The Time When Adult Film And The News Overlap

Sometimes, life gives you a gift of laughter. A brief moment of joy in our sometimes bleak world. To wit, I'm talking about this:

"THE government and the separatist Moro Islamic Liberation Front yesterday struck a deal and approved the draft of an agreement on the territory to be included in the rebels’ proposed homeland."

Don't see it yet? Look closely at that lede. Anything there? This later excerpt should clear it up.

"We met halfway on the timetable,” Gonzales said, adding the government had originally wanted the plebiscite to be held only after the signing of a final peace agreement.

The MILF demanded that the poll be held six months after the signing of the pact on ancestral domain."

You're welcome.

(Seriously, do you think any of the members of the rebel group know?)

Americans with Gas-Price-Paying Inabilities.

I wouldn't be so bold as to presume I'm the first to notice this, or maybe this is just the first time I saw this turn of phrase, but I'm gonna be bold and say that this will be an increasingly common turn of phrase in the debate over energy:

Obama, appearing with Brokaw on Meet The Press, said about the pressing concerns of the American voter that they are concerned about "the inability to pay gas prices."

Interesting.

Apparently, the issue isn't the high gas prices themselves, rather it's the failure of the American economy to provide adequate wealth to pay high gas prices. What a clever turn of phrase. It plays right into a Left Talking Point about raising the incomes of the lower and middle classes, all while ignoring the deleterious effects of the Left's crippling policies on oil exploration.

Note that the line doesn't even accept the idea that gas prices are a bad thing for Americans. This is a great example of a line "sounding" like economic populism while actually serving as a point for the environmental Left.

This is an issue taylor-made for the GOP. It's almost axiomatic for the average American that energy should be cheap. Only Al Gore types would disagree, and they are hardly a viable political force by themselves. I'd be so bold as to say that solely running on this issue, Republicans could put a significant dent into the projected Dem gains in both houses, as well as probably defeat Obama. I mean, you got three-quarters of Americans supporting more drilling offshore, and nearly three-fifths supporting ANWR drilling.

Too bad the GOP got "might as well drill in the Grand Canyon" J-Mac running. Well, the beauty of our republic and party system is that, most of the time, the parties, whether they win or lose, deserve what they voted for.

Press: Eeee, I'm a Little Girl For Obama

One other post about Obama, then no more for at least a day or two, I swears to ya.

From another must-read for the campaign trail, Jake Tapper at ABC, on a lengthy post about Obama before his Big Speech:

"A reporter noted that the campaign has been distributing fliers to Berliners to drum up attendance.

"Why don't you guys go out and distribute some fliers?" Obama asked. "Is that a conflict for you guys?"

Joked a cable news correspondent: "We have been. It's called television.""

Ha. Good one, nameless correspondent. God, our press is a joke.

Barack Geldof

Been gone the past few days, but now I'm back.

Here's this from the invaluable Campaign Spot:

"Pick out the "We Are The World" lyrics vs. Obama speech lines.

A: "We can't go on pretending day by day that someone, somewhere will soon make a change."

B: "This is the moment we must help answer the call."

C: "But if you just believe there's no way we can fall."

D. "The world will watch and remember what we do."

E. "Let us realize that a change can only come when we stand together as one."

F. "We cannot afford to be divided."

G. "These now are the walls we must tear down."

H. "This is the moment when we must come together."

I. "They'll know that someone cares, and their lives will be stronger and free."

We Are the World: A, C, E, I.
Obama's Speech: B, D, F, G, H. "

Now This Is a Knife!

Peep this.

Australia: Australian for "Awesomeness".

I'll say this with total sincerity. If Australia chooses to enact such an "opt-out" program, I would think about defecting (admittedly a totally unnecessary move) and moving to Oz. Plus, I could go fightin' round the world with Russell Crowe!

Comic Book Morals

As I mentioned in my "Dark Knight" quick response, I'd like to revisit the idea that, when placed in the realm of fiction or fantasy, people will support policies that they otherwise would vigorously fight. Probably nothing too earth-shattering, but if you were here looking for earth-shattering, you came to the wrong place.

