Smackdown 2010?

Two days after his State of the Union, President Obama accepted an invitation to speak at the House Republican's conference in Baltimore, MD (Intro speech here and the Q&A Session here). It was a bold move to accept and in hindsight, it was a bolder move to offer.

I heard about this intergovernmental meeting of presumed opponents and it was described to me as a smackdown. Watch for yourself, but it was less that and more a careful refutation of partisan gridlock in Congress. Obama admitted to a mistake (not facilitating the public monitoring of the health care debate) but really he spent the time telling the House Republicans that they both needed to engage in a more constructive way. It was a nice follow up to the SOTU and it puts Republicans on their heels even more. They should never have allowed him into their lair.

Gettin' his mojo back

Article II Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution says with regards to the President, "He shall from time to time perform Magic on the Congress and regain his lost popularity, thereby increasing the chances that his socialist agenda be advanced." Okay, I made most of that up, but he does have to give information on the State of the Union.

The key word being thrown around about the State of the Union is "Magic." Hmmm, magic. I thought it was a well-reasoned and skillful speech that reminded people of why he was elected and temporarily injected a long-term memory into the American people. Nope, he was reclaiming his magic that allowed the Republicans to steal the Sorcerer's Stone* from Massachusetts.

Ridiculous (in the sense of deserving ridicule, not in the sense of "I have an exaggeration to make and this is the only way I know how to make it") reporting aside, I think this was a brilliant speech. By refocusing on the economy he drew attention to the failed policies of Bush. I didn't like the references to "when I got here" because, frankly, when people think of the economy, they think of Bush, and it opens himself to "so when is it your economy, Mr. President" questions. BUT, I did like the reference to Clinton's budget surplus (hey, 'mericans, Democrats CAN reduce the budget) and the structured arguments of why health care and investing in green energy/technology (nuclear?) are crucial to the economy.

It was a broad speech and maybe it ran a little long. But, the politics of it were amazing. I waited until this morning to listen and purposefully avoided coverage to be able to consider without bias. However, I heard this line from President Obama on the radio before I could turn it off: "Just saying 'no' may be good short-term politics, but it is not leadership." Inyoface, obstructionists; you're failed leaders. AND, without saying "mandate" he reminded the Republicans that Democrats whooped them in the last election, hopefully inspiring some trepidation at refusing to go to rehab ("I said 'No, no, noooo.'"). I give it an A- only because it was long.

One funny thing to me is the "Jobs Bill." What a great name. "You sir, voted against, the Jobs Bill. All we need is a piece of legislation and jobs will appear." I'm not disagreeing with the logic and economics behind it, I just think its funny.

* The Philosopher's stone for you Brits.

My new show

I have loved Glee since I first saw the pilot. It is hands-down one of the greatest shows on television today. It is entertaining, funny at times, poignant at times, and not too serious. Its mass appeal made it 2009's best new show.

Glee, however, is not my favorite new show on TV. Community is far and away my favorite new show on TV. I think it is funny on multiple levels, poignant at times, and not too serious. Joel McHale brings the creative sarcasm, Danny Pudi (a completely underrated Abed, who I want to see more of outside of this show) brings the weird, often with Donald Glover who plays Troy, Chevy Chase is the snotty, clueless character you like to see brought down without feeling guilty, and the other provide ample space for hilarity to ensue. The writing is translucent in that it makes fun of sitcoms and situational drama, which allows for a lot of irony as well as crazy, hilarious twists. I really think you should check out the first 5-7 episodes*.

I don't know anyone else who watches this show and I think that is because they are turned off by Joel McHale. He is the main character, but not the only character, so Community should be given a chance.

The show that I am still trying out is Modern Family. I have had a couple of people tell me that it is funny and that I would like it. It has been called a mixture of "The Office" and "Arrested Development". I have watched the first two episodes with minimal enjoyment, but I will wait until I've seen the next 3 or 4 to make a decision.

*I say 5-7, because I think doesn't really pick a direction until after the first 4 or 6. It has been my experience that shows (sitcoms and dramas) will go in several different directions at the beginning of the season after a pilot in order to see what story lines and characters resonate the best. Not all shows do this, though: The Wire comes to mind.

The Change You Want in 2010

Near the end of the NY Times' front page story on the reorganization of the health care reform effort was this segment:

Senior Republicans showed little new willingness to collaborate with the Democrats. Asked where he might be willing to work across the aisle, the Senate Republican leader, Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, offered praise for Mr. Obama’s strategy in Afghanistan but not a single example on domestic policy.

Mr. McConnell was asked if the health care bill was dead. “I sure hope so,” he said.

So, there it is. People are satisfied with the health care system that is trending upwards in costs and downwards in enrollment numbers?

And if you were thinking that the Democrats would be playing ball with the Republicans now, it seems that the Republicans aren't stepping on the field until they have the majority again. So, there you go.

(Admittedly, the next paragraph is Susan Collins talking about bipartisanship. I'm not convinced she means it, so I did not include it.)

The midterms for the midterms

Last night Scott Brown won the Massachusetts Senate race by beating Martha Coakley. Coakley apparently decided that she did not need to campaign real hard or abstain from making fun of the Red Sox IN MASSACHUSETTS. (Source: The Daily Show)

According to the newspapers, this is a major rebuke of the Obama administration and the Democrats. Yeah, it probably is a little bit, though I think the crappy campaigning described above had a major influence. Massachusetts is labeled as one of the most liberal states in the country (mandatory health care for all and legalized gay marriage) and a Republican taking over Ted Kennedy's seat would seem impossible had it not just happened.

So, what can we learn from this? You've got to play all four quarters. No one is safe until they're raising the right hand in Congress.

I think that this defeat (minor or major, I'm not sure yet) puts the first half of the 111th Congress in a more realistic perspective. When you have a tent as big as the Democrats, you're not going to get the more/most liberal stuff passed because those pesky Blue Dogs (the ones who make your party the majority party) are going to demand abortion controls, opt-out provisions, and busts of Ronald Reagan in their capital building. Maybe next time, we should manage expectations a little bit and not think that CHANGE is going to happen by enthusiastic consensus or Presidential Fiat on the authority of his/her approval rating. Obama has not had the Congressional or party unity that Bush had in the wake of major national security concerns.

Maybe this isn't such a bad thing. Yes, Congressional politics will become more difficult, but I'm not sure that it will be SO different. Maybe the party will start getting its act together and focus on this year's midterms. Just like I said yesterday about Texas' loss, maybe losing some in the regular season can help you win the championship.

First Loss, Best Case?

Last night I watched ye old Texas Basketball lose their first game of the season against a riled (but amateur-ish) Kansas State team. First half- sucked. They pretty much owned us. Second half- sparked by Clint Chapman (somewhere above Brad Buckner on the Texas tall White Guy scale) they became more competitive. Ultimately, it was fouls that kept Bradley on the bench, our inside game was swarmed, and there was some awful decision-making.

I'm not going to mourn the loss of the #1 ranking for very long. Texas needs a competitive conference season to get into the kind of shape that makes championship teams. After shooting an abysmal 9-22 from the free throw line, do you think the players are gonna shoot some free throws in practice with a renewed intensity today? Do you think that the veterans are going to kick a little ass and bring a renewed intensity? Are these too cliche?

Of course you want your team to live the dream and go undefeated in a historic championship season. Frankly, though, it is time to make the mental transition from football to basketball and realize that the good basketball teams that lose during the regular season benefit from those losses. So, we will see where we stand at UConn on Saturday.

Industrial Food: The Movie

Embracing my winter vacation, I finally checked out Food, Inc. on the 'ol Netflix. The visuals are shocking and the subject matter is appalling. The two principal food experts are Michael Pollan and Eric Schlosser, the authors of The Omnivore's Dilemma and Fast Food Nation, respectively. Having read both, this movie borrows heavily from those books. The original parts were the litigation and the food advocacy sections (which actually may be in FFN, it has been several years since I read it). Liking both books, I recommend those over the movie (FFN over The OD), but if you're pressed for time, the movie will do. Just don't expect to enjoy chicken that much any more.

Paul Blart- Birthday Ruiner

It being a Sunday and having gone out the night before, the roommates and I opted to go to the Harris Teeter Redbox to rent a movie (for $1 I might add). When we got to the front, a line had formed and so after once through "Comedies" I said we should get Paul Blart: Mall Cop. Regular readers know that I'll give almost any movie a fair chance. I like Kevin James: King of Queens and what stand up of his I have seen. Bucking the critics, Paul Blart was a smash success at the box office, I figured, why not?

I'll tell you why not: people are idiots. It is terrible. It is completely predictable and not funny. When the bad guys take over the mall (am I ruining anything? no- this movie sucks) I thought I had fallen asleep and woke up to Home Alone 4: Kevin Really Let Himself Go. No redeeming quality to watching this movie.

Creamy Goodness

For all of you DC FroYo connoisseurs out there, there's this article on the best places to get frozen yogurt in DC. My vote is Mr. Yogato: free chocolate sprinkles and Seinfeld trivia/tetris/challenges/doing embarrassing things will get you free/reduced yogurt. Plus, they let max chill inside when we walked him there one day.

Soccer and more, lots more

ESPN gives soccer the short end of the sports stick a lot of the time, so I'm glad that the did this little feature on US soccer this summer. The pictures are great. The bad thing is that its a features article and not about soccer. Boo on that.

For those not soccer-ly inclined here is an article from my hometown press outlet. Its sort of about human rights but mostly just a human interest thing.

Upon a time

After hearing NPR stories and reading a lot of good reviews about Once, I was excited to watch it, but after such buildup I didn't want to dash the hopes I had for it.

Once is great. It is very touching, and I feel like it needed to be done because it is a low-budget indie-ish film that goes a different way than Hollywood romances. It is VERY cute: in one early scene the girl- whose name we never learn- brings her "Hoover sucker" (vacuum) to the guy- whose name we never learn- to fix it, and she ends up rolling it around town. At points its got a cerebral "what is love" sort of feel like Before Sunrise, but those moments do not dominate and are outnumbered by the number of times when the guy and girl share love.

Oh, plot summary, yes. It is about a guy and girl who meet while he is playing his heart out via guitar on the streets of Ireland. Her insistence at him acknowledging her (not in a romantic or sexual way, but more like "I'm not going to take the hints that you want me to leave, lets establish a platonic relationship because you are interesting.") eventually leads to them forming a romantic bond through music and off the movie goes. She helps him make the leap of faith and act on his dream of being a professional musician.

I loved the art of this movie. Multiple scenes are shot like a music video or a reality TV show. It made me want to go out and shoot a movie (I started playing around with the video editing software pre-installed on my computer after watching the movie). In the special features they talk about it being shot like a movie someone would make and that gives it a very real and approachable feel. The style enhances the simplicity of the story, sucking you in as a participant- sort of like being in the audience at a show- rather than as someone merely watching a movie. The principal actors have great chemistry. Lastly- and I hesitate to make this the last word, because music is a central part of the story-, it goes without saying that the music is fantastic (the most popular song from the soundtrack here).

Watch it.

Mala Hierba Buena

Season 4 of Weeds is completely different. The leave Agrestic/Majestic (or what's left of it) and "transplant" to San Diego. Nancy gets deeper than she ever wanted to and the family grows up a little bit more (Shane and Silas especially).

I'm not sure if I liked it. Nancy's conscience grows but there are not really any new frontiers on her personal troubles. She's still a crappy mom, a crappy friend, and has a messed up love life. The funniest story line of the season is Doug and Andy's coyote-with-a-heart-of-gold business. Because this aired last year, the commentary on the border seems a little stale (the major immigration reform dust up bruhaha was 2006).

Also, it sucked seeing Guillermo (Guillermo Diaz of "Half-Baked" and "Wrap it up B!") go from an affable if not a little scary guy to a complete villain. I like him and his comedy, so seeing a bad side of him was disappointing. Also, no Simon. Although, maybe the commentary on race and class had run its course.

The real slum, dog

One of the things that bothered me about Slumdog Millionaire was that it didn't explore the depths of poverty in India. It sort of glossed over it.

Born into Brothels does not. I'm not sure who recommended it or if I just heard about it because it won the Oscar for Best Documentary (?) in 2004, but it is fantastic. Not that long, but pretty powerful. The story follows a group of 9 children in Calcutta who live in a brothel in the red light district. An American photographer ("Zana Auntie") teaches them photography and gives them little cameras to go take pictures. Besides taking brilliant pictures of their little part of the world they are also dealing with some pretty real stuff. About half-way through the movie, it starts to focus on the American woman's attempts to intervene into their lives to get them into school. Scenes of the Indian bureaucracy messing up the kids names on their forms, rejections from schools, and resistance from the families and the kids send this story into some sad moments. Not going to ruin the ending, but I think its worth the watch.

Movie-wise a couple of things bothered me. First, the music is melodramatic and kind of diminishes what is an otherwise powerful film. Take away the music and there's a whole new ball game. Second, and maybe I'm comparing it too much to Mad Hot Ballroom (a MUST-see documentary about an inner-city ballroom dance competition in NY public schools) but the drama and intrigue are not strong. The kids are very sympathetic and their stories are compelling and heart-wrenching. But, the film tried to make it into a drama and not an expose on their lives. I think it could have done with less work in the editing room.

I think its available online (Netflix has it to stream or rent) and maybe at the video store. Check it out.

The most trusted name in news

I get random bits of information from Yahoo! because it is my home page (for now- read below). When I saw this article/blog post I was very appreciative of its timely relevance to my life.

As for Yahoo! being my home page, that may soon go by the wayside for several reasons. First, they change the layout so much that I'm tired of it trying to figure it out every so often. Not a big deal but its annoying. Second, I don't use their mail that much any longer (the funny e-mail name isn't as cure when you're 26 as it is when you're 13- when I got it). Third, the things that Yahoo! has been the most useful for- checking to see if I have an e-mail or not- is no longer available. I can't go to yahoo.com and see that I have (or don't) a new e-mail so, why not just go directly to mail.yahoo.com or to games.yahoo.com to play a crossword? Fourth, as my ironic blog title indicates, I get my "regular" news from other sources: NYTimes, WaPo, Chron.com, etc. so why flip through to Yahoo's webpage to see what they're saying?

The previous paragraph probably should be filed under the category of gratuitous posting of life's minutiae that maybe should be left to one's self. But, whateryagonna do.

A.O. Scott

One of the things I have enjoyed the most about the New York Times is the movie reviews in the Arts section. Often I find myself reading reviews of movies I have zero interest in watching just to read how others think of them. My favorite reviewer is A. O. Scott and until tonight I had never seen his face.

He review "Mad Max" in their video section of their website in this clip. Its short so there's not much there, but for other fans of his, I thought it might be interesting.

The mind of an unemployed person

So, I may be on a little bit of a blogging kick.

Last year I was informed of the foreign policy blog "Passport" by the magazine (wait for it) Foreign Policy. Everyday they do a Morning Brief entry with the day's most important goings on, etc. The title of this morning's post tickled me a little bit (I'm weird) because it reminded me of this.

Also, in case you just click the link and don't get to see the posts, there is this little piece of news that is sort of interesting. The post has a very snarky tone to it, which may or may not be appropriate.

VIVA LA HYPERLINK!

Let's open up the vault

If you're reading this you probably know me and that I'm willing to watch just about anything (also stated "I'm interested in seeing crappy movies"). There are some movies over the years that have escaped me for one reason or another and now with the invention of the Netflix queue and my laziness some of those movies arrive in my mailbox.

Ashley Judd and Tommy Lee Jones star in Double Jeopardy, a thriller where Ashley Judd's character (I think they said her name but she'd probably prefer it if you call her Ashley Judd's character) is framed for murdering her husband and sent to jail only to discover while in jail that her husband is still alive and has started a new life with her son and best friend. That is approximately the first 15 minutes. I'm not sure what happens in the next hour and a half because I blacked out from ODing on obvious plot "twists" and assertions of the strength of Ashley Judd's character (think Not Without My Daughter). Tom Lee Jones plays somebody that does something and we're supposed to be interested but JHC its terrible. I could've just written this: Double Jeopardy: its bad, don't see it. However, I know my readers expect- nay, demand an explanation.

I watched Confessions of A Dangerous Mind last week. I didn't want to write a review of that because I was only half paying attention but it was worth watching. Interesting for sure. I wish they'd played up the fact that his CIA experiences may not have actually happened and sort of taken a bigger picture (like Adaptation) view of his autobiography: a movie both about and from the book. Not a lot to write about it b/c I wasn't immersed in it but its got some spy stuff and the visual effects are pretty neat (I was reminded at some points of Europa, Europa- I don't remember why).

OH, OH. A movie I watched that I really liked was Bloody Sunday. It was done in 2002 and won an indy award for making a political statement or promoting peace (something like that). Its about the Sunday in Dairy, Ireland (the Northern part) where British paratroopers killed a bunch (13) of innocent* people. Never having learned the story and knowing disappointingly little about the event (the one from the U2 song) I was amazed about the story. The frustrating sequence of events that led to unnecessary death was displayed masterfully. I was moved. The acting is phenomenal and art (camera work and lighting, especially) are amazing. I would watch this again for sure.

