It's All About the Oil

I don't have much to add to this article by Andrew Kramer appearing in the New York Times. It seems that adding additional commentary would take away from what is already apparent. If you find this surprising, read Naomi Klein's The Shock Doctrine for an in-depth look at the often fatal intersection of war and the free market.

Photo used courtesy of Flickr user BenLikesPictures September 9, 2007

Oh, Snap!

Via Ezra Klein, I came across this nifty article from the Washington Post by Anne Kornblut and Karen DeYoung. Kornblut and DeYoung provide a great summary of yesterday's scrap between Obama and the Mack over terrorism. For those of you that are not already aware, McCain criticized Obama for his support of last week's Supreme Court decision that restored the right of habeus corpus to detainees at Guantanomo Bay. Using traditional Republican fear mongering tactics, angry John accussed Obama of being naive and possessing a September 10, 2001 mindset. Like John Kerry before him, Obama identifies terrorism as an issue that relates primary to the fields of intelligence and law enforcement. George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Joe Lieberman, and the King of Maverick all believe that terrorism is a military issue. In essence, they believe that we should meet the forces of terrorism on a battlefield somewhere and annihilate them. Now, in and ideal world, that would be great! I'm all for killing the bastards. But that's not how terrorism works. Terrorists rarerly assemble in force and fight against a standing army. What would they accomplish? They'd literally be defeated in minutes. Again, in an ideal world, this is how things would work. Unfortunately, however, in the real world terrorists aren't that stupid. That is why well trained, properly funded intelligence services and law enforcement are the keys to preventing attacks and tracking down terrorists. Center the to debate, is the role of civilian courts, or standard military courts, versus the military tribunal system set up by the Bush Administration. Here's a key quote from Obama, bringing up the 1993 attack on the WTC:

In the ABC interview, Obama said the perpetrators of the 1993 bombing are proof that the existing justice system can handle terrorism cases. "They are currently in U.S. prisons, incapacitated," he said. "And the fact that the administration has not tried to do that has created a situation where not only have we never actually put many of these folks on trial, but we have destroyed our credibility when it comes to rule of law all around the world and given a huge boost to terrorist recruitment in countries that say, 'Look, this is how the United States treats Muslims.' "

In response, James Woolsey, whom as Keith Olbermann pointed out last night, lobbied for Con Man-in-Chief, Ahmad Chalabi; and John Lehman had this:

Tuesday, the McCain team drew a direct line between the prosecution of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing and the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, saying that submitting the bombers to the criminal justice system was, in the words of former Navy secretary and 9/11 Commission member John Lehman, "a material cause" of the 2001 attacks. Lehman participated in the McCain conference call.

Huh? The terrorists attacked us on 9/11 because their comrades were tried in civilian court? Am I the only one that doesn't think that makes any sense?

Anyways, it's good to see that the Obama campaign is not shying away from this debate. It appears that the Democrats are starting to realize that conceeding this territory to the Repulicans is no longer necessary (not that it ever was!). Terrorism really is best left to the CIA, FBI, and various other intelligence and law enforcement agencies. Occupying Muslim countries swells the ranks of groups like al-Qeada and Hamas. As I've discussed previously on this blog, it's no secret that John McCain believes the state of war is good for the country. War is an end in itself, as opposed to a tool utilized towards a certain objective (i.e. war is the objective!). This highlights two disturbing themes in St. John's candidacy, McCain is the one who is naive, and he displays a fundamental lack of understanding (i.e. dumb as a rock) for the national security issues that are of the utmost concern.

P.S. Kudos to Anne Kornblut and Karen DeYoung for writing this insightful article. I always accused Kornblut of being in the tank for McCain, clearly I spoke to soon. I regret the error and I hope to see much more of this.

Photo used courtesy of Flickr user Chief Joseph March 26, 2008

Review: The Incredible Hulk

Few comic fans, and avid movie goers can ever forget the fiasco that was Ang Lee's take on the Hulk. For many fans of the Hulk, the movie was epic in its failure. We were encouraged when we heard that Ang Lee, an accomplished director of near legendary status, was tapped to helm the project. It was also encouraging to hear that a top notch cast including Eric Bana, Jennifer Connelly, Nick Nolte, and Sam Elliot had been assembled. Despite the failure of Hulk, there is no denying that Lee's vision for the film was bold. He sought to highlight the emotional complexities that went along with being the Hulk, including the painful childhood of the protagonist, and the Hulk's alter-ego, Bruce Banner. Unfortunately, Lee's vision just did not suit an origin story. It would've been a great film had it been perhaps the third, or even fourth film in a series of Hulk projects.

Anyways, enough about that. Marvel Studios, with its second feature film (the first being the wildly successful, and genuinely great, Iron Man) decided to reboot the Hulk franchise with The Incredible Hulk. This time Marvel annointed French director Louis Leterrier, best known for the Transporter films starring Jason Statham, as the director. They once again have assembled an A-List cast with Edward Norton (Bruce Banner), the beautiful Liv Tyler (Betty Ross), William Hurt (General Thunderbolt Ross), Tim Blake Nelson (Samuel Sterns), and Tim Roth (Emil Blonsky). The flