What about 9-11 Commission Findings? Commission undermined by--and renounced--their staff "Zelikoff Report
Or for extensive documentation of the relationship, go to our website book page and order Stephen Hayes great book, THE CONNECTION.

--Don Crawford--

Forget 2005 — here are the top 10 films for the year to come as I see it.

2006-01-05T12:12:00.000-08:00

1. Superman Returns
Boy, does he! After an exhaustive casting process and the recent focus on Superman star Brandon Routh's generously filled, super-tight tights, the long-awaited Bryan Singer–directed flick finally hits theaters. (June 30)

2. The Departed
DiCaprio. Damon. Nicholson. Scorsese. That's it. You don't even need to know anything about the plot, such as that Leo and Matt play a couple of rogues (one an undercover cop infiltrating a gang of crooks, the other a member of that gang who's infiltrated the police force). Jack plays a gang boss, of course. The two sneaks' duplicity is suspected, which puts their lives in danger — unless they can expose each other. (Release date TBA)

3. Sin City 2
Hot comeback kid Mickey Rourke goes at it again in director Robert Rodriguez's Sin sequel, which is based on another Frank Miller graphic novel. This time, restless Dwight (Clive Owen) is having some problems with his old lady, and Nancy (Jessica Alba) is bent on revenge for the death of Hartigan (Bruce Willis). Oops, you did see the first movie, right? (Release date TBA)

4. Mission: Impossible III
Speaking of M: I-3 … how's this for the ultimate cross-promotion? Cruise's third turn as Ethan Hunt in M: I-3 hits theaters right around the same time fiancée Katie Holmes is due to give birth. TomKat mania aside, we have faith in Alias and Lost director J.J. Abrams' directorial efforts — and the trailer promises plenty of wow-moment action sequences. There's A-plus casting, too; Philip Seymour Hoffman plays the movie's villain. (May 5)

5. Basic Instinct 2: Risk Addiction
Sharon Stone is back as man-eating author Catherine Trammell, who — this time — sets her sights on a Scotland Yard detective who's investigating her (David Morrissey). No word on the presence of ice picks, or a redo of that infamous uncrossed-legs scene, but Stone is always interesting when she cranks up the crazy. (March 31)

6. Pirates of the Caribbean
Dead Man's Chest A pirate's life is never dull, especially when he's Jack Sparrow (Johnny Depp). This time around, the mumbling swashbuckler is doomed to damnation if he can't find a way to pay off a blood debt he owes to fellow captain Davy Jones (Bill Nighy). Who needs Keith Richards (still rumored to lend a cameo) when you've got Depp chewing up scenery as the deliciously campy Jack in nearly every scene? (July 7)

7. X-Men 3
This looks to be the last installment of the X-Men series, so you know there's gonna be a serious all-mutant battle. Professor Xavier (Patrick Stewart) and his mutants face off against Magneto (Ian McKellen) and his minions, including new lady Psylocke (Meiling Melancon), who kicks butt with her toned body and her telepathic mind. Plus, there's the Wolverine and Magneto spinoffs to look forward to. (May)

8. Saw 3
It's impossible to kill off a sadistic killer these days — especially if he's a box-office favorite. Serial killer Jigsaw is back again, and this time he takes on an apprentice, a sick new sidekick who helps him carry out his gruesome plots. (Oct. 27)

9. Miami Vice
We're guessing Michael Mann's been itching to make the big-screen Vice since he created the original '80s TV drama. The summer popcorn movie stars Colin Farrell as Sonny Crockett and Jamie Foxx as Ricardo Tubbs, who forgo the white loafers and pastel suits in this modern remake. But fear not: Fast cars, fast boats and one-liners still abound. (July 28)

10. Scary Movie 4
Saw, superhero movies and X-Men are among the spoof subjects in the latest Scary sequel, which is again devoid of the Wayans' input but stars original cast member Anna Faris and Outkast's André 3000, rapper Chingy, Shaquille O'Neal and Dr. Phil. (April)

Review of HARRY POTTER AND THE GOBLET OF FIRE

2006-01-04T13:50:00.000-08:00

The fourth novel in J.K. Rowling’s magical saga of the boy wizard is a sprawling, sumptuous, richly textured book, nearly unfilmable in all its excesses, tangents, and brilliantly tortured plot twists. Mike Newell’s adaptation judiciously trims down the story to its barest and most crucial elements: 14-year-old Harry’s long-awaited confrontation with Voldemort, the unspeakably evil wizard who murdered his parents. In so doing, Newell puts his own stamp on the franchise and delivers the best Potter movie yet filmed.

Even though Goblet of Fire clocks in at a robust 157 minutes, Newell handles the massive story with seeming ease, keeping the pace taut and intensifying the pervasive menace that lurked more subtly in the previous films. Newell, the first Brit to direct a Potter film, brings out the inherent Englishness of Rowling's creation that American Chris Columbus and Mexican Alfonso Cuarón did not (or perhaps could not). Scenes in Hogwarts School are anarchic and ebullient, especially when the Weasley twins finally get a few scenes of their own. The grand Yule Ball sequence, with its simultaneous glamour, awkwardness, and queasy terror, captures the contradictions of being 14 perfectly. And the film’s plot clues are transparent in a way a book cannot be, without sacrificing suspense.

Daniel Radcliffe, in the lead role, succeeds not just with the technical demands of a film that called for him to battle a CG dragon, spend more than 40 hours filming underwater scenes, endure torture, and learn ballroom dancing. He’s also become an increasingly capable actor as Harry’s inner and outer torments have increased, and here Radcliffe delivers an assured, mature performance even when his character is flustered beyond speech (as when faced with gorgeous 18-year-old newcomer Katie Leung, playing Harry’s crush, Cho Chang).

Brendan Gleeson, as teacher Mad-Eye Moody, is magnificently grotesque, sliding into his role with a palpable sense of enjoyment and a degree of lunacy that keeps the audience deliciously off-balance. As always, Alan Rickman and Maggie Smith inhabit their characters like they were born to them. Rupert Grint and Emma Watson, as Harry's (mostly) loyal mates, have more material to work with here, and in their own scenes excel at the respective idiocies particular to teenage boys and girls.

Audiences have been waiting to see He Who Must Not Be Named for years now, and Ralph Fiennes, as the resurrected Voldemort, surpasses imagination. Inhabiting bone-deep evil with a sick, gleeful sneer on his face, Fiennes at once recalls the monster in Alien, not a little of Nosferatu, and some of his work in Schindler's List. It's a dizzying, terrifying combination, and the performance brings the increasing darkness in Rowling's novels to a sharp, visceral level.

Early in the film, Harry accompanies the Weasley family to the Quidditch World Cup, and looks around, awe-struck. Under his breath, he mutters reverently, “I love magic.” What Newell has created with his merry crew leaves one in the same state of awed joy.

Review of THE PRODUCERS

2006-01-04T13:29:00.000-08:00

It's hard to envision a worse big-budget film version of Mel Brooks's Tony Award-winning musical The Producers than this dreadfully lifeless affair directed without a whit of imagination, novelty, or exuberance by the show's original Broadway director-choreographer Susan Stroman. Studied to the point of suffocation, Stroman's staging is the fatal dagger in this production's farcical heart, turning what once was a vibrant (if slightly overpraised) slice of manic theatrical grandiosity into a leaden, stillborn dud that—while retaining the particulars of its story about titular shyster producers Max Bialystock and Leo Bloom's scam to make money with the guaranteed fiasco "Springtime For Hitler"—nonetheless radiates the disappointing stench of miscalculation.

Having composed the film predominantly of straight-on medium and master shots that create an impression that one is watching a straightforward recording of an ever-so-slightly expanded stage performance (with brief fresh-air breaks off-set to iconic Manhattan locales like Sardi's and Central Park), Stroman seems adverse to adapting the material cinematically, remaining resolutely faithful to the show's Broadway construction even as joke after joke falls flatter than the slender stomach of Uma Thurman (as Swedish sexpot secretary Ula). It's an ironic twist that this new Producers should be so painfully theatrical considering the story's big-screen origins (as Brooks's 1968 gem). Yet more astounding is the absence of its trademark rambunctious rhythm, a facet so blatantly underserved that the film cries out for a vivacious, go-for-broke stylist like Julie Taymor or even (dare I say it?) Rob Marshall, either of whom might have infused the action with some much-needed zany dynamism. As it stands, however, this celluloid edition feels not only stultifyingly static but—despite its 129-minute runtime—depressingly small, the bursting-at-the-seams panache of Brooks's smash musical compressed and drained of vitality by Stroman's lackluster mise-en-scène, which mainly consists of modest camera movements that restrict characters from straying far from the frame's center.

