Have you been saved by TV lately?

Since I’ve been talking non-stop on the economy these past few posts, I am delighted to say that “YES! TV is back! And with a bang!” I finally have something else to talk about! Not that politics and the economy and other issues aren’t exciting anymore, but I’ve just been watching a lot of really great shows, old and new, and they’ve made me enthusiastic enough to push all that news brouhaha aside and get this blog back on track with the stuff I love talking about.

The cast of Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles, back for its sophomore season.

First and foremost, old shows that have come back: Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles, premiered last week. We all knew that Cameron was going to live (I mean, hello? How do you kill off Summer Glau, the awesomest Terminator ever?), so there was really no “Oh, whaddaya know?!” moment when she ended up emerging alive from the truck wreckage. However, it was corny to me how that awful rock n’ rolla music was playing in the background for like, 3 minutes while Cameron started to walk back up to the house. It was in horrible slo-mo too, and it was just so cheesy that I think I rolled my eyes enough to dry them up and had to go put some eyedrops in. But thank heavens some brilliant writer figured to add in a twist and she ended up coming back with a screw loose and intended to terminate Sarah and John. It was a fairly good season premiere; not as explosive as the first season, of course, but that is to be expected, I guess. Sophomore seasons are usually pretty tough on fledgling shows [see Prison Break, Gossip Girl] but with Terminator’s addition of the awesome Shirley Manson [from the band Garbage] to the roster, I’m sure this season will be pretty badass.

The cast of Greek on ABC Family

Another returning show is Greek, which I am absolutely in love with. See, I’ve been told that I watch politics a lot and that I seem to have too many opinions on things that matter, and that I need to enjoy Will Ferrell movies more (which I don’t intend to do, thank you), but I think that Greek makes the case for me that I’m not all that much of a bore. Greek is every bit the mindless fun that you want on your primetime viewing schedule, and I don’t mean that in an insulting way. When I say mindless, I mean that the humor isn’t crude or sarcastic like say, Real Time with Bill Maher, another show I happen to enjoy. The humor is clever, fun and current, you know, in the sense that it’s in a language that everyone speaks (e-speak, I call it, and it’s not the language you use to text, but the kind of language only young people can understand). Also, by mindless, I’m alluding to the fact that it’s a show centered around the Greek system: fraternities and sororities. It basically dives into all the stereotypes that are true for both groups: that they’re all about parties, drinking and slacking off in college. What I like about this show, though, is that the characters are really interesting, and the decisions they make often irritating but confounding in a good way. I like that the characters are all likeable, and that there’s just no one character that everyone hates. Also, with all the shows that feel like they need to end with cliffhanger episodes, it’s nice to actually watch a show whose episode controversies are resolved by 9:59pm. I also like the way they bring in new cast members. They don’t give them grand entrances or give them spectacular lines, they make them as relatable as can be, and so as an audience member you really feel like you’re developing an attraction to them. And finally, the songs on this show are pretty cool. They used Earlimart once and that really impressed me.

The cast of one of the best shows EVER, Mad Men, in an awesome Vanity Fair shoot.

One of my favorite shows of last fall was Mad Men, and the first couple episodes weren’t very spectacular, in the sense that they didn’t have the same pizzazz as the first season, but they were still very well-written, very visually-arresting, and of course, it’s always good to have the characters back. The nice thing about this show is that it was able to show that some changes happened after the last season finished. They set it up well and made sure that it was apparent to viewers that a year had gone by after the last season, and that the characters were changed somehow. For instance, Betty now takes up horseback riding, Peggy starts her new position as junior copy writer and she does end up keeping her baby (well, not technically, since her mom and sister take care of it), Joan Holloway is engaged and Sterling-Cooper gets a television department. One thing I didn’t like about this season was Don’s involvement with Bobbie, a manager of comedian Jimmy Barrett, a client of Sterling-Cooper. It irks me that Don keeps playing around behind Betty’s back (but that’s just the female in me, of course, nothing against the writers), but it was great when they had the episode where Don and Bobbie run into Rachel (who, if you remember, was one of Don’s conquests last season that came close to becoming an elopement) at a restaurant and Rachel gives him this look that is just so on point that I felt like screaming “YES! YOU TELL HIM!” at the top of my lungs. And also, I love that this show is so artistic. What I mean by this is that the writers have so much faith in their material and in their actors that they don’t even bother writing lines for certain scenes. They’d much rather demonstrate the gravity of a situation through actions or pictures. I love that they use metaphors a lot in this show. It’s so intelligent and refreshingly clever, and I feel like AMC is perfect for this show in ways HBO could not have been. 

Another comeback that was spectacular? SNL of course! Tina Fey came back to play Sarah Palin, and it was spot on. Amy Poehler, of course, was equally hilarious. I think that segment will make history as one of the most watched and most buzzed about episodes in SNL history. Very well-written, well-portrayed, and the audience was obviously hungry for some Fey.

Charlie Hunnam, the star of the new FX show, Sons of Anarchy.

On to the newcomers in primetime. My new obsession is Sons of Anarchy on FX. Okay, so I’ll admit that the reason I got drawn to this show was because of Charlie Hunnam. I am obsessed with him, and have been obsessed with him since Abandon and Nicholas Nickleby. He’s a really good actor, and it helps that he’s really good-looking too. I’ve noticed in his movies that he’s really intense, and I wanted to see how he would play this rough-and-tumble, tough-talking member of a California biker group called Sons of Anarchy when he has starred in a film like Nicholas Nickleby, of course, based on the Charles Dickens novel, a completely opposite character of Jackson in this new show.  At first I was a little skeptical when it started because I could see that he actually changed the way he walked so it looked more tough and rough, and as someone who actually knows who this guy is and has seen him play completely different roles, I was surprised at first. Later on I came to realize just how great of an actor he is. Now, enough about Charlie Hunnam! Sons of Anarchy, I think, is one of the really true gems in this fall line-up. It’s dramatic, well-written, perfectly-cast, riveting, but also soft and poignant when needed. I never thought I would be interested in a show like this. I mean, I’ve never been into films that were big on bikes or gangs and violence, but this one is actually different. It gives you an insider’s perspective into the way things work. Normally, the movies that are made about gangs are outsider stuff–for instance, they represent gangs or exclusive biker clubs like these from an outsider’s perspective. Sons of Anarchy shows how these gangs operate, how intelligent they are and how organized, and they also show that they are real people, with senses of humor and charm. I also like that they are character-driven and that they don’t rely on being flashy and promoting senseless violence. Also, coincidentally, the actress who played Rachel in a show I talked about before, Mad Men, Maggie Siff, is part of this show! I really like her and I think she’s a very eloquent actress. Other members of the awesome cast include Ron Perlman, Theo Rossi, Mark Boone Jr., the awesome Katey Sagal, and the seriously underrated Johnny Lewis. Got nothing to do next Wednesday? Watch Sons of Anarchy!

Ana Paquin and Stephen Moyer of the new HBO series, True Blood.

Another new show I am absolutely obsessed with is HBO’s True Blood. Now, when I found out that Ana Paquin was going to be in it, I was turned off by the show. She’s not my favorite actress, and seriously, her Rogue in X-Men was downright ridiculous and a little much, to be honest. But I figured I’d give it a chance, since it is about vampires, and it is created by Alan Ball, the genius behind Six Feet Under and American Beauty. Seriously, I’m beginning to think this guy can do no wrong. Also, it piqued my interest because at Comic-Con this year, there were posters everywhere of this drink called True Blood, and I seriously thought that it was an actual drink that was like, cherry-flavored or something. I actually went online to try and find the thing, and found out it was a show! Here’s where I ended up: http://www.trubeverage.com. So definitely great job to HBO for marketing this show, and props to whoever thought about the concept, since it was very clever. This show is set at a time when Japanese scientists develop synthetic blood for retail, True Blood, which now enables vampires to walk around like average, everyday people (only at night, of course). The story revolves around Sookie Stackhouse [Paquin], a regular waitress at a small town in Louisiana, who befriends a vampire, Bill Compton [Stephen Moyer].  I think it’s really interesting that they pitched the whole vampires-walking-around-like-normal-people thing as a minority war of some sort. They showed clips of vampires going on Larry King or something clamoring for more rights and less discrimination. I thought it was a very novel idea and one that was very well-incorporated in the first couple of episodes. The show is very explicit, so some people might be a little perturbed by the amount of nudity in it (although let’s be clear that The L Word still tops every list of shows with most nude scenes per episode), although the fact that it revolves around vampires should be disclaimer enough. I like that the humor is very straight to the point, and that’s what I like about HBO and FX–there’s no beating around the bush, and the characters (no matter how larger than life) can actually come across as normal people. I still think Ana Paquin is a little annoying as Sookie, but then she kind of reminds me of when Sarah Michelle Gellar was starting out as Buffy, and I hope that as the show goes on she will get better. Now, there is something to be said about the cute boys on this show. Stephen Moyer is perfectly cast as the vampire lead of this show. He’s definitely got the whole mysterious look going for him, and it helps that he’s sort of an unknown actor [The Starter Wife, and the lesser-known Prince Valiant with Katherine Heigl]. Also, a lot of parallels with Buffy, which I assume has some sort of inspiration for this show. David Boreanaz had the same thing going for him, in that he was a virtual unknown (he was discovered while walking his dog down the streets of New York) and it really helps when viewers don’t know who the heck you are and you just show up and you’re spectacularly good-looking. Ryan Kwanten (who plays Sookie’s brother, Jason) is also very much the eye candy. Anyway, enough of the crush talking. This show is really very well-written. It’s hilarious, it’s creepy, intriguing, and definitely a show that sets itself apart from what’s on TV today.