Allow me to illustrate. In the Dark Knight, and generally throughout the Batman enterprise, here are a few actions taken by "the good guys":

- Warrant-less surveillance of the entire Gotham universe through cell-phones.
- Blatant lies to the press about the nature of Harvey Dent.
- Mass murderers who have terrorized millions are in solitary confinement, all but assuring that they will escape to kill again.
- A citizen acts as judge, jury, and executioner, eschewing the majority of human-created institutions for the sake of his own view of justice.
- Police ignore a thousand other small procedural laws, each of which by themselves would serve to acquit any criminal.

And that's just stuff off the top of my head in the past 2 minutes. If this were to happen in the "real world", there would be millions of DailyKos posts, Special Comments, CaffertyFiles, and Facebook groups talking about ending "regime change", stopping "Big Brother", or bringing back "the rule of law." Across the board, it seems, these very same people raucously cheered for their caped crusader.

The question is, "Why?" I mean, from the way that I've heard it, the Bush administration is "evil" for their activities. Is it not possible that the Bush administration is, like Batman, over zealous in its pursuit of its goals? Why ascribe malice?

I think we all know that reality is much more banal: the joyful security of a world unshackled by nuance proves too alluring for many. Hell, that's why comic books have always been popular: the escapism is only partially composed of dreams about superpowers. Just as strong is the dream of a world where black-and-white do exist. Even Frank Miller's production of Batman can't dilute the fact that the Joker is evil. Batman is most assuredly conflicted and human, but the idea that the Joker should be defeated is axiomatic to Batman.

It's not so easy out here in flesh-world, however, where our villains rarely broadcast themselves to the public, where our heroes make thousands of mistakes, and where our efforts often fall flat.

Initial Response to "Black in America"

Saw what I assume is the first installment in the CNN series "Black in America" tonight, a roundtable hosted by Soledad O'Brien. I'm really excited for this series, probably against my better judgment, because I'm genuinely interested in learning about the black community. I say against my better judgment, because I know that most MM coverage of anything is superficial and patronizing, to the detriment of fact and education.

With that said, I found this first episode enormously disappointing. Firstly, the arrangement of the town hall was disappointing. As far as I could tell, the entire audience and every speaker were black. I think for any meaningful enlightenment on the racial issues in our country, you need multiple races present for discussion, simply because no race is in a vacuum. Whites interact with black, Asian, and Latino people, black people interact with white, Latino, Asian people, etc. Because of this arrangement, it seems utterly asinine to allow one group to explain and analyze itself without outside contributions. I would hope any discussion of any racial group would include opinions and comments from other ethnicities, if only to record outside groups' impressions and questions.

Secondly, Soledad O'Brien was insufferable. This is a bit roundabout in its reasoning, but follow me on this one:

On Deadspin, there was a great post by Rick Chandler about Rick Reilly playing at a celebrity golf tournament in Lake Tahoe. Chandler, who was liveblogging the tournament from the crowd, noticed that Reilly, a journalist, was playing in the celebrity tournament. Chandler also noted that Reilly now has a $10 million contract with ESPN, and that he had numerous close connections with the athletes he wrote about. Some key excerpts:

"This is the new journalism: Celebrities writing about celebrities. Reilly occasionally had to put away his notebook to sign autographs; something with which I imagine Grantland Rice or Red Smith never had to contend...

...So Rick; how do you feel about the fact that you, a journalist, had taken [former Dolphin great Dick Anderson's] spot? When did the lines between athletes and the people who cover them become so blurred? And what entree did they serve in the players' dining room, where the rest of us lowly reporters were not allowed to go?"

The post is great, but the point here is well taken: today's news world is full of reporters who belong to the clubs and attend the parties of those they are supposed to cover. Many reporters choose to defend this practice by explaining that they have gained "access" with newsmakers, and that the public is supposed to trust that the constant flesh-pressing won't color their journalistic judgment.

During the roundtable, Soledad O'Brien seemed utterly inseparable from the speakers she was interviewing. Several times O'Brien applauded to responses, seemingly following the audience's lead. At the end, as the camera pulled back and the credits rolled, I could see O'Brien shaking hands, kissing cheeks, and hugging the town hall participants.