Without any visual liveliness to match its rat-a-tat-tat one-liners, puns, and asides, The Producers asks its showboating stars to carry the energetic load. But though original Broadway cast members Nathan Lane (brash and blustery as Bialystock), Matthew Broderick (whiny and weak-kneed as Bloom), Gary Beach (as gaudy cross-dressing director Roger De Bris), and Roger Bart (as Roger's common-law assistant Carmen Ghia) all work themselves into a histrionic lather, their flamboyant performances ultimately can't overcome Stroman's inability to properly shoot or edit for comedy. Faring best are the song-and-dance extravaganzas, which can be excruciatingly bombastic (like Bialystock's show-recapping "Betrayed") yet frequently exude a bustling Busby Berkley charm (most notably Bloom's "I Want To Be A Producer"). And given the persistent structural inertia, it's hardly surprising to discover that the film's finest sequence turns out to be the wholly stage-bound "Springtime For Hitler," which erupts with absurdly giddy pageantry.

Time and again, however, The Producers botches its transition from the boards to the multiplex, whether it be by excising Bialystock's opening ditty "King Of Broadway" (crucial for establishing the character's inherent shadiness) or by attempting to generate madcap energy by dialing the volume up to 11. With Will Ferrell as crazed Nazi playwright Franz Liebkind, one might reasonably expect a few brief moments of unchecked lunacy, though as with Lane and Broderick—whose eyebrow-raising, limb-flailing, pratfalling antics come across as borderline unpleasantly arch—the former SNLer is kept from indulging in flights of fancy not originally scripted in Brooks's book and lyrics. Incapable of surmounting Stroman's shoddy stewardship, this loud, laborious, and surprisingly light on laughs film-based-on-a-musical-based-on-a-film may not be the type of monumental flop Bialystock and Bloom would have produced. But it's reasonably close.

Review of AEON FLUX

2006-01-04T13:15:00.000-08:00

Charlize Theron has her Oscar. Now she has her "Catwoman."

As the title character in "Aeon Flux" she's an underground resistance fighter in the 25th-century utopian city of Bregna, which, as the science fiction genre dictates, is no utopia. The city is secure, but its people have the liberties of aquarium guppies. Members of the patriarchal ruling counsel are planning a coup, Shakespeare-style.

The film is a lifeless mutation of Peter Chung's innovative series of animated promos, shorts and 30-minute episodes that aired on MTV in the 1990s. The animated Aeon (pronounced "EEE-yawn") was a fetishistic provocateur, the antecedent of such heroines (and adolescent male fantasies) as Lara Croft of the "Tomb Raider" video games, Trinity from "Matrix" movies and TV's "Buffy the Vampire Slayer." She clothed herself in a purple chastity belt and left a bloody trail of dead dudes.

But director Karyn Kusama, whose previous feature was "Girlfight," has turned innovation to tedium. The characters all drone on like offspring of flight attendants and HAL 9000 from "2001: A Space Odyssey." Aeon's only edge in the film is that she sleeps in an outfit skimpy enough to make Lil' Kim blush.

It's not as skimpy as the story, though. In voiceover we're given a bunch of mumbo jumbo about freedom, and later on there's gibberish about cloning. It's hard to care when you don't see what the people have to lose. Aeon starts out as an assassin, her sister tells her to stop being an assassin, and she goes on to be an assassin. Big whoop.

Similarly dull is the action. Films like "Spider-Man 2" and "The Matrix" revolutionized actioners by showing the full motion of fight scenes, through digital effects or complicated wire work. In "Aeon," the fights and other stunt work are quick-edited into a turbid flurry of arms and legs and masked goons falling prostrate.

