District 9: Nah.

DISTRICT 9! You may recall how pumped I was to see this movie when I saw the preview during Bruno. Well....

1. The concept is very interesting: after an alien invasion, humans exploit the aliens instead of aliens exploiting humans. I don't think I've ever seen that before in a sci-fi movie. It was an interesting twist.

2. I read a review prior to seeing the film that talked about the apartheid allegory. (The aliens are in Johannesburg). That, too, was a chin-scratcher, and hopefully I would have picked that up without having it explained to me beforehand. (Although, literal animal I am, I wouldn't put money on it).

3. I love alien movies, as I mentioned. But I really wish D9 would have focused more on the initial mother ship landing. I know it's been done to death, but the film opened with this mothership just hovering over Johannesburg, where it had been for the past two decades. I like how the focus was on the aliens living among us, but we could have fleshed it out a little better to begin with. Also, while the producers try to give aliens human qualities, they did not really show how the aliens would have acted absent earthly influence. Showing an alien an eviction notice and having him sign it was beyond parody for me, and I think that's where I started to get irrevocably irritated.

4. The aliens' appearance was too cheesy. I'm sick of aliens looking like insects/monsters. I don't know what aliens WOULD look like, but insects is not high on my list of probables. The alien father-son thing was annoying too.

5. It took me until No. 5 to realize that I have nothing to say about this movie that's even remotely interesting. I guess when the miniseries V is my high water mark of alien movies (including in the important area of historical allegory) other movies will have to excel a little more to capture my fancy. I guess this means I was disappointed by this movie. Maybe because the movie is simply depressing. Watching humans dominate and enslave other creatures, human or not, is not really my idea of a good time. (Cf. Schindler's list, which is "good," I guess, but is really kind of a horrible way to spend three hours). But this effort lacked in many other ways besides the negativity inherent in the story.

And that's that. Recommended? No, not really, especially if you're a fan of the genre. What is Meryl Streep doing next? (Answer: oh. Never mind).

Root Causes

I can't even tell you the tangents I followed to stumble across this YouTube clip (cf. that one day during 1L when I was looking up something about the Rule in Shelley's Case [shudder] on wikipedia, and ended up reading about various queens' crown jewels for over an hour), but I am seriously amazed at how pro-war the media was back in 2003--even more so than I remember.

I recall being a relatively sentient being at that time too, but this intro clip to CBS coverage of the beginning of the Iraq war is the most cheerleadery thing I've ever seen. Actually, the intro graphics frame war as a video game. Military theme, US flag v. Iraqi flag, green night vision. Jesus. No wonder the vast majority of this country was so blase about invading a country without provocation. It was portrayed as an adventure!

This kind of media performance will be taught in propaganda awareness classes for the next century, assuming anyone ever thinks of teaching such a class. Take a look:

Public Service Announcement

The following people are vastly overrated:

• Johnny Depp
• Demitri Martin
• Tom Hanks
• Jason Varitek
• Harry Reid

This list is not intended to be exhaustive.

With Many Grains of Salt...

I pass on this from the NY Times:

Given hardening Republican opposition to Congressional health care proposals, Democrats now say they see little chance of the minority’s cooperation in approving any overhaul, and are increasingly focused on drawing support for a final plan from within their own ranks.

I would also add that "harden[ed] Republican opposition" has been inevitable since before Obama was elected, and that he might have saved himself some political capital and the country a lot of time and significant unrest had he decided to push for this process earlier. And I must say that I'm glad to see this option at least discussed in public, rather than allowing Republicans' complaints to dominate the narrative. Whether this is anything more than just words, though, remains to be seen. Count me among the skeptics.

Um, WTF

For some reason that I have thus far failed to grasp, conservative Beck-heads have decided to start bringing their assault rifles to President Obama's town hall meetings.

A dozen armed people, including one man with a rifle slung over his shoulder, protested today outside a Phoenix convention hall where President Barack Obama was speaking, a police spokesman said.

Carrying an unconcealed weapon is legal in Arizona, and the police didn’t arrest any of the protesters, who were demonstrating their right to bear arms, Phoenix Police Department spokesman Andy Hill said.

* * *

The incident marks the third in a week in which guns have been linked to an Obama event. On Aug. 11, police arrested a man for having a loaded, unlicensed gun in his car near a New Hampshire school where Obama later held a health-care forum, USA Today reported. Another man outside that event displayed a gun in a holster on his leg, the paper said.

I am an ardent civil libertarian. I believe the Bill of Rights should be interpreted expansively, and I believe its provisions should apply to the states. I support the Second Amendment right bear arms as both an individual right (as District of Columbia v. Heller had it) as well as a collective right. More power to the people.

But.

There is absolutely no reason to exercise that right when the president of the United States is in the vicinity. First of all, you can rest assured that security is relatively high. But the main concern I have is, why would anyone want to do this? To frighten other protesters or citizens who attend the event? To incite a riot? To wait for an opportunity to do the unthinkable? It absolutely amazes me that this is within the law and, more importantly, that the Secret Service or local law enforcement didn't drag these guys away kicking and screaming (and, probably, shooting).

The first black president should have unprecedented security. He probably does have unprecedented security. But I think we need to go the extra step and decide as a people that perhaps allowing assault rifles at presidential forums isn't necessarily the best way to see to a high minded debate. These are serious issues the country is facing. We need to debate them free of these absurd distractions, and free of the possibility of an American nightmare.

Hey Guess What?

The public option is dead. I'm incredibly disappointed, but I can't say I'm surprised. Time and time again, this administration has shown a cowardice that simply defies logic. Obama was elected with 365 electoral votes. He has a 20-vote majority in the Senate. He has a 78-vote majority in the House. Over the past two election cycles, Republicans have lost fifteen Senate seats and dozens and dozens of House seats. The American electorate decisively repudiated them. And Obama and the Democrats are caving in to Sarah Palin's "death panels" nonsense, and to a band of political ignorants who assert to any news anchor willing to listen (and there are plenty) that providing health care to everyone reeks of fascism and is the first step to internment camps.

I honestly don't know what the deal is here. Democrats are so terrified to exercise power, they actually deserve to lose it. Anyone remember the war funding catastrophes in 2007? Again there, the Democrats were elected to put an end to the war in Iraq. But they passed every supplemental bill George W. Bush sent to them. Why? Because they were afraid of what the Republicans would say. They were afraid of the political debate. Well, debate! You're congresspeople! Many of you came from law and business--not for the faint of heart--and regardless, now you're politicians. Debate is part of the daily life. I don't know what a political party has come to when every move it makes is based on fear of the opposition, rather than on assertively and unapologetically doing the job it was elected to do.

This cowardice isn't good for Obama and the Democrats. They have to know that. Hillary Clinton would not have backed down on her health care plan like this. She knows to go for the jugular. (Yes, she lost the Democratic nomination, thus potentially disproving my point, but Democrats are too nice. She would have destroyed John McCain, she would have whipped Congress into shape, and she would probably have a health care bill on her desk by now). So what gives?

I really thought the stimulus debate would have taught Obama that negotiating with Republicans on matters of national importance is a fool's errand. The Republicans have no incentive whatsoever to be bipartisan. If they assist Obama in passing major legislation, Obama gets all the credit. If they stop major legislation, the Republicans appear strong and Obama weak. It's a zero-sum game, as Matthew Yglesias describes:

But partisan politics is zero-sum. A “win” for the Democrats is a “loss” for Republicans. And I the predominant thinking in the Republican Party at the moment is that inflicting legislative defeats on Democrats will lead to electoral defeats for Democrats. That makes the GOP hard to bargain with.

Exactly. This is not a hard concept to grasp. The fact that the Democrats have not yet grasped it is really disappointing. The Republicans have no business governing this country, but the Democrats are practically inviting them to win back a ton of lost seats next November.

Now 2012. Sigh....

It looks like California Equality's attempt to put gay marriage back on the ballot is dead until at least 2012. I think this is unfortunate, and probably unwise from a political perspective.

A recent poll in California found that almost a solid majority approve of gay marriage:

Among the biggest changes in attitude was the increasing support for gay marriage, now favored by 49 percent of Californians and opposed by 44 percent. In 1977, voters were opposed by a 62-to-31 percent ratio.

The understandable outrage in both the LGBT community and, surprisingly, in much of the straight community following the "leadership's" failed "strategy" for beating Proposition 8 has created a backlash of support for gay marriage following the November referendum. Waiting until 2o12 to capitalize on this backlash is a mistake.

The main reason skipping 2010 is a mistake in my mind is because President Obama is not on the ballot in 2010. Had Hillary Clinton been on the 2008 ballot instead of Obama, Proposition 8 may well have failed. Ironically, it is probable that Obama's astronomical African-American turnout in November likely tipped the scales against gay marriage, since African-Americans in California are exceedingly likely to oppose gay marriage (by a 70-30 margin). I can't see how Obama is doing anything to cause his African-American base to desert him in the next presidential election. And when African-Americans show up to vote for Obama, they will largely stick around to vote against reinstating gay marriage.

If, however, Obama isn't on the ballot to ratchet up African-American turnout, a measure reinstating gay marriage has a better chance of passing. (I acknowledge that if Obama isn't on the ballot, fewer younger people will vote, and fewer younger people means fewer votes for gay marriage, but I think the Obama differential with respect to the African-American vote is stronger here than with respect to the youth vote).

This is the problem with the LGBT civil rights leadership outside of New England legislatures and Iowa courthouses at this time: there is a continued, fundamental misreading of the particular states' electorates. In 2008, organizers in California were afraid to humanize gay people, and were actually afraid to articulate the word "gay," thus giving credence to fence-sitters' uneasiness. In 2009, organizers believe they still have work to do to persuade voters, and they won't be ready to put gay marriage to a vote by 2010 -- when actual persuasion itself could have been sufficient back in 2008 even given the Obama effect. And so, having learned the wrong lesson, they'll wait until 2012, when Obama is back on the ballot, to try it again.

Don't get me wrong: I believe everyone is persuadable, and that the trends are moving in our direction. We may well win this battle in 2012. I just don't have confidence in our self-anointed political leadership to understand what people are thinking, and to understand how to craft an effective message to those people, and when the optimal time is to send that message. I have to hope they're getting closer, but we aren't there yet. I guess I should be glad that there are three more years between now and then.

The Wrong Clinton

Ok, I posted this on Reader earlier today, but I love it. Hillary Clinton is one of the most accomplished individuals in government today. She was pilloried during the Democratic primary campaign for daring to suggest that her experience as first lady--which included meeting dozens and dozens of foreign leaders--counted as experience for the presidency. Excuse me, but, you know, it did. How much easier would it be to be president if you already know most of the leaders with whom you have to work on an international stage? I'm not suggesting (nor was Clinton) that such familiarity is unobtainable on its own, but to say that she was somehow being disingenuous by stating that fact was ridiculous.

Anyhoo, so today in Congo, Clinton was asked what her husband thinks about some China/World Bank situation with which I am completely unfamiliar. She snapped, and she was right to snap. Who cares what President Clinton thinks? I hate that he still overshadows her when she is the nation's chief diplomat, but let's face it: the situation would be the same even if she were president now. This woman has endured so much insanity for so long, it kills me that she still has to, in the words of the infamous 1992 gaffe/Loretta Lynn song, Stand By Her Man.

I wonder if history will remember Hillary Clinton as the last capital-f Feminist. Just as Clyburn, MLK and Jackson took the worst of the African-American civil rights movement to make way for Obama's ascendency, maybe Clinton is taking the last of the women's rights movement to pave the way for, I don't know, Amy Klobuchar. (Granholm is Canadian, and Palin is Palin). That would be unfortunate, because I think the United States would benefit from the moderation, prudence and wisdom of a President Hillary Clinton. But that's the way things go in politics. Moments sometimes pass the prime movers by. Anyway, take a look:

Julie and Julia...

... was good, and now I'm starving.

• Stanley Tucci and Meryl Streep are such an amazing combo. I loved them in DWP (along with everything else in that movie, except for the scenes with Andy's lame friends) and they are so great in this movie. Awesome chemistry.
  

• I'm a huge Amy Adams fan, but she wasn't able to make me care about her character in this movie. Whiny neurotic brats aren't really my thing (maybe b/c it takes one to know one). But I loved how she was a blogger.
  

• I also loved Chris Messina. The last I saw of him, he was Claire's dorky boyfriend in Six Feet Under. He has a ton of charisma and is just so likable. Weirdly enough, my former roommate's name was also Chris Messina, and when I googled the actor when I saw him in Six Feet Under, I discovered that the roommate is a minor celebrity in some tech blog/e-zine circles. He had tons of hits. So, good for him! Do people still say ezine?
  

• I wish that I had known Julia Child a bit better before going into the movie. Meryl Streep could do anything. Literally. If there were a movie where she was cast as, I don't know, the Pope, she would pull it off and I would believe. I'm sure she was spot-on with Julia Child's accent, but I didn't know it enough to commentate. I did YouTube her before going to the movie tonight, but that just gave me a passing familiarity.
  

• The movie was wrapped tight in a nice little concept, but I wish Meryl Streep would have had more screen time. The concept would have suffered if she had an outsized role, but I feel like it would have been a net benefit.

• BF thinks that Meryl Streep devours young actresses with whom she is cast. Amy Adams in JJ, Anne Hathaway in DWP, Amy Adams in Doubt... I think that's dead on. And I just now realized that this movie was kind of like a three year reunion tour for Meryl Streep, with Stanley Tucci in DWP from 2006 and with Amy Adams in Doubt from 2008. That's kind of cool.

That's all.

A Thousand Words

I couldn't have said it better myself. Well, I might take off the question mark. And I don't want to hear excuses about how difficult it's been for the president to get his footing in this horrible climate. That's no excuse for actively working to ensure that LGBT people remain second class citizens.