Now, let me emphasize this: it doesn't bother me that Soledad O'Brien might agree with a certain speaker's positions, or that she might even be friends with a number of the night's participants. What is galling is the idea that O'Brien, who I'm now using to represent much of the MM, would be offended at the suggestion that she is biased. In the sports blogging world, nearly every blogger wears his allegiances on his sleeve. I know that Will Leitch is a Cardinals fan, David Hirshey loves Arsenal, Orson Swindle (Spencer Hall) bleeds gater-blood, and Brian Cook, PBUH, loves Michigan. That's okay. I know enough to read between the lines when I read the writing of someone with whom I may disagree.

What makes the blogosphere and internet media so compelling to me is the detached quality. I know that VodkaPundit is speaking for himself, or that TPM is the reflection of Josh Marshall. They write their reactions, they communicate their specific knowledge and opinions. CNN, MSNBC, and Fox News each in their own way refuse to do anything beyond regurgitate enough information for the audience to feel informed without killing the golden goose of cocktail party invitations, games of squash, or any other cognoscenti get-together.

Meat-Dealer Blues

I think this picture says so much about some people's mentalities toward resources.

(HT: Northwestern's wonderful library of WWII posters)

I like the meat-cutter's face in the top picture, as well. He's saying "Sorry, Mrs. Wilson, but all I got left is the bottom part of a necktie for you. Mrs. Wears-Pearls-While-Shopping, the wealthy heiress, plum took everything I have."

This is also related to the "moral equivalent of war" we always hear from the Left with various social ills. No matter what the average lefty might think about war, they all love the domestic fruits of war: massive increases in federal bureaucracy, greater concentrated power, and growth in industry regulation.

I mean, can't you see it? Change the title to "Carbon offsets mean a cleaner world for all of us!" or "Minimum wages mean a fair pay for all of us!"

Another Early Morn Review: The Dark Knight

This might be the last of its kind for a while, as I don't know of many more movies this summer going with the midnight-Thursday release.

- This movie was pretty uncompelling to me. There are a numerous amount of boy-isn't-the-Joker-ingeniously-evil moments, but nothing in the film presents an alternative to his character. Christian Bale is flat, Maggie Gyllenhaal is flat. I remarked to my roommate that this movie felt more like an iteration of the "Saw" series than a sequel to "Batman Begins".

- I might be a sucker for Aaron "Nick Naylor" Eckhart, but I thought his story arc as Harvey Dent/Two-Face was well done. We saw the pre-fall brightness and nobility, and the disoriented, grasping rage post-fall, as he struggled to find a place for himself in the world.

- This movie has quite a few political undertones, amongst them: support for surveillance, the power of propaganda over truth. More later, but I think it's worth exploring that, when placed in a fantastical and fictional world, the average American has different responses to policies than they do when viewing CNN.

- Ledger was great. You'll hear that everywhere, but I wonder: how much re-editing took place after his death? Although he was great, the movie was saturated with the Joker. A more appropriate title would have been Why So Serious: The Joker Comes to Gotham.

- The disappearing pencil. A good moment of villainy-cum-cleverness.

- Michael Caine is a great actor. Great. His moments carry whiffs of "Batman Begins" and almost serve as judgment against this film because I was reminded of how much I liked the first film.

Okay, I got a mid-term in 7 hours. I need some sleep.

Michelle Obama Is Not An Angry Woman

Allow me a moment to rip on my intellectual buddies: Michelle Obama isn't an angry woman. Really.

Intense? Without a doubt. Fawning over her husband? Sure. But what good wife isn't?

This post is inspired by the New Yorker magazine cover, which is an entirely different barrel of fish. (Really, media? You think that the average person who reads the New Yorker, who's read pieces by Christopher Buckley, Woody Allen, and Garrison Keillor, wouldn't get the satire? Really Obama campaign? You think your followers, 97% of whom get their news from the Daily Show or Colbert Report, are below some sarcasm? Really? )

But while there are plenty who have complained about the Muslim stuff in the cover, there are fewer complaining about the Michelle "Angela Davis" Obama depiction. And the Right, in response to those complaints, has basically responded, "Michelle Obama is a black radical, an angry woman. How could any person disagree?"

That's crap.

I hold no brief for Mrs. Obama. I do think she is a strikingly attractive woman, and she seems to be very intelligent, but I can't know that for sure, having never met her. But the oft quoted woman, from everything I've read, is being poorly treated when she is described as "angry."

What evidence is there of a simmering anger? A few quotes from speeches where she uses messianic or hyperbolic language? That's anger?

When Mrs. Obama says things like "for the first time in my life, I'm proud of my country", she betrays an inexperience with public life, an inability to temper her praise for her husband and his campaign, and a slightly creepy zeal for the message her husband peddles. Not anger.

These qualities aren't necessarily desirable in a prominent spouse, let alone a First Lady. But the critics of Obama only undermine their argument to unaffiliated voters and weak Obama supporters by describing Mrs. Obama as "angry." The only way a person could see the anger is if they read between the lines of her speeches with the most uncharitable eye.

You know what? The Obamas don't claim to be the most politically refined couple. They claim to be a change from the usual, and those on the right who leap upon every Mrs. Obama speech as proof-positive that she is a black radical dedicated to the dissolution of all great American institutions only improve the Obamas to those who can't stand Hannity and Colmes or Keith Olbermann.

Mrs. Obama might be an angry and shrill woman. She might secretly have a tattoo on her back of Stokely Carmichael. But here's the point: anyone who claims to know such things from observing public appearances is either delusional or deceitful. There's no way in hell that you could see her quivering heart of rage from her speeches. Nothing from her public appearances says anything besides a woman who loves her husband, loves what he stands for, and believes a future with him will be the best option for the country. And I think it would behoove those less-than-enthused by Obama to give Mrs. Obama the benefit of the doubt. It's nearly axiomatic that good manners consist of treating people as gentlemen and ladies until they prove otherwise. Give Mrs. Obama a shot.

Critics of the Obama campaign, and I count myself among them, need to stick to real problems with the candidate. Like his humorless-ness, or the distinct possibility that he isn't a bright-eyed optimist, but an extremely cynical politician with crooked colleagues*, who is playing upon people's frustrations for his own gain. Or even perhaps (gasp!) talk about his foolish policies that ignore facts.

What isn't effective is quixotic charges at imagined monsters in the Obama house.

To those who aren't yet decided about Obama, the hyperbole of the Right isn't any more attractive than the hyperbole of the Obama camp.

*note that the Slate article is from 1997. The Dems have been so tied up in the Tammany Hall politics of Fannie and Freddie for a looong time.

Teh Truth Will Set Us Free

Nearly accurate transcription of Kerry Howley on Red Eye last night, who offered up the great gem:

"I'm just can't wait for Barack to become president so we can do away with the other two superfluous branches of government."

Amen and Amen. I can't wait.

The Birth of Fake Plastic Trees, Perhaps?

Here's a thought-provoking development.

"Carbon nanotubes are the crucial chemical ingredient that could make artificial photosynthesis possible, say a team of Chinese researchers. The team has found that nanotubes mimic an important step in photosynthesis that chemists have been unable to copy until now.

Artificial photosynthesis has the potential to efficiently produce hydrogen that could be used as a clean fuel for vehicles. It could also be used to mop up carbon dioxide from the atmosphere."

Yet another cool advancement in technology with far-reaching green implications. Yet we are supposed to cease any exploration into oil-resources.

I know that it might be a dead end, but it's not the only area of exploration. From my view, there are two possible courses of action:

1. We drastically reduce emissions with draconinan practices, a la "cap and trade" or substituting current practices with far more expensive alternatives like ethanol or wind. A few years down the road, we discover a technology that erases or reduces greenhouse gases to "satisfactory" levels (if there can even be satisfactory levels for the Gore cult). We realize that we were needlessly thrifty, but shrug it off. "How were we supposed to know?"

2. Believing that there will be solutions down the road, we unapologetically search out every resource and use the cheapest and most potent. 10 years later (for argument's sake), we discover the same salvific technology, and clean up our "mess".

I utterly reject the concept that there is no solution besides reduction of energy use. It flies in the face of energy history, and the preponderance of science news mocks the concept of "no way out but down." There will be some advance at some point that improves efficiency and decreases carbon emission. There is as much chance of no solution as there is the chance that there will never be a computer more powerful than a Cray or other supercomputer. The results are simply too overwhelming to neo-Luddism.

LoserswhowantBigGovernmentsayWHAT?

Listening to NPR this morning, there was a brief retrospective on the life of Dr. Michael Debakey. They played a clip from an appearance on Science Friday back in 2003. Here's my fairly accurate transcription of the quote, but there was a little mumbling at parts.

"I take a very strong position on this [government funding for medical research]. For every citizen, what are the two most important priorities in the nation? First, security, second your health."

First, let me state that Dr. Debakey is a true American hero. The procedures he developed, the thousands of lives he saved, these are part of a lasting legacy worthy of praise. The world is better for his time on it.

Secondly, Did you see it? The (probably unintentional) chicanery? Let's tease out a logical statement from this quote:

1. -The two most pressing concerns for American citizens are security and personal health.
2. -The government is the best protector of security.
3. -Therefore, the government should be the protector of personal health.

Not so fast, dear sir!

Even if you give him the first two legs of his argument (and there are those who wouldn't), there is no way to logically tie in the third point, unless there's some Law of Transitive Competence I missed.

Allow me to illustrate by comparison. Let's adjust the quote around to say:

"I take a very strong position on this [government funding for funny late-night monologues]. For every citizen, what are the most and 27th-most important priorities in the nation? First, security, twenty-seventh a funny Conan O'Brien."

Yet this is as logical as Dr. Debakey's sentence. I mean, if the government is best-suited to handle our first and second priorities, it would most assuredly kick-ass at the 27th. Look, I'm sure he meant well, but that matters naught.

To doctors and medical professionals, who spend admirably long hours on the front line in the battle against Human Suffering and Death, the world is a place defined by life expectancy and disease rates. Furthermore, many doctors got into their profession because they really care for people, not for the salaries. That compassion is exactly what I want in my surgeon or physician, but not in my government. The near monomania required to be a successful doctor often distorts perspective in other realms of knowledge. This might be way off, but I think there's an Aristotle quote about the danger of great knowledge in a specific arena is that it gives the man a falsely-earned confidence in other arenas.

Why is Debakey wrong?

The government is best-suited for control of the military, simply because national security is a public good. Namely, there's no way for someone who lives in the United States to opt out of our defense. We can't have little pockets of objectors throughout the country where those who choose can fall outside the U.S. defense umbrella. Because of the nature of national security, taxation and government intrusion are an efficient use of capital.

Health, however, is a private good. My life quality is my own. If I die at 35 or 135, I can choose when to opt out and stop paying the costs (so to speak). To have the cost of my upkeep be projected onto someone else is terribly inefficient, as well as morally dubious.

I think we would have a much clearer view of public health policy if we were to simply change the debate from "health care" to "automotive care." We'd remove about 95% of the moralizing, the aspersions, and the sancitmony, and retain 100% of the sensibility.

Okay, I'm done now.

*Steps down from soapbox/infant high-chair*

Your Daily Techno-Tincture of Schadenfreude...

here!

That'll teach ya, you indolent graphic designers and Parliament-smoking blipsters, to get your hopes up. That'll teach ya.

Hellboy 2: Even More Hellboy

Some dashed off thoughts, having just come back from the theater (Why spend hours sleeping when you can fill them with 100-foot images of demon justice?):

- A couple of us "pre-gamed" for the movie by watching the first Hellboy before heading to the theater. One thing is clear, right away: Del Toro got loads more cabbage to spend on the second, and he used it. CGI was better by a factor of 3.4. Possibly 3.5.

- Ron Perlman is a great character actor. I think this movie, though, flirts with the dangerous abyss of Perlman-overload. I think it helps that he's covered up with 20 lbs of makeup and is in such a specifically campy role.

- Del Toro is really confident now, and is letting his freak flag flap in gale-force winds. He has so many eerie and clever characters in that head of his, and Hellboy allows him a great way to show them. This interview with Mignola gives you an insight into how intensely Del Toro likes to simply create.