And finally, Fringe. Now, I’m not totally sold on this show yet, but I’m giving it a chance. I had seen the pilot when it had leaked on the net months before, and I had been sorely disappointed by what I had seen. I thought Anna Torv was miscast and I think she didn’t really do well as Olivia Dunham. She appeared charmless and unlikeable and even in the second episode, I found myself less and less riveted by her character and more and more welcoming of Peter [played by Joshua Jackson] and Walter [John Noble]. Fringe is basically The X-Files but exploring fringe science. I don’t care what anyone says, that’s what it is in a nutshell. Anyone who thinks it’s nothing like The X-Files is delusional. Creator J.J. Abrams said himself that the show was inspired by The X-Files and The Twilight Zone, and I think that the inspiration is very clear. Now, I’m not even going to waste my time by enumerating the various things about this show that are eerily similar to The X-Files, but I will say that this show is visually well-done. I liked the location stamps, although as the show goes on I find them rather irritating now. I think the set decorators and the prop and make-up department did a fine job pulling off the horror with the plane crash. I think that John Noble is great in this show, portraying sort of a mad scientist helping the FBI. One fundamental thing that this show has done differently than The X-Files, and which I will gladly give them credit for, is that it doesn’t seem to have the big over-arching storyline that The X-Files had well into seasons 6-9. I do think that the show tried a little bit too hard to make the characters interesting, and I feel like the writing may have been much sharper and less predictable, but I am intrigued enough to give the show a second chance. And of course, Lance Reddick is in it, so we’ll see if he does well enough on this show to leave Lost for.

That concludes my long post on TV’s fall comeback. I’m sure that as more shows come back for fall, such as Heroes, I’ll be blogging on TV topics more. Let’s just hope the TV line-ups continue to get more exciting so I won’t have to talk more about politics.

It doesn’t have to make sense

Masters of the camera: Joel and Ethan Coen with George Clooney, looking at footage from Burn After Reading.

Can the Coen Brothers do any wrong? As if last year was not a big enough year for them with the success of No Country for Old Men (just ask Tommy Lee Jones, who is suing the company who produced No Country for Old Men for royalties he claimed he never received from the unanticipated success of the film), they took on another small-scale but high-concept film starring a whole host of awesome actors, including John Malkovich, Brad Pitt, George Clooney, Frances McDormand [Fargo], Tilda Swinton [Michael Clayton], Richard Jenkins [I Heart Huckabees] and J.K. Simmons [Juno]. I’m talking about Burn After Reading, a film with a clever and well-written script and a very controlled set. I say ‘controlled’ because I like the way the Coen Brothers didn’t hesitate to rein in their actors when necessary, or give them complete freedom when they do decide to go all out. 

I won’t even attempt to summarize the film, only because the whole point of it is in the hilarity that all the events that occur are so loony and unrelated and comically stupid that it doesn’t make any sense. The film is basically like a series of unfortunate events–a six degress of separation kind of thing where one stupid act leads to another. All I can say without giving taking anything away from the cleverness of the script is that John Malkovich’s character Osborne Cox (the name is emblazoned in my head after Brad Pitt’s character repeats it over and over again) is fired (or more accurately, demoted) from his post in the CIA and he goes into a depression and decides to write a memoir about all the exploits he participated in while being an agent for in the intelligence agency. His uptight wife Mrs. Cox, played with so much precision by Tilda Swinton, thinks this is absolutely stupid and contemplates divorcing him while having an affair with a former Treasury Department official, played by George Clooney. Mrs. Cox is advised by her lawyer to find as much incriminating evidence on her husband as possible to ensure that she gets a hefty divorce settlement. She finds her husband’s files, with all the CIA information, and saves it onto a disk, which she somehow loses and which ends up in the hands of some really desperate people (in this case, Frances McDormand’s and Brad Pitt’s characters, employees at the hilarious 24 Hour Fitness parody HardBodies). Said desperate people, in turn, decide to blackmail Osborne Cox with the disk, and this leads to all sorts of ridiculous trouble.

This kind of film is difficult to pull off, only because the delivery needs to be on-point that the audience doesn’t even care if everything will make sense in the end. No one actor stood out in this film, because the whole cast was just terrific. George Clooney was, as usual, charismatic and well, you know, George Clooney. I liked that during the intense scenes he shed off the suavity and was actually really commanding and dramatic. Tilda Swinton was just the epitome of the cold, hard bitch in this movie, and she pulled it off with so much precision.

"Osborne Cox...I thought you would be worried...about the security...of your shit..."

Brad Pitt was just awesome in this movie. One would wonder if he made frequent trips to fitness centers to observe how personal trainers worked, because he was so on-point in his portrayal that you almost forget that this is the same guy who has played intense, dramatic roles in Babel and Legends of the Fall. You know when someone is a great actor when they can just step outside of themselves and be someone completely outrageous. There was one point in the film where he says the line, “Osborne Cox, I thought you might be worried…about the security…of your shit…” and he says it with so much of the character ingrained in him that it was just absolutely hilarious. Frances McDormand was a star in this movie as a HardBodies employee who is so dissatisfied with her appearance she is desperate to get plastic surgery to improve it. She was kooky, snarling and completely pathetic (in a good way!) and I am so glad that the Coen Brothers brought her on board again in this film. 

And of course, you gotta give it up to John Malkovich. No one could have played the deliriously maniacal Osborne Cox but him. Even as an ex-CIA operative with a major drinking problem and a cheating wife, he managed to make the character come off as indignant somehow that things were happening to him. He was always in command in every scene, and he definitely reminded everyone that he is such a versatile actor. In the opening scenes of the film when he gets demoted and is told it is because he has a ‘drinking problem’, he sneers back, “I have a drinking problem? You’re a fucking mormon! Next to you, we all have a drinking problem!” I almost fell off my seat at that.

One of the things that also added to the comedy of the film was the kooky music that accompanied the scenes. It did very well to set the atmosphere for the audience, and to make us relate to the characters. The characters in the film start to get so increasingly paranoid about their actions that they feel like there is some sort of giant conspiracy, and the kooky music helps translate this state of mind to the audience. I think that all of actors had to throw caution to the wind for this movie, and I applaud the Coen Brothers for their mastery of direction to be able to pull off a complicated yet deliberately nonsensical film. I know of no other film whose main point was it being nonsensical, and yet managing to be funny. Both thumbs up to the Coen Brothers and to the cast; definitely one of my favorite new films.

Jesus rocks you

I remember the first time I saw Hamlet 2’s trailer my gut reaction was: “Steve Coogan is a major buffoon.” The straight-out-of-the-theater reaction? “Steve Coogan is a major, major buffoon,” –and I mean that as a compliment. Only someone who is brazenly self-deprecating and yet staunchly self-confident could pull off something so utterly shameless. The film, starring Steve Coogan [Hot Fuzz, Happy Endings], Catherine Keener, Elisabeth Shue and Amy Poehler is so outrageously politically incorrect, that it almost seems like the whole movie was wrapped around this very idea. It felt as if there was no real gist, and it felt almost as if a bunch of comics wrote down some of their very best jokes and figured, “Hey, let’s make a movie around these jokes.” Now, that isn’t necessarily a bad thing, because the jokes are good. The problem was that it wasn’t very cohesive and oftentimes got a little carried away with itself.

The story revolves around Dana Marschz [Steve Coogan], a washed-up ex-commercial actor who now teaches drama at a high school in Tucson, Arizona. He, and two drama geeks, are the only ones at the high school who are passionate about theater, and when due to lack of funding the drama class is in danger of being cancelled, Marschz decides to put on a play to prove the administration wrong. The film started off pretty loudly and obnoxiously funny, with a commercial for genital herpes featuring Coogan parading through a park arm-in-arm with a woman. See for yourself!

See what I mean? The film is packed with a lot of schtick but also a lot of crude humor, something we can expect from the writers of South Park. ”I’ve been praying for more racial understanding, but I still get nervous around ethnics,” one character says, whilst fretting whether or not she could get along with her Latinos classmates. The film is basically Dead Poets Society meets Waiting for Guffman, and is more of the latter than the former. Dead Poets Society because it attempts to inject some sentimental you’re-the-best-teacher-in-the-world crap coupled with you’re-the-best-students-in-the-world crap while trying to remain hilarious. The play that Marschz puts on is entitled Hamlet 2, whose premise revolves around Shakespeare’s Hamlet, who goes back in time to prevent the deaths of, well, everyone in the story. He meets Jesus A.D. and asks for advice. Oh, and did I mention Hamlet 2 the play is a musical, featuring the very catchy “Rock Me, Sexy Jesus”? See below.

Anyway, the film was definitely hilarious, and there were times when I needed to seriously think of something depressing or else I would just keep on chuckling. Catherine Keener was particularly awesome in this movie, and I’m reminded why I like her. I liked her in Being John Malkovich and I think she’s a really good actress. It’s great to see her do comedy, because she does have a knack for it. A veteran comedienne who graced the film as well was Amy Poehler, who played a fast-talking, hard-dealing lawyer who tries to prevent the shutdown of the play. 

One thing that got me though, and I thought this was a little interesting, was the racial stereotyping in this movie. Yes, they made fun of the racial stereotypes, but some of the punchlines played out in an interesting fashion and raised some questions about what the writers could have possibly been thinking during the conception of the film. For instance, the one that stood out to me was when an aggressive, perpetually angry Latino student (who introduced himself to Coogan’s character as Haywood Jablome (get it? Hey would you…)] tells Marschz that his parents won’t allow him to participate in the play. Marschz responds by saying that he was going to march right on up to the student’s parents and demand an explanation, and didn’t care if it was “dangerous”, implying that this aggressive Latino kid was somehow from a gang-infested neighborhood. When Marschz meets the kid’s parents, they turn out to have a humongous house, and they are both accomplished (one is a writer, another an artist) and eloquent, which makes Marschz super relieved. Basically, they are white people in brown people skin. How this came across to me was that they seemed to be implying that the aggressive Latino kid was aggressive and therefore had to be from a gang or something with drug-dealing parents or whatever, and then ultimately introducing the parents as “normal”, which was learned, rich, spoke perfect english, and were elitists and literary snobs, really–like I said, which is characteristically a white people thing. It seemed to imply that the desirable personality or overall characteristics of a person or parents in general were those of white people. 

I’m not objecting to the humor in this “joke”, but I found it really interesting how this is portrayed in the film, and how it possibly reflects American social values about race relations. For instance, it would be interesting to ask someone who was white to describe what would be the good traits they would consider in another person, regardless of race. I would bet that the more assimiliated the person into American society (for instance, if they spoke without a thick accent, or if they were informed about mainstream ideas), the better they appear to the white person. 

Anyway, I thought I would just point that out. 

But all seriousness aside, I thought the movie was hilarious. The musical at the end was okay, didn’t quite see what the funny was in the concept of the musical, but I guess the appeal was the idea of “rock me sexy Jesus”.

Incredulity

This must be the dumbest country on Earth.

Why do I say that? It’s because of the utter foolishness that has been going on in the political climate for the past few weeks. The addition of Sarah Palin on the GOP ticket, the smear campaign conducted by the McCain camp, and just the silliness of media coverage these past few weeks is getting me so riled up that I just had to write about it. Again.

I don’t presume to know everything about politics, and I don’t presume to know everything about American politics, but I feel such frustration at the direction of these political campaigns right now. Firstly, I want to express my disappointment in the Obama campaign this past week for letting the McCain ads get to them. The left has to understand that that’s just what the right wing nuts do. They conduct smear campaigns. They do it every political season, and they are good at it. It’s why they won in 2000. It’s why they re-elected George W Bush in 2004. 2008 is still the same, regardless, it seems, of who it is at the top of the ticket. It has been suggested that I am too pro-Obama that I can no longer think straight and refuse to acknowledge that smear campaigns are just as much a Democratic fault than a Republican fault. I disagree wholeheartedly. Show me one Democratic campaign or ad that is more vile or more untruthful or low-blowing than the ads and campaigns that have been conducted by the Republicans. It’s just a fact of politics, and history has proven that. It was true in 2000 when John McCain ran, it was true in 2004 against John Kerry. The Republicans are just more comfortable getting dirty than the Democrats are.

Let’s not forget that in 2000, John McCain expressed such disgust for the Bush camp for conducting the same smears. He denounced them then, and yet he’s allowed them to go on under his watch. This is not the John McCain most independents loved and admired. The John McCain of 2008 will do and say anything to get elected. He will select the most inexperienced, unqualified person to be his Vice President, if it means he will get the female, evangelical vote. He will allow outright lies to be in his ads, if it means putting Obama down. He will steal another candidate’s message of “change”, because he finally recognizes that “change” is what the American people want. On the contrast, Barack Obama has conducted himself with such elegance and honor during his campaign. He has never allowed dishonorable ads and lies to be in his ads, and he even scolded his staffers when they started to get a little dirty and grimy. He has always said he respected John McCain, and for some reason, the Arizona senator has not given him the mutual respect he deserves. And yet, by some weird delusion, he is leading in the national polls.

It’s just mind-boggling. I can’t believe it. The American people are clearly tired of the way things are being run in Washington (by the Republican party, for 8 years, mind you) and yet, yet they are seriously considering this man for the most important office in government? Are the American people on crack? Have they forgotten that they’ve been eating shit for the past 8 years? I don’t get it. Bill Maher said it best: “It’s like you’ve been eating the same thing for the past 8 years and it’s made you sick. And now you’re thinking, let’s order it again.” Are Americans masochists? When the decision is so clear a five-year-old could make it, why are the people still making the wrong ones?

I don’t know about you, but isn’t it common sense to get rid of something that has been plaguing you for a while? If something doesn’t work, don’t you replace it? Don’t you start over? Don’t you try new things, even if it means things that have never been done before, ideas that have never been entertained and put to work, and people who you would have never thought you would choose to lead? When something is broken, don’t you want someone capable enough, but not necessarily the most experienced enough, to fix it? Don’t you want someone who is informed and in touch with what is going on? Don’t you want someone you can trust again, someone who is intelligent, who is a decent person, and who has never demonstrated a temper or a recklessness that the other party has demonstrated? When the decision is so clear that a non-U.S. citizen can see it, why are the American people still choosing the wrong one?

I’m tired of making the case against the Republican party and McCain-Palin, because honestly, I don’t even think I need to. But let me tell you why I prefer Barack Obama and Joe Biden.

Obama has never declined to expound or elaborate on questions that the American people have raised about him. When he first came out, there were so many questions about him, such as if he was a Muslim, if he was affiliated with Tony Rezko, or what the deal is with Reverend Wright. Everytime an obstacle or a silly question has come up about him, he has always managed to look people in the eye and tell them what the answer is. He has never skirted on a question, and he has never flat-out declined to give interviews or comments just because the press was scrutinizing him. Isn’t it fair to say that Obama has had the most grueling 19 months than any other candidate? He was written off from the beginning. Hillary Clinton and supporters thought they had this in the bag. Press covered him because he was an unknown, and that’s just the way it is. But as he campaigned and showed the American people what his views were on certain issues and what his positions were on certain plans for America, he has proven to be an eloquent, intelligent and transparent candidate. He became a ‘celebrity’ of his own accord, really. He didn’t ask to be covered. He was covered just because he was an unknown, and only more so because he is likable and charismatic, and he can give a hell of a speech. He is a phenomenon, and the same can definitely be said about Sarah Palin. She too is a phenomenon, but only because she came into the political spotlight as an unknown. Of course, being that she was unknown, questions were raised of her just as they were raised of Obama. She has gotten such press coverage not because she was favored, but because people want to know more about someone who is unknown, much like Obama. So you can’t really say that the argument is that the media is liberal because they covered Obama too much, because Sarah Palin got the same treatment, did she not? The only difference is that this time around, she is the newcomer to the stage, and Obama has been at it for 19 months.

Are the questions that were asked of Palin the same as the ones asked of Obama? Not necessarily, but there have been similarities. For instance, the question of experience. Yes, Barack Obama is not the most experienced candidate out there. Everyone knows that. But what he is trying to say is that experience is very broad. If you want government experience, world experience, educational experience…so many answers can fulfill that question. What Obama has is some government experience from when he was in the Senate, community experience because he actually worked with the community in the streets of Chicago, and world experience because he comes from a mutiracial family and has grown up in other parts of the world. He also has educational experience. He was magna cum laude at Harvard, was he not? So to me, that is just as much qualification as someone who has served for a long time in the Senate or someone who has been a governor for 2 years of a small state.

Now, the issue that has been brought up about Sarah Palin is different. When we say she is inexperienced, we don’t mean politically, because obviously Barack Obama has the same disqualification. We mean in other areas. Educationally, worldly, and etc. Educationally, we have to factor that in. Not to belittle Journalism majors, but if you want to do comparisons and you want to say that she is more qualified than Obama, then what does a Journalism major have that makes her better than a magna cum laude from Harvard who studied Political Science with an emphasis on International Relations?  If you want to say she is more qualified because she is a governor of a state, then what about John McCain? He was never governor of a state, so should he be written off as inexperienced too? Worldly-wise, how can she be better in foreign policy than Joe Biden when he has been chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee and has been in the Senate just as long as John McCain has? How can you say she has more experience in foreign policy than Barack Obama, when what she considers a qualification for foreign policy experience is Alaska’s proximity to Russia?

