May he rest in peace

If you don't already know, William F. Buckley, Jr. died yesturday. He was 82. Buckley is widely regarded as the father of the modern conservative movement. He was the founder of National Review a once great conservative magazine. I can't say I know much about Buckley, I've only read a few of his essays, and I've seen him on Hardball a few times. His writing was impressive, even if I almost always disagreed with it. I always thought that he had a really cool, almost untraceable, accent. For more on Buckley, check out this article by the great John B. Judis up at the New Republic.

A Note on the Troops (Cross Posted from Facebook)

I've noticed lately as I peruse facebook profiles a growing number of people that have as one of their favorite quotes, "If you don't stand behind the troops, please feel free to stand in front of them." I mean...what? This is perhaps one of the most repulsive quotes I've ever laid eyes on. There are so many aspects of this quote that are utterly tasteless and maddeningly stupid, one could almost write a 20 page essay examining them. I have two main points to make in respect to this madness. First, everybody supports the troops! For people to continue to suggest that those who oppose the war (a large majority of the American poplulation) are also opposing the troops is a travesty. The disagreement is over the war itself, not the troops. Many of the people that opposed the war from the beginning and continue to do so (myself included) have family and friends that have served in Iraq. I find it offensive that I am accused of being unpatriotic or anti-American because I disagree with the preemptive invasion of a country that had nothing to do with 9/11 and posed no threat to the United States. It's even more offensive that this quote suggests that my opposition to the war means that I hate the troops and wish harm to come to them.
Secondly, the quote implies that not supporting the troops means that you deserve death. It does, read it: "If you don't stand behind the troops, please feel free to stand in front of them." Let's assume, hypothetically, that there are some people that oppose the troops. This quote suggests that failure to support the troops is an offense punishable by death. Everyone with a goddamn head on their shoulders understands that our troops face immeasurable dangers on a daily basis in the warzone. We admire their bravery in doing so, in the name of their country. According to this quote, your decision to not support the troops, means that you deserve to die in the desert from a Taliban's bullet, or an insurgent's IED. It's very disturbing that there are Americans that buy into this demagoguery. This country was built upon the freedom of speech and belief. American citizens have the freedom to believe whatever they want, no matter how offensive it might be to others. That being said, there is nothing illegal about having this quote in your profile. It's your right, I'm just arguing that its a tasteless quote, and anyone that has this quote on their profile is insulting themselves by having it equated with their name. But if you want to keep the quote go for it, and even if you think I hate the troops, I will still continue to oppose the war in Iraq. These rights belong to us as Americans. There is no doubt in my mind that our soldiers serving on the battlefield cherish these rights and they are proud to defend them. Therefore, placing this quote in your facebook profile is as much a slap in the face to them as it is to those that oppose the war. People, let's have a civilized debate. Demonizing the other side, as this quote does, only results in inflamed passions that prolong the conflict. We are all Americans, we support our troops whether we agree with the war or not.
Disclaimer: This note is not directed at any particular individual or group of individuals. I don't have an exact count, but I must've seen this quote on at least 20 different profiles. Therefore, I'm requesting that no one see this as an insult targeted towards them. I'd also appreciate feedback on this post, even if you disagree!

Hussein is a GOOD Middle Name

I can't possibly find the words that would convey how strongly I recommend this superb article by Juan Cole. Barack Hussein Obama is actually a very fortunate name. According to Cole, a Middle East expert and professor at the University of Michigan (he has a great blog here), Barack is derived from the Hebrew word barak meaning "to bless." Hussein is derived from the semitic word hasan which means "good" or "handsome." You should really read the whole article; its a quick and interesting read and Cole has numerous examples of famous Americans (including 14 presidents!) that have names that are derived from Arabic or other middle eastern languages.

Cole wrote the article in response to comments made by Bill Cunningham, a right-wing talk radio host, while introducing John McCain. Cunningham repeatedly referred to Obama as Barack Hussein Obama and accused Obama of wanting to meet with people that "want to kill" Americans. I have to hand it to McCain (I know, I've never done that before!) for his response to Cunningham's comments. McCain immediately apologized for Cunningham's "inappropriate" remarks and vowed that it will never happen again at one of his rallies. Now I'm still no fan of McCain's but I have to admit that was an extremely classy move on his parts and he deserves credit for it.

Otters for Justice

Today the Supreme Court is hearing ExxonMobil's appeal over a previous appellate court ruling that ordered the company to pay $2.5 billion in punitive damages for the aftermath of the Exxon Valdez oil spill. According to this McClatchy article, the appeal has at least a reasonable shot of being struck down. Samuel Alito is recusing himself from this case because he owns Exxon stock. As always, it seems that Kennedy will be the swing vote. One can only hope that the Court will decide in favor of the people of Alaska and the cute little otters pictured above.

The Search for Adam

This article by the New Republic's John B. Judis has been getting a lot of positive buzz and deservedly so. Judis' main point is that Barack Obama is an Adam-like figure (as in Adam and Eve) that has the potential to lead America into a new era of politics untainted by the old. Much of the focus of Judis' article is on Obama's broad appeal. No candidate in recent memory has attracted such an eclectic base of support. Obama's base includes young people, the working class, African-Americans, college educated adults, independents, and even some disenfranchised Republicans. Judis compares Obama's candidacy to that of Andrew Jackson's in the 1830's. Jackson attracted a broad base of support (granted this broad base of support included only white men) in hopes of making government work for the common man. Obama is also compared to Jimmy Carter. The difference between Obama and Jackson (or Carter) is that his candidacy actually has the potential and the means to enact real change.

Judis is cautiously optimistic. He reminds us that even if Obama wins the nomination, as now seems likely, he could still lose the general election, or worse yet, fail to bring about meaningful change once in office. These concerns are very real, and they deserve our attention. However, considering the alternative of John McCain, certified war junkie, I will gladly take my chances with Obama.

The article is long, but is well worth your time, no matter which candidate you support.

Review: In Bruges

I love gangster films. I especially love British/Irish/Scottish gangster films. While these films generally vary in quality, I usually end up liking the great majority of them, In Bruges is not exception. The story begins when two hitman, Ken (Brendan Gleeson) and Ray (Colin Farrell) are sent on some much needed R&R in Bruges, Belgium by their boss Harry (Ralph Fiennes). Bruges, for those of you who don't know (and you can count me as one of those who didn't know), is the best preserved medevil city in Europe. Ken immediately takes a liking to the historical city, while Ray, preferring the fast paced lifestyle of London, is quite bored. The two are on R&R as a result of a hit gone terribly wrong. A phone call from England to the two hitmen begins a chain of events that results in tempers a flaring and bullets a flying.

Wow. I really enjoyed this film. Gleeson, Farrell, and Fiennes all give alternately hilarious and meaningful performances. Colin Farrell has restored my faith in him as an actor after the disastrous Alexander and Miami Vice. I never new that Ralph Fiennes could be so hilarious and while he plays the villain in the movie, so inherently likable. Brendan Gleeson is perhaps one of the most underused actors in film. He's in plenty of movies, but he usually has a smallish supporting role. Gleeson really shines in this part, and I hope it leads to him garnering more leading roles. The plot in this movie is relatively original and the surprise ending definately caught me off guard. I haven't laughed this hard during a movie in a long time, er, well at least since Juno, and the movie is worth seeing for the accented swearing and filthy language alone. Over all, I highly recommend this movie.

Rating: ***

*= Uwe Boll/Michael Bay bad **= Keanu Reevesish ***= Great ****= Fantastic

It's Bill Kristol Monday at the NYT!

Bill Kristol's latest joke of a column has once again left me literally speechless. Bascially, Wild Bill is ripshit that Barack and Michelle Obama aren't bursting-at-the-seams patriotic. He references an old Obama quote where he stated that the American flag pin had become a substitute for true patriotism. This came in response to a query as to why Obama no longer sported the pin on his lapel. Kristol takes issue with the fact that Obama had to respond to the question in "grandiose" and "moral" terms. He's also upset over the Michelle Obama statement that she is proud of America for the first time in her "adult life" because Americans seem to be ready for change. Both Barack and Michelle Obama have repeatedly explained this remark and it was clearly taken out of context. She was speaking about the condition of American politics, not the condition of America itself. Well, that's not good enough for Bill Kristol, he argues that since Michelle Obama's adult life goes back into the mid-80's it's inconceivable to him that she would not find something to be proud of. After all, according to Kristol, the last 25 years of the 20th century improved the lives of most Americans. Of course, Kristol provides no figures to back this up.

What's even more incoherrant about this column is its relationship to previous columns that Kristol has penned about Obama. Most of those were fairly positive, though one has to believe this was a result of Kristol's vitriol against Hillary Clinton. This, frankly speaks to how poor of a writer Kristol is. He doesn't seem to be aware that when read week to week his columns don't fit together at all. He seems to contradict himself on a weekly basis. Oh, and of course, Kristol has to throw in a plug for St. McCain at the end. Kristol states, in so many words, that John McCain makes no claims that he can save the souls of Americans and he is a true patriot. Clearly, any candidate that loves perpetual war and destruction is a real American hero in Bill Kristol's book.