- Some clever lines, some cheesy lines, some lines that I suspect a non-native English speaker might find a satisfactory approximation to films of the past. If this sound appetizing to you, have you got a good movie to go see this weekend.

- I identified Seth Macfarlane's voice within two minutes of exposure. The German accent sounded far too much like Stewie impersonating Hitler. Funny though.

- Selma Blair, with a haircut so sharp and sexy that Charlize Theron just hiccuped. I don't even know what that means, but I'm smitten.

- If this line doesn't summarize the bizzare feeling of the film, nothing will:

"I'm not a baby, I'm a tumor."

It's funny, really.

In summary, if you have any small part of your heart that still loves overly large, fantastical, and strange films, see it. If any part of you loves summer movie spectacle (and who doesn't), see it. If you have a bitterly rational view of the world, and you can't grok phantasmagorical villains, you should probably go soak your head, and then pay too much to see Journey To The Center Of The Earth.

G8-zilla

It's nice when someone in power agrees with you. You feel like your suspicions and beliefs have been validated, that you aren't crazy, and perhaps even that your hopes might be realized.

Silly rhetorical-device-doofus. Hope is for kids.

Check this story about G8 leaders and their proposed carbon-emission reductions.

Now, I don't have a dog in the climate-change fight, per se, but I guess my sympathies are with those who would very quietly doubt the existence of anthropogenic climate change. That being said, if people really feel strongly about the topic, I'm always up for forward-thinking suggestions. None of this bike-riding neo-primitivism crap: I want zero-emission hover scooters, dammit.

With that out of the way, let me summarize what the basic rules of political grandstanding are:

1. Vaguely optimistic comments about "steps", "forward", and "change", &c.

Check.

"The G8 leaders, representing most of the world’s biggest economies, insist that the proposal is a success. Speaking in Japan, UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown said it was the “first summit where a target for carbon reduction has been agreed by every member”, and called it a “major step forward”"

2. Hope no one notices the real proposal: a toothless collection of malleable suggestions.

Awww, dammit:

"But in a statement issued yesterday, Mexico, Brazil, China, India and South Africa insisted that G8 nations, jointly responsible for 62% of global emissions, should cut their own emissions by more than 80% by 2050. Clearer, near-term goals are also a must if developing nations are to sign up to a global deal, they added."

C'mon, Not-Europe, I know y'all are new to the international community, but surely you know to not piss in our bowl of freshly-squozen sancitmony until all the reporters have left and before the public arrives. No manners, at all, I tell ya.

3. Make sure all your most rabid supporters are placated on the q.t. They know where all there funding comes from, so they'll toe the party line, right?

WRONG!

"Politicians can play all of the numbers games they want but the atmosphere doesn’t care about percentage reductions. It cares about absolute emissions,” says Alden Meyer, environmental expert with the Union of Concerned Scientists, a non-profit group based in Washington DC."

4. Ensure that all blame for future-failures is pre-emptively placed on opponents.

“We’re hoping that the landscape will shift dramatically next year when there is another US president. I think we can get it done with enough political will and trust among major countries,” adds Meyer."


Aaand, that's a wrap everybody! See you at the after-party?

A little more cynicism on the part of all voters would behoove our republic. I'm especially thinking of you, nutty Obama nuts. Obama might make a great president, but he's not going to enact everything you dream about. Hell, he won't even promise to have all the troops out of Iraq by 2013 (Good on him, I say, but I know the average child-o-privilege in college thinks differently).

Where has the scorn for politics gone? How can one guy, on his own, purify the industry that employed Jesse Helms, Ted Kennedy, Strom Thurmond, Robert Byrd, James Traficant, Kwame Kilpatrick, William Jefferson, and Larry Tapdancin' Craig? Especially since he himself (Obama) has Rezko's in the closet? As it must be reiterated, it seems, daily: Obama is a politician from Chicago. CHICAGO!!!

Politicians will promise things that will never happen and they know it. Carbon emissions is a great example. Ditto universal health care, ditto border security (I didn't forget ya, stuffy McCain stuff), ditto Iraq, ditto education reform.