Which is sadly ironic, given that Theron reportedly injured herself during filming - the end result shows that anyone could have done the stunts. To add to the insult, the film required little acting. It's shot like a comic book - pose, pose, punch, pose.

Like Halle Berry going from "Monster's Ball" to "Catwoman" and Jamie Foxx's fall from "Ray" to "Stealth," Theron has followed up her Oscar-winning turn in "Monster" with a discombobulated piffle. Oscar winner Frances McDormand and nominee Sophie Okenedo also star, but all three will emerge unscathed from "Aeon Flux."

Their audiences may not.

West Virginia Mine Collapse and Mainstream Media

2006-01-04T13:07:00.000-08:00

I can't imagine the pain of the families involved and the entire Tallsman, West Va mining community over this tragedy. My heart and prayers go out to all in their loss.

However, I have a few initial reactions to the media hype of this event.

First, the Mainstream Media (MSM) is going berserk over the premature announcement that 12 of the miners were still alive. But who made that premature announcement. Not the mining company or the authorities involved--until they saw it being announced by CNN and other media outlets, and amazingly they trusted what they heard and the celebration coming from the church (you would think they aren't familiar with the MSM, but in the high emotions of the moment, I think we have to give them a little space on this one), and then repeated the announcements themselves. Who announced it were bystanders in the community and people on their cell phones, only to have CNN and others pick up those stories as factual.

But isn't the media's rush to be there, to hype it as a "human interest story" (read that as targeting the female oriented Oprah viewers and the feminization of news), to be the first ones to cover any new development, the reason for all these rumor based fallacious stories headlined in the coverage of these human tragedies? With the press of cameras and mikes into the faces of anyone who opens their mouth without a doughnut being shoved in (and some of those mikes do even have doughnut goo crammed into their mesh), is it any wonder that false stories and rumors get put out there as the "latest" info on some tragedy?

Has the media ever heard of the fog of war? Sometimes, if you care about truth instead of momentary wins in ratings (Ha! I know. That's a silly archaic idea, isn't it?), you have to back off a little bit, let the smoke settle a little bit, let the emotions calm down, ask yourself from whom the info came?, and from whence did they get it?, is there any secondary source or documentation of what is being said? (Dan Rather, you listening out there?), etc., before you make a huge announcement about a new development in the story. Because your announcements have consequences.

Some people still believe all the tripe put out two days after Katrina by Geraldo, et. al., from New Orleans, about people being shot, raped, killed "down here in New Orleans", and that someone for the sake of humanity "has to do something!" even though most of it turned out to be instant street legends being passed around the bayou city.

Who is responsible for this mess? The media is for not waiting until the fog clears before they put it on the air world-wide. And that raises a second issue.

Second, if the MSM can screw this sad, but small local story up so badly, do you think they might take pause to let the fog of war clear on a real war, the war on Terrorism and the battle to establish a democracy in Iraq before they announce every latest suicide bombing or casualty of American troops? I know its too much to ask for with the MSM agenda, but it is at least a thought for any of them who might be left who really want to be honest.

Third, Will the MSM apologize for lying about the 12 miners still being alive? Yes, they may have been given false information. And, yes, everyone else may have also thought the false information was true. But by the standards they are using with the President, doesn't this still mean that they were lying when they made the announcement--even though they had no way of knowing the information was false at the time. I am anxiously wainting for the MSM to admit their mistakes in reporting these lies that have created quite a quagmire of emotions in Tallsman, W. VA.

Fourth, if Bush really cared, wouldn't he have had crews in Tallsman there to get those men out of the mines prior to the incident? If their had been emergency preparedness personnell in that mine ahead of time, and they could have had those men on cars headed out of the mine within 30 seconds of the blast, can you imagine the suffering that would have been avoided.

And speaking as a Texan, if the President really cared, couldn't he have stopped those fires in Texas? All he had to do was stop the drought that led to the fires. If he were the daddy he ought to be for all of us, surely he could have done so. And why isn't he in Cross Plains, Comanche, Arlington, etc., to sit in a rocker, hold sad people on his lap, and tell them one by one that it will be okay? You would think he has lost sight of what a president is about--a big daddy to chase away the boogie-men of life for all us children.