These are some of the things I am concerned about in this campaign. The trivialities of it all. I also think it is unfair that they criticize Barack Obama for giving good speeches, and yet fawn all over Sarah Palin after she gives one speech that has been written by a Bush speechwriter weeks before she was even selected, and after she declined to give interviews? How is it fair that they judge Barack Obama based on his speeches and say they are not good enough, and yet accept Sarah Palin wholeheartedly after she gives one speech? Why isn’t she being held accountable for her record? Why is it that they scream ’sexism’, when all the media is doing is vetting her, and making sure that the American people give an informed decision before they go out to vote?

Well, Sarah Palin finally gave an interview, and it was with ABC’s Charlie Gibson. It was her time to prove to America that she can step into the Presidential position on day one if need be. When asked what foreign policy experience she has, she said that you can see Russia from an island in Alaska, and seemed to suggest that that was her qualification. She seemed to play with the idea of going to war with Russia if Georgia was invaded again. She didn’t think that America needed permission from the ruler of Pakistan before we could step in to take on the terrorists over there. When asked what the Bush Doctrine was, she didn’t have a clue. Here’s the thing: If you asked John McCain, Barack Obama, and Joe Biden these questions, they would known the answers to these questions in a heartbeat. These three know what the Bush Doctrine is, because they are more in touch with international politics. John Fund, a writer for the Wall Street Journal, and Bay Buchanan, former strategist for Mitt Romney, both seemed to suggest that it was all right that Palin didn’t know her foreign policy, and that it was all right that she didn’t know what the Bush Doctrine is. Their argument was, “Average americans don’t know what the Bush Doctrine is, and we shouldn’t hold her accountable because she doesn’t know.” Why not? Why not hold her accountable? Don’t we want informed people in the White House? Don’t we want the most intelligent, the most in-touch and the most aware candidates to run the country? Why are the Sarah Palin defenders somehow asking voters to set a lower standard for Sarah Palin? Why are we making excuses for why she doesn’t know any of these questions? The answer is: we shouldn’t have to. The fact of the matter is, if John McCain had really wanted to run an honorable and good administration, he would have picked someone who was more qualified than Sarah Palin. If he really wanted to pander to those female Hillary supporters, he could have chosen a more qualified female candidate. If he really wanted to get on the Straight Talk express and be truly transparent to the American people, he should have allowed Palin to go on interviews. If he really wanted to do right by the American people, he should have vetted her properly.

Polls show that McCain and Palin have the white women vote. My question to these white, female voters is: why are you voting for Sarah Palin? Is it because she’s a woman? If that’s the case, then certainly any woman could have filled in this role? If McCain had picked another woman for VP, you would still vote for her then? Are you voting for Sarah Palin because she’s a hockey mom, just like you? If that’s the case, then why do you think hockey moms are attractive? Why do you think they can do a good job as VP? Isn’t a hockey mom someone who seems to do it all, who can devote a good amount of time on their children? If Palin is VP, she wouldn’t be a hockey mom, now would she? That would mean Todd Palin would be the hockey dad, wouldn’t it? Because let’s be honest. I live in a household of four kids, and already it’s hard to scrape by. How would Sarah Palin handle the VP, five children, including one with special needs and another one who is about to have a baby? I am not questioning her ability, I am merely curious. How does one do it? Let me put it clearly: I don’t want a Vice President (or president, if need be) who will have to juggle five kids while answering the problems of the American people. That would just be asking too much. Also, if white women voters want someone in the government who will fight for them, why don’t you support Joe Biden, who has fought and passed bills that guarantee equal pay for equal work for women?

Why would you vote for someone who is under investigation for abuse of power? It doesn’t matter if it turns out to be dismissed or untrue. The fact of the matter is, they are being investigated for something. Barack Obama has never been investigated for anything, and yet he’s less qualified than someone who is? Joe Biden has never been investigated for something and yet he is less qualified than someone who is? Why would you want someone who advocates animal cruelty, specifically those of wolves and other wildlife, solely because of hunting purposes? Why would you want someone who boasts about opposing and fighting earmarks, when she accepted them as Governor of Alaska? Why would you want someone who brought up the idea of banning books at a library in Alaska, and then went on to attempt firing the librarian who disagreed with her on this topic? Why would you want someone who does not know what the Bush Doctrine is, an important doctrine of her party and a reason why we are even in Iraq? Why would you vote for someone who needs time to be coached on the issues plaguing the American people before giving interviews?

Why am I spending so much time talking about Sarah Palin? Because I do consider her a threat. I think that she has served as a big distraction to what this election is really about, and I think she is fooling the American people. Why are people making such a fuss about her? It’s because a lot of people, like me, do not think she is qualified, and yet are baffled beyond belief as to how this woman was able to help John McCain catch up to Obama and make him leading now in the polls.

I think that the American people are making a big mistake by letting themselves become distracted from the issues. McCain, no matter what he claims about being a maverick, or no matter what qualifies him to be a better commander-in-chief, simply is not qualified to be President. McCain is only absolutely certain about his stand on one issue, and that is the war in Iraq. He is running on his POW record, and running on his ability to direct the Iraq war. Sounds familiar? Isn’t that the same platform Bush was running on in 2004? McCain professed that he doesn’t know anything about the economy, and he confesses to not knowing anything about the environment, and has not voted for any legislation that benefits the environment since he has been in the Senate. McCain is only leading Obama now because of Sarah Palin, and doesn’t that say a lot about him, even when he’s on the top of a ticket?

Obama has expressed himself clearly on every single issue since the beginning. He picked Joe Biden because, agreeing with McCain’s philosophy about the Vice President needing to be able to step in one day one if need be, Joe Biden would be more than qualified to be commander-in-chief. He knows about domestic issues better than John McCain does, and he’s not afraid to stare down leaders of the world as President if need be. He didn’t pick a Washington insider, because Joe Biden is one of the lowest-paying Senators in office (as evidenced by his recent tax returns), he hasn’t lived in Washington and was always a family man, and he is overall a decent man, by the way he has ran his campaign as a presidential candidate, and now as the vice presidential candidate. He never threw in snide comments about Sarah Palin on the campaign trail, whereas Sarah Palin has taken liberty swiping Obama and Biden every chance she gets.

Obama has never conducted a dirty campaign, and I think that’s why people are really drawn to him. He’s not one of the old boys, because he hasn’t been in Washington long enough to be corrupted by it, and he is young and brings in a fresher perspective. He’s very respectful, always citing John McCain’s record of service in the military, and attacking McCain only on his record, not on his personality. Obama and constitutents have never insulted John McCain’s character. They’ve only called him “old” (which is true and not subjective), “out of touch” and “the same as George W Bush”. Whereas Obama has been called by the McCain camp as “elitist”, “angry black man”, a “celebrity” and “arrogant”. Can you see the difference? McCain has gotten a free ride. He has been praised left and right for being a POW and for being a maverick, and no one has insulted him on his character. And yet the right have taken liberties calling their opponent names? How can they get away with that?

Obama doesn’t have 9 houses and a private jet, as John McCain has. Doesn’t that make a difference? The reason John McCain doesn’t care about the economy or mortgages and housing foreclosures is because he can just move from one of his houses to the other 8 via private jet. John McCain’s life has been all about tradition. Serving in the military was a family tradition, and in office in Washington, even though he used to be a pretty big maverick in the past, he isn’t now. He has stated himself that he has voted with President Bush 90% of the time, and frankly, if he was such a maverick, why didn’t he assert himself more when Bush was in Senate? Why did he agree with Bush instead of going against him when Bush wasn’t in office? Wouldn’t that have meant more? Obama has voted with his party 90% of the time as well, but his party wasn’t in majority at the time, and that meant that the Republicans were able to override their votes anyway, which means that most of what is wrong with America right now can be attributed to the Republicans.

Obama has the power of inspiration. Don’t tell me that’s just a crock. Look at what Kennedy was able to do, or Martin Luther King was able to do. They were able to energize the nation enough for people to feel impassioned again. Under John McCain’s administration, you would have disaffected and disinterested youth. Why? Because John McCain can’t relate to the youth. He can’t relate to techology, and he has stated this himself. How can he advance technology and provide ways to improve fuel efficiency and energy standards if he can’t understand how technology works? People underestimate the power of words. Words can move a nation. It may seem lofty to some people, and I can understand why that would be. It’s because when you’ve been kicked around for 8 years, you can’t really have high expectations of your government. You are right to be distrustful of your government when they haven’t been listening to you for 8 years.

People say Obama is all words, not action. But he has a more detailed plan for every single issue than John McCain does. The Presidential Forum was enough proof of that. He has been more in touch with the American people because he has spent years as a community organizer working directly with people. He has seen for himself what broken healthcare can do to a family, because his family has been through it. He knows about diversity because he himself comes from a diverse background. And he can tackle international affairs because he has studied it and knows that diplomacy should never be set aside in favor of war.

John McCain’s campaign is run by 9 lobbyists, and his chief campaign adviser, Rick Davis, ran the Bush campaign as well. His speeches are written by Bush speechwriter Matthew Scully. Sarah Palin as a whole slew of dirty laundry as well. Why am I not talking about Obama and Biden’s dirty laundry? Because there is just nothing I can find, on the internet and off it, that legitimately indicate any dirty laundry. So when i say that the choice is clear, I’m not just being vague. It’s so clear, it hurts.

The hottest new show in town…

…involves teenage pregnancies, hockey moms, sexism, war, celebrities, money, and of course, some good ol’ controversy; and it’s called: Election 2008. Now, I know I just wrote a post on politics, and this is first and foremost a movie-centric blog, but since I haven’t seen any new movies lately, and all that’s been close to intriguing on television these days is the news, what else can one write about? So let’s get down to business.

The media have been raising an interesting point these days, what with the recent selection of Gov. Sarah Palin of Alaska as John McCain’s running mate for the GOP. They are saying that her selection brings up old culture wars that have died down since Bush had taken office 8 years ago. Now, I agree entirely with that notion, and find it very interesting that this election has been able to spark so much discussion, so much controversy, and so much involvement from people who normally would never have been turned on by politics. So, what culture wars exactly? Well, let’s get down to the nitty gritty.

RACE

Race is now an issue. With Barack Obama making history as the first African-American person ever to be a Presidential candidate for a major political party, race is back on the coffee table for discussion. Let’s be honest: some people are not going to vote for Barack Obama just because of the color of his skin. It’s a sad and disgusting fact, but it’s reality, and Obama has recognized that, and he gave that amazingly insightful speech on race. Some people ask, “Is Barack Obama ‘black’ enough?” To me, that is simply an atrocious question. Why? If you want to live in a world that does not discriminate you on the color of your skin, then do not make it so. I think it’s really interesting how some people refuse to move on from such issues as race. Why are you taking a step back for your country? Guess what? White, black, Asian, Latino…they are all people, with feelings and opinions. What unites people is a sense of purpose. And right now, Barack Obama wants to help you rebuild your economy, end a senseless war, and restore public faith in your government. What does being ‘black enough’ have to do with doing a service to your country? And as an afterthought, they certainly never ask white candidates if they are ‘white enough’ do they? 

GENDER

Gender has once again become an issue. When you had Senator Hillary Clinton as a presidential candidate, someone who has now become an icon for women all around the country, you just have to bring up that historic quality as well. She has made so much progress for the women of the country. So has Sarah Palin, the first female Republican candidate for the Vice Presidency. It’s truly remarkable how many barriers this election has been able to break, and that says a lot about America. It says that America is slowly shedding off the shackles of the past, and is ready to embrace the future with open arms. But now we are once again dealing with issues of sexism. Was the media being sexist to Clinton? Are they being sexist to Palin? Here’s my answer: Sexism is not just in the media, it’s everywhere. Women should know by now that, despite the many breakthroughs women have made in society, there will always be people who demean women, and who will always think women are second-class citizens, just like there are people who won’t vote for Obama because he’s black. The sooner we realize as women that we do not live in a perfect world, the sooner we can get over that issue. However, this does not mean that we should just take sexism from anyone. More than anything else, it should inspire us to work harder and prove ourselves even more. That is exactly what Hillary Clinton did. She never defined herself as a woman. She defined herself as an upright citizen who cared about the issues that plague Americans today, and she offered key solutions to those issues, and they work, regardless of what affiliation you were with.

Now, on Sarah Palin, on the other hand, the reason I do not like her is this: she is not representing the women in this country. Or at least, if she is representing women, she’s only representing those like her. Who we need in office is someone who votes right on issues that bring women a step forward, not a step back. People like Joe Biden, who have tirelessly worked through the years to make sure women get equal pay for equal work. Gov. Palin, on the other hand, defines herself first and foremost as a woman. She tells everyone that she is a “hockey mom”, and seemingly plays on her being a woman more than Hillary ever did. She accuses Hillary of “whining” about overt press criticism during the primaries, but she herself complains about the media scrutiny only days after she has been nominated as VP. She also votes against women. She wants to permanently take away the right for a woman to an abortion. I’m sorry, but when you take away a person’s right to choose, you are denying them of freedom, and shouldn’t that be unconstitutional? Gov. Palin also once attempted to fire a town librarian for refusing to remove books from the town library. Which books, I don’t know, but to me that just speaks poorly for not just women, but for people everywhere. I cannot believe that someone who lives in a country whose flag stands for freedom, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, and whose citizens’ rights include the freedom of speech and expression, now wants to get rid of books she does not find ’suitable’ for people to read? Someone needs to tell Sarah Palin that the book-burning days of old are over.  

AGE

Other issues that have come up recently is of course, the age issue. Both our presidential candidates are from opposite sides of the age gap. Obama represents more of the youth, and McCain represents more of the older generation. So many young people have gotten involved in both campaigns; young people who probably never thought they would ever even talk about politics, let alone get involved in campaigning for a candidate. It’s truly amazing how even that barrier, that slacker mentality, has been broken by this election as well. Instead of holing up in their basements playing video games, young people are organizing rallies, putting up blogs, and spreading the word on politics! CNN was the most watched channel during the Democratic National Convention, and that is just unbelievable. The fact that young people are tuning in to this election means a lot of things: it means they are wisening up, they are paying attention, and they care about the issues at hand. It amazes me how much the youth have managed to accomplish this year. Bloggers who never thought their voices would be heard are now running the most elaborate campaign websites out there. Aspiring reporters are now flocking to conventions and campaign rallies to cover the candidates. Even people with simply nothing better to do, like that Obama girl, are making productive YouTube videos instead those ones that they feature on Jackass.

But let’s also talk about those who lost faith in politics and have been rejuvenated by this election. There are probably a lot of people who have been turned off by the gibberish that their government has been spewing to them for the past few years, and for the first time they feel like they can really do something, and that’s a lot. People say that ‘inspiration’ can only go so far, but they are dead wrong. Look at what inspiration has done to Barack Obama. He was an unknown two years ago! Now he’s being touted as a celebrity by his opponents. Incredible. Also, shows like Live Aid and even the Oprah show inspire viewers, and they inspire action and better living; what is so bad about this? 

PATRIOTISM

Another issue that is back on the table: patriotism. What does it really mean to be patriotic? For the McCain camp, it means wearing your lapel pin everywhere you go. It means service in the military, and continuous spouts of “USA! USA!” It means, according to Fred Thompson, electing a president “who sees no need to apologize for the United States”. It means always being proud of America, despite the hundreds of thousands of Iraqis killed, despite the Vietnam War, despite Hurricane Katrina. It means putting your country first, and your family second, because Governor Palin chose to get involved in a campaign without realizing that it would affect not only her daughter Bristol’s life, but her daughter’s boyfriend as well, who I am pretty sure had Palin not accepted the VP position, probably would have never “offered” to marry Palin’s daughter. How do I know this? Because the guy’s MySpace page says “I don’t want kids.” So no, I’m seriously not making that up.

For the Obama camp, it means realizing that “the world as it is just won’t do”, and that patriotism is wanting to make your country better by taking care of its citizens at home, instead of fighting a losing war abroad. It means being “humble about evil”, and learning to be diplomatic so that America can restore its place in the world as a super power. It means helping the most unfortunate of us, which could be either taking action as a community organizer, or simply easing the burdens of health care so that everyone can be healthy. Patriotism means knowing that America has been wrong before, and this motivates you to work even harder to make up for your mistakes. 

PRO-LIFE vs PRO-CHOICE

Another hot-button issue that is now back on the table: pro-life versus pro-choice. The choice of Governor Sarah Palin brought that one back on the table. To me, it’s not about who is wrong or right. It’s about what is good for the country, and personally, what is good for one person is not applicable to the whole country. Which is why I strongly disagree with the Palin pick, and with John McCain, because I don’t think the government should decide what women do with their bodies. Sarah Palin wants to abolish abortion, even in the event of rape or incest. She wants to impose that on the American people, while turning around and saying, “It was my daughter’s decision to keep the baby.” What an utter hypocrisy. What the extremist right does not understand is that what makes the idea of America great is choice. I’m not an American citizen, but I have long been exposed to American culture and have taken several American history classes, and I have always understood that to be the American ideal: to be able to make a choice. Isn’t that what the civil rights movement was all about? The women’s suffrage movement? The revolutionary war? So for this lady to come in and say, “No, I will decide what you do with your body,” goes against everything anyone has ever fought for in America. Sarah Palin might feel comfortable about carrying the child of a man who violated you, but I sure as hell don’t, and so do many women around the country, I am sure.

Also, I know that family is off-limits, but when you make them a gauge of your character, I consider that fair game. If Chelsea Clinton turned out to be a pothead, wouldn’t you question the parenting skills of Mr and Mrs Clinton? If one of Barack Obama’s daughters turned out to be seventeen and pregnant, do you think that should be off-limits? Does that not give people cause to wonder, “What did Obama do wrong?” So if Sarah Palin, who at this point is still relatively unknown to Americans, has an underage daughter who is pregnant, isn’t that a valid testament to her as a mother? Another thing is, since she pushes for abstinence in schools, how is she going to be able to say that her family is an example of that when her daughter is knocked up at seventeen? Doesn’t that make her a hypocrite? See, my thinking is that if you preach something, you should practice it. My coworker disagreed with me on this issue the other day. She said that you can’t expect parents to be able to control their seventeen-year-old. I agree with her, but only to an extent. My reply is, “Why can’t you control your child?” When you as a parent can’t control a minor, isn’t that an issue that needs to be fixed? Should we just sit back and say, “Hey, it can’t be helped?” Now, I’m not advocating full parental control of everything (in fact, I think the drinking age should be lowered, so there), but I do believe that when minors do something stupid, their parents should be held accountable. When a minor shoots up a school, their parents are responsible, because what the hell is your sixteen-year-old kid doing with a .45 and some homemade explosives? When a minor gets into drugs and alcohol, should I not blame the parent for neglecting their child? So similarly, when a minor gets pregnant, and what her mother taught her was to abstain instead of what should have been more effective sex education in schools, shouldn’t I be in the right to hold that parent accountable?

MEDIA

Another issue that is back: the media. Which side is the media on, exactly? The answer: NEITHER SIDE, supposedly. To ask the media to back off is stupid, because they are only doing their job. And to plead for more exposure is just, well, pathetic. So let’s put this in perspective. Fox News, regardless of them calling themselves “Balanced News”, is simply put, not balanced. They are blatantly, in-your-face right-leaning, and they are not afraid to exhibit such. MSNBC, on the other hand, is known for being left-leaning, and that’s their thing. Which is why I tune mostly to CNN, because I actually see them showing both sides of the story. Here’s what the politicians and political pundits fail to see: When they complain about the media being too critical of a certain party or candidate, they fail to see that maybe there really is something wrong with the candidate or the party. For instance, when news of Sarah Palin’s teenage daughter’s pregnancy leaked. The media pounced on this, and only rightly so. While I do maintain that family should be off-limits, once a person takes public office, and when they use their family as testimony to their character, that is fair game. 

For instance, when Sarah Palin brings in her son, who has Down Syndrome, in the convention (which I personally do not feel is a place for a baby to be), and declared: “You now have a friend and an advocate in the White House,” to me it actually said one thing: “Look at me, I have a special needs son! Here, let’s pass him around, and make sure the camera sees! Here, let’s even go on stage and pass the baby around!” But when the media suddenly finds out that when you were Govenor of Alaska, you voted to cut special needs services funding by 33% [this was mentioned by CNN contributor Paul Begala], how dare you say that they have no right to scrutinize you? How does that make you qualified for the second most important job in the US? Think about it, and let’s be realistic. John McCain has suffered cancer and a bunch of serious heart ailments. He’s old. God forbid something happens to him, do you really want this extremist, inexperienced lady as your president? A lady who has a dubious past and a lot of scandal buried somewhere in Wasilla, Alaska? At least Obama’s story is out there, you don’t find any scandals (except what the moron Jerome Corsi considers a scandal, ooh “smoking pot”), and his whole life story is in his 2 memoirs. He’s also been tried and tested, I believe, during the past 19 months of his presidential campaign. Sarah Palin has been under fire in the press for a week, and already she’s complaining. How will she fare on the global stage? Surely living in a state that is geographically close to Russia doesn’t count as foreign policy experience.

Also, Jeffrey Toobin, a contributor to CNN and a guest on Bill Maher’s show last night said, “how can John McCain claim to be prepared to stare down and negotiate with Vladimir Putin and then think that Campbell Brown [from CNN] is too mean?” That’s exactly the kind of thing I’ve been talking about. The media can’t be blamed for every single thing that goes wrong with your campaign! Which brings me to…

The Blame Game

Here’s why I think McCain-Palin won’t win in November: the Republicans have managed to alienate a lot of groups during this past campaign. First they alienated the Hillary supporters when they had everyone in their camp paint her as an angry woman. They further alienated her supporters by bringing on Sarah Palin, who stands for exactly the opposite of what the Hillary supporters stand for. Another group they’ve alienated, of course, the gays and lesbians. They still won’t recognize gay and lesbian marriage. Another group? How about the independents? When you are trying to appeal to the more centrist bunch, shouldn’t you have picked a less extremist VP, McCain? 

As for why I called this ‘the blame game’, the McCain camp have done an awfully good job of blaming people for their campaign mistakes. First they blamed the media, complaining about too much coverage on Obama. When the media shifted their attention to Sarah Palin, they complain again, saying they are being too hard on Palin. What on earth do you want? Make up your mind! And then during the Republican conventions, they mention the media as a reason why people aren’t getting ‘the truth’ from the ’straight talk express’. Guess what, McCain camp? The media personnel, they are people too. And you know what kind of people they are? American people. Do you know what American people will be doing this November? Voting. So yeah, way to alienate some voters!

Another group they alienated, celebrities! Now you know why Obama has a ton of celebrity endorsements! It’s because you started saying that somehow likening Obama to a celebrity is a bad thing! I guess you don’t want the money that celebrities can donate to campaigns, hmm? Another group they alienated, community organizers! And this was what really angered me. Community organizers are the people who work for hardly anything so they can fix up broken neighborhoods and crime-riddled communities. They are people who work tirelessly, just out of the goodness of their hearts, to lift people up and give their lives some direction. And these people are the ones you have the audacity to belittle while you sit comfortably in your Washington office? Screw you, you obnoxious bastards.

Sarah Palin considers herself more experienced that Obama because she has executive experience. She said, “Well, I guess being a mayor of a small town is kind of like being a community organizer, except you have actual responsibilities.” Okay, heads up Sarah Palin. Let me try to explain what a community organizer is in terms that you can understand: religious terms. Jesus was a community organizer, and Pontius Pilate was a governor. You know how that story ends.

Anyway, I’m tired of typing now, but I am sure I will have more to say as the election heats up with the upcoming debates. People are saying that Sarah Barracuda is a force to be reckoned with, but they forget that so is Joey the Shark. Let me end with a few choice sentences: Americans have long since held the idea that they want a president they can have a beer with. Wasn’t Andrew Johnson that president that Americans back then said was an ‘everyman’, someone they could just have a party with? Well, guess what, didn’t he colossally suck? Didn’t he ultimately get impeached? Wasn’t George W. Bush a man people said they wanted to have a beer with as well? Look where that brought America. So basically, when people say that Obama is someone who is too intelligent, too unlike the common man, don’t you think that’s actually a good thing? Don’t you want intelligent people who get work done running your government? I mean, let’s think about it. When did it ever occur to someone that having someone who you ‘could have a beer with’ as your president was even a remotely good idea? Yeah, it’s great that you can share good times with your president over a beer, but when he/she passes out after a few drinks, do you really want to be stuck with all the problems?

The week in politics

I’ve never been into politics. To me, politics has always been about a bunch of old geezers talking about how to save their own asses. This election has changed my perspective about politics. The people who are running are different this time around. You have John McCain, the Republican nominee–somewhat of a maverick and a bit of a goofball. He’s been in the Senate for a while now, and he’s certainly got the experience for him to be included with the “old politics” kind of thinking. McCain’s got the trophy wife who never talks, a black and white world view, and of course, thousands of rabid followers eager to make him the next President. On the other hand, you have Barack Obama. Interesting background, incredible story. Not so much experience in the political fray, but a lot of background in social work. He’s got a wife who is intelligent, down to earth, and unafraid to speak her mind. He’s got the inspiration factor, and youth is on his side, literally because he’s much younger than his Republican counterpart, and figuratively because young people have been drawn to him ever since he started his campaign for the White House.

Two very different candidates, two very different parties–both vying for the hearts of Americans this November. Unfortunately, the thing about politics that will always remain constant no matter how different the candidates are: the relentless media and the pundits who always want to put their two cents in, even when they compromise their judgment and objectivity. I’ve been following the Democratic National Convention, and it has surrounded by pressure and speculation from people all over the country. There is pressure for the Dems to reintroduce the Obamas as people who are just like your average American family. There is pressure on the Dems to reiterate the George W. Bush-John McCain connection. There is pressure on the Clintons to display more sincerity in their calls for party unity. And of course, there is tremendous pressure on Barack Obama, Michelle Obama and the rest of the speakers to blow people away with their speeches.

Of course, whether the same will be said for the Republican National Convention, that is definitely not the case. I feel like the media has been too easy on John McCain and the Republicans, and here’s why: People are tired of Bush and his failed government. They want change. Barack Obama stands for that change. He is everything America needs. Everything about him is new and fresh and dynamic. He brings a completely new perspective and a unique outlook to Washington. It seems that everyone believes that the Democrats are going to win this November, mainly because of so much dislike for the current administration. Basically, it’s Barack Obama’s election to lose, hence the pressure on him and his party to get their act together. I understand that because the political and social climate is favorable to the Democrats that pundits only feel it right to weigh down on them even more. However, I feel like the same should be done to John McCain and his party. Why is no one holding the Republicans accountable for the current social, economic and political climate? It’s their administration who’s responsible for this crisis that the country is in. No one is asking John McCain the tough questions.

Everytime you turn on the TV, some pundit is on CNN or MSNBC or Fox News talking about how Barack Obama needs to reach out to the American people, how his wife needs to show more patriotism, how his supporters need to reach out to the Hillary Clinton supporters…What about John McCain? No one clamors for Cindy McCain to deliver an incredible speech. No one asks what she has done for this country. I guess that when a woman like Michelle Obama is openly intelligent and outspoken, people just put her on a completely different and much higher standard than Cindy McCain, whose role seems limited to simply walking alongside her husband, looking pretty. Of course, being a former beauty queen, she’s gotten a lot of training for that job already. After all, Republicans are all about women hanging in the background while the big boys do the job. I’ve met a lot of Republicans, and most of them are conservative and traditional. They believe in god, guns and glory. The evangelicals are mostly Republican. The gun-wielding, NRA members are mostly Republican. And of course, those who still think that the Iraq war should rage on even when it’s a complete mistake, are mostly Republicans.

It honestly boggles my mind how people can still vote Republican even after such an epic failure of a Republican regime under George W. Bush. People are complaining and mouthing off about Bush and Cheney; they’ve been calling for better energy policies, and clamoring for the end of the Iraq war. And yet they will vote for a man [John McCain] who will do the exact opposite of what they need. Isn’t that insane? I mean, if you’re for lower gas prices and responsible energy, you would oppose off-shore drilling. Why? Because off-shore drilling will only make the country more dependent on foreign oil, which will then hike up gas prices due to demand, and how will that make anything different from the current climate? I remember when Hillary Clinton was still running and she and McCain favored the gas tax holiday, and Obama wasn’t for it. I agreed with Obama when he said that the gas tax holiday was only a temporary solution to a long-standing problem. If they are going to solve a problem, why not go to the root of it and fix it permanently instead of just stopping it for a few months? However, people didn’t like this rational approach. They wanted lower gas prices now, and they don’t care if it means it’s only temporary. The American people want instant gratification, and so they all went for McCain and Clinton. “Oh, they just understand where we are coming from, and they want to give us this gas tax holiday because every little bit helps.” Are you a moron? Whatever you saved from the few months that you have this gas tax holiday, you’ll lose every single cent because the gas prices go back up when it’s over. Obama wanted a permanent solution so you won’t have to pay $4.30 at the pump, and he got criticized for it. I can see why Bill Maher has such a pessimistic view of the American public.

Back to the Democratic National Convention. I am sick and fucking tired of hearing the Hillary Clinton supporters clamor for recognition and respect. GET IT THROUGH YOUR THICK SKULLS: The primary is OVER. It’s done. Barack Obama is your nominee. Get your act together and quit pining after your candidate, who has long since thrown her support behind Barack Obama. If you want to be loyal to your candidate, vote for the person who is closer to her: shocker, Barack Obama. I’m quite frankly pissed off because there are these highly intelligent individuals who come on to CNN and criticize the Obama campaign for not being generous enough to Hillary Clinton. Why are you still fueling the fire of this Obama-Clinton rift? Isn’t it time you shut the hell up and threw your support behind your nominee instead of being a brat and refusing to get in line? James Carville, for instance, pissed me off when he was at the DNC today. He has been a rabid Clinton supporter, and all he has to say about the Obama campaign is negative. Someone who has set a good example for Hillary Clinton supporters? Paul Begala. This guy was one of the most visible Clinton supporters out there, and yet he has gotten the hint that the primaries are over and that their nominee is Barack Obama, and he has openly revealed his support of him. Hillary supporters need to do the same. The primaries are over, Barack Obama is the next best choice. Use your brains and get in line!

It amazes me how dumb people can be sometimes. I cannot believe that the polls show McCain and Obama at a dead heat right now. How is this possible? McCain wants to stay in Iraq for 100 years. He has no real economic plan, but no one holds him accountable for it. Instead, everyone attacks Obama’s policies, which are more detailed than McCain’s. Obama has been more outspoken about clean and more efficient energy. All I know about John McCain is that he plans to continue the war in Iraq. I’m sorry, but to me it’s apparent who the choice is. It boggles my mind how people think otherwise.

I can’t vote, which is unfortunate. Otherwise, I’d be contributing more. All I have to contribute right now is my opinion, and right now my opinion is that Barack Obama is the best choice for president. Bill Maher said it best when he described Obama and McCain’s answers during the Saddleback Faith Forum. When asked what can be done about evil, John McCain said, “Defeat it!” My 4 year old cousin could have said that. And yet that drew more cheers from the crowd than Obama’s answer, which was “We have to fight evil, but we have to be humble about evil,” something which the crowd was too dumb enough to understand. What he meant was that evil is not black and white. It’s nothing like a comic book where the hero fights the villain and wins, the end. Evil is not all the way over in the Middle East. It’s right here in America, and the sooner that people get it through to their heads, the better understanding they will have of the task at hand.

Bottom line is, I really don’t want to see John McCain win in November. Not only will it make me feel completely pessimistic about the future, but it will probably turn me off from politics even more, which I believe a lot of young people will be feeling. But hey, the Republicans don’t really care about unity, and they don’t really care about bridging the gap between young and old, male and female, straight and gay. The Republicans are concerned about the war in Iraq, which they plan to continue for 100 more years, and that’s about it. If John McCain becomes president, you’ll find me hiding under a bomb shelter. Why? I have no doubt in my mind that at the rate he and everyone else is going, and how America is viewed by the world right now, someone is probably gonna fucking nuke us.

100 reasons why you stepped into the theater

Sometimes it’s a trailer, other times it’s an actor or actress - but the one thing that can actually stand out for a movie is its poster. A poster is important because you’ll see it when you walk out of the theater. If it catches your eye, it’s successful. If not, they need to go back to the drawing board. Trailers may ultimately be a final basis for whether someone will decide to see a film, but a poster relies solely on the gut reaction of the viewer. Some really outstanding movie posters that definitely made their mark (in no particular order):

Knight over Gotham

I know some of you have been wondering where my Dark Knight review is after it’s been exactly a month since the film came out, so I am happy to report that it is finally here. I just came back from seeing it for a second time, and I have to say, everything is much clearer and better appreciated the second time around. Since I had gone to the premiere of the film, everything was pretty much hype, excitement and a whole lot of blurry at first. Of course, blurry as the first encounter with Knight may have been, nothing can make you forget Heath Ledger’s maniacal laugh, or Aaron Eckhart’s intense performance, or Christian Bale swooping down on Gotham’s goons in his newly-revamped Batsuit. There were so many awesome moments in this film, so I wanted to take my time before I dissected it; making sure that I took everything in and understood the message that the film intended to convey.

To be or not to be? That is the question that plagues Batman/Bruce Wayne, as he wonders whether he should submit to the whims of the Joker.

I had gone into The Dark Knight with a standard so high I thought it would be absolutely devastating if it didn’t deliver, and I’m sure everyone was on the same page. Starting with the viral marketing done for the film as early as July of last year at Comic-Con, it’s really no wonder how Knight has gotten so much buzz. Due credit can be given to Batman Begins, which was an excellent film, and whose teaser ending can be credited for getting the buzz ball rolling on the second installment. As soon as people got out of the theaters, they were already wondering who would play the Joker, an iconic character not only from comic book history but from fiction history. When I first found out that Heath Ledger was going to be playing the Joker, I have to admit I was a little skeptical. The last movie I had seen from Heath Ledger was probably Brokeback Mountain. So you can’t really blame me for wondering if this guy could indeed play the disastrous Joker. Of course, as I thought about it even more, and having recalled Ledger’s intense performance in Monster’s Ball as well as The Patriot, I began to think that maybe he was the perfect match after all.

It can be said that Heath Ledger was the sole reason people came out to see this movie. Some people came out for reasons that are not so much in regards to how he would play the role, but out of curiosity at the last tango of this really talented actor. The first time I saw the film, I remember not feeling elated as soon as the credits started to roll. I remember after Batman Begins, I was tingling with excitement. I remember bubbling with feedback as I left the theater, thrilled at the prospect of a second Batman movie with Christopher Nolan at the helm. After The Dark Knight had ended, instead, I remember being overwhelmed with a feeling of loss. It is tough to get through a film when one of the actors, who lives and breathes with so much emotion and so much vigor on the screen, is actually not with us anymore. But Heath Ledger was so brilliant, that he actually made you forget that during the 2 hours and 30 minutes that you’re sitting there, watching his Joker unfold.

Before I get into the specifics of the characters, let me get to a breakdown of the story for all those who need a brief refresher. The Dark Knight opens with a different kind of Gotham City. Batman’s nightly round-ups of the goons in the city have forced the mob and the rest of Gotham’s notorious to vacate the streets for fear of encountering the caped crusader. For once, Gotham City’s streets are clean, but this is only the calm before the storm. With this newfound quiet, The Joker, a new villain, bursts onto the scene, taking Gotham City by storm with his clamor for Batman to reveal his identity. The Joker’s goal: a bit complicated, really, but let me try to break it down. The Joker does not want Batman dead. The Joker is a walking objection of society and its “rules”. The Joker represents anarchy, chaos and social upheaval, in the sense that he does not care for rules, which sets him apart from Batman. He also looks at society differently, viewing people as mere cattle who follow the rules that have been set for them by the wealthy and powerful. He thinks that people are rotten to the core, and that when worse comes to worst, “these people will eat each other”. He is trying to prove to Batman that the people he is desperately trying to save are the same people who will turn on him in the end and call him a “freak”. Enter Harvey Dent, Gotham City’s district attorney, dubbed the city’s White Knight for his vigilant pursuit of the notorious. Dent wants the scum behind bars, but he wants to do it the right way. He doesn’t like the idea of Detective Gordon working with Batman outside of the law to pursue the mob, but he finds that it is the only way to get things done. He is suspicious of Gordon’s men, because he is convinced that the mob is powerful enough to buy their way into the ranks of the police. Dent, the Joker and Batman all intertwine in this web of social dissection. It’s an interesting kind of dynamic, and one which sets up a whole lot of trouble for Batman, who is now faced with a villain who doesn’t want to kill him, but only wants to prove a point, even when proving this point means killing innocent people along the way. He wants to badly to just throw in the towel and leave it all up to Dent, but he can’t bring himself to submit to a terrorist. So Batman is faced with a dilemma: kill the Joker and prove to people that he is indeed just some masked vigilante who prowls the streets and doesn’t care who lives or dies? Or turn himself in so that the killing will stop, even if it means the mob and other criminals would once again plague Gotham?

Harvey Dent is convinced the only just thing in life is chance: so he flips a coin.

It’s an interesting problem that Christopher Nolan and co-writer (and brother) Jonathan Nolan try to weave in the most elaborate “superhero” movie yet. It’s really interesting how this is probably the only serious superhero movie that tackles a lot of big issues. Are people really rotten to the core? How do you fight for justice when the people who are supposed to uphold justice are the ones breaking the rules? How much power should one man have, no matter how good the intentions? A lot of people have said the backdrop of Knight is filled with so much political allusion that it is tough to concentrate on the actual story relating to Batman. I, however, disagree vehemently. I thought the story was seamlessly written, and I applaud the writers for having the balls to tackle such huge issues within the context of a fictional hero battling crime. No matter how heavy the messages, this is still a superhero movie. It had no need for CGI and elaborate green screen effects like other superhero movies like to overemploy, but that is what makes it special. This movie does not belittle its viewers. It knows that its viewers are intelligent and capable of independent thought, and so it throws all these questions at the viewer, with the utmost faith that someone will get the message right.

Let’s go to the meat and potatoes of the film. Christian Bale, although obviously the star of the movie, kind of takes a backseat on the Aaron Eckhart-Heath Ledger train, because these two actors were so brilliant, it was kind of easy to get lost in their performances. Bale’s Bruce Wayne/Batman was a little lost and hesitant, and perhaps this was the intended goal. Batman meant to “inspire people”, and instead he gets the mob growing desperate enough to employ the Joker, and civilians trying to do the same thing he does: donning suits and patrolling the streets thinking they can clean up Gotham. Bale’s performance at this point, may be precise, yet not as powerful, only because his material was a little more tame compared to what Eckhart and Ledger got. At this point, Batman is confused as to how to act. He doesn’t know if he wants to keep parading the streets because no matter how much he fights, people still consider him a vigilante, and he seems to be encouraging the wrong kind of ‘acting’. He doesn’t know if he wants to give in to the Joker, even if it means surrendering to the very scum he set out to fight. It is a hefty predicament that Bale finds himself in, and he does it well, almost even effortlessly. In Batman Begins, it was all about becoming Batman, so it’s only right that in the second film Bale performs the role almost to a T. A lot of people clamored at his gruff voice when in the Batsuit, but I thought it was fine. I mean, people aren’t stupid. If he didn’t go around altering his voice, people would know it was Bruce Wayne, especially Detective Gordon, who the Bat hangs out with a lot. So to the people who complain about the voice, think about why it was needed, and drop it.

Moving on to newcomer Maggie Gyllenhaal, who takes over Katie Holmes in the role of attorney Rachel Dawes. I thought she did a much better job than Holmes as the high-powered, no-nonsense Dawes, although I wish there was more substance in her character. Although she did get a decent amount of face time in the movie, I wish there had been a little bit more depth to the character, although the final “letter” she wrote showcased that a little bit. I think it was definitely one of the most shocking twists I’ve ever seen in a movie, but only so, considering Nolan (who directed the complete mindfuck that is Memento) was at the helm. But it was a good surprise, only because Dawes’ character didn’t really have anywhere to go at that point. She couldn’t just keep hanging around, waiting for Bruce Wayne to stop being Batman. I thought her fate in the story was well-written and it did well for the overall big picture.

On to Aaron Eckhart as Harvey Dent. At first I was skeptical as well when I heard he was going to take over such a complex character as Dent/Two-Face. If you’ve read The Long Halloween, you know that Two-Face is pretty complex. Eckhart, who I only remember from dramas like Erin Brockovich and romantic comedies like No Reservations, actually surprised me by employing a little bit of his Thank You for Smoking character Nick Naylor into his Harvey Dent. I was pleasantly surprised to see what he brought to the table, and I definitely think he held his own against Bale and Ledger. I was actually surprised that Two-Face was not set up to be the third installment’s villain. Once again, this decision was ultimately sensible and I felt like it worked well given the context of the whole film. Harvey Dent was Gotham’s last hope, it seemed, and he was like a beacon of light for Gotham. Because of this, it was only understandable why the Joker, an anarchist, would want to tear down Gotham’s last force of hope. I thought the transformation from Dent to Two-Face worked well, and I thought Eckhart executed it perfectly.

Even though there will be no encore for Heath Ledger, audiences around the world will forever remember his Joker.

Now of course, we are down to the man of the hour, Heath Ledger. This movie would not have been the same without him. It fills me with a great sense of loss, especially in the end when the Joker says, “You and me, I think we are destined to do this forever.” To me, this line was like a hanging invitation for the Joker to come back in the movies to come, but since Ledger is gone, I would hate to have someone else even attempt to replace him as the Joker. Not only would it be in bad taste, but absolutely no one would do the role justice as he did. Ledger brought something completely different to the character. He understood the Joker not as some fancy loon wanting to blow stuff up and cause a ruckus. This guy had been to hell and back. Whatever back story he had set up in his mind about the Joker, it was dark and dreary where he was. To be able to play a man with absolutely no faith in the human condition, no rules, and a capacity for destruction, must have been exhausting on Ledger. To play this guy, you have to put everything you know in the back of your mind, and just go with it. Ledger’s laugh, alone, was enough to give me shivers. I thought he was terrifying when he needed to be, comical when he needed to be (especially at the hospital, in that ridiculous nurse’s outfit), and even theatrical when he needed to be. This guy became the Joker, so you can see how committed he was to the role, and once again, it reminds you of how tremendous of an actor he was.

Now, since this is a Batman movie, I can’t let this post end without listing some of my favorite moments. I love the transformation from the Batmobile to the BatPod. Absolutely awesome. I remember thinking at the time when it happened, “That is absolutely sick.” And mind you, I never use the word “sick”. Of course, one of the more memorable scenes was when that semi flipped over in the middle of the street. When I was in the theater, I could hear everyone gasp in awe when that happened. See, no fancy explosions, no Tom Cruise sliding through to save the day. Just some good ol’ car flipping could elicit a gasp from a riveted audience. Another awesome moment was when Morgan Freeman (as Lucius Fox) tells this lawyer who finds out that Bruce Wayne is Batman and wants to be paid for his secrecy: “Let me get this straight. You think your client, one of the wealthiest, most powerful men in the world, is secretly a vigilante who beats criminals to a pulp with his bare hands…and your plan is to blackmail this person? Good luck.”

Another one of my favorite scenes? The magic trick scene. I’m sure you all know what I am talking about. And the scene with Heath Ledger at the hospital was just absolutely ridiculous. And of course, my favorite moment in the entire movie, is when Heath Ledger blows our fucking minds when he snarls, “WHY SO SERIOUS?” He is so terrifying, and so precise and in command of the screen, that you just can’t take your eyes off of him even when you want to.

This movie just set the standard for the next superhero movies to come. I know that Zack Snyder has aspired to recreate the same atmosphere of the Batman movies with his much-anticipated Watchmen, and we know Iron Man 2 is already slated for success next year. Now don’t get me wrong, I don’t think the film was perfect. I could have done without the whole use of the sonar thing, and I thought the fight scenes were incredibly lame this time around, but this could have been mostly due to the nature of the story. The Joker doesn’t really have any swift martial artsy moves, he’s just a man who jumps into the fray with a lead pipe. So the fight scenes kind of have that sam