*= asterisk.

Royal disappointment

On my friend Danielle's recommendation I started watching the six episodes of Kings that they aired this past year. The premise was interesting- it is loosely based on the story of the great Jewish kings- and I'm a sucker for a new TV show so away I went last night and today.

The pilot (Goliath pts 1 and 2) is EPIC. If it were a movie I would've paid to watch it (luckily it is free at NBC.com and Hulu.com until Sept. 20). My crappy internet connection made it take a LONG time to watch, but I had to. It is incredible. So full of promise. The best parts were the character of David Shepherd (as in David vs. Goliath- a name that also makes an appearance) and the romance between David and the King's daughter. Plus they threw a plethora of story lines out there, so it looked like it was going to be an incredible show.

Oh, what could have been! Watching episodes 2-5 was so disappointing. David becomes a naive, impotent boy. The greatest story line- the rise of a smart, daring, passionate man to power based on a sense of fairness- gets thrown in the trash in favor of palace intrigue. All of the power plays that were alluded in the first episode (great and terrible people doing great and terrible things) become cloak and dagger boring minutiae.  Oh, and Macaulay Culkin shows up in the 5th episode. 

The actress who plays the princess is the best, by far. The actor who plays the king es no bueno. He's got no range and his character has some serious issues that need someone to show something besides arrogance.

I'll probably watch this one until they stop making them (a la The Black Donnellys- one of whom plays one of David's brother in Kings) but this show is unsustainable. For some reason I heard that it was cancelled/not picked up for the fall but have not confirmed.

Recommendation: watch the pilot and then wait until you hear some buzz (from me or someone else) about the show. 

UPDATE: The end of Episode 6 is better and more intriguing than the rest...

I forgot to mention that the music is terrible and that the use of the butterfly (a MONARCH naturally) is weird and does not work.

But is such happiness sustainable?

On my brother's recommendation I checked out the pilot for Glee. I liked it and will be watching when it comes on again in the fall(?). The action centers around the Glee Club's advisor and the kids in the club itself (focusing on a couple, with the others not receiving much attention). 

The setting is in a stereotypical high school with the standard cliques (jocks, cheerleaders, etc.). Very similar to High School Musical there are stigmas attached to artistic activities and crossing over is taboo. Also similar to HSM one of the main characters is a jock unsatisfied with being just one thing. There are a lot of characters and the pilot sets up many possible story lines within and among characters.

The question is, though, can all of the story lines be original and entertaining? High school has been the setting for many different stories (too many to list) so I can see it getting stale quickly. Nevertheless, I'm looking forward to seeing how it develops.

Back and Bloodier than ever.

The school year ended and I have some packing to avoid, so I'm back at the reviewing game.

Talking about Blood Diamond last night neither Jake nor Geoff could come up with a happy movie set in Africa in the past 10 years (Lion King is too old). And that's the way this goes. Set in Sierra Leone, Solomon Vandy (Djimon Hounsou of Amistad and Gladiator) is separated from his family and forced to mine for diamonds. He finds a big 'un and is about to get killed over it when he miraculously is able to escape after hiding the diamond. Danny Archer (Leonardo DiCaprio) is a Zimbabwean (nee Rhodesian) profiteer who learns of the diamond and tries to get Solomon to take it to him. Add the American Maddy Bowen (Jennifer Connelly) as the reporter who is trying to land a big story on the diamond trade and we've got a movie.

Two thoughts jumped out at me: 1) The plot is pretty standard and some of the action seems unreal. Coincidences and close calls make some of the movie eye-rollingly unoriginal. To be clear, the plot isn't bad, just nothing surprising. 2) A lot of it is too real, baring the atrocities in an un-gratuitous and revealing way. The violence isn't shocking for how it is depicted, it is shocking for what it is. Included in that is the violence committed against the young boys who are changed into child soldiers.

A big interesting theme that runs throughout the movie is the question of what should the rest of the world be doing in Sierra Leone? At times that question is uncomfortable as American culture and attention to suffering around the world is indicted. However, the movie is ultimately thought-provoking rather than accusatory.

I recommend Blood Diamonds with the caveat that its not great and you will see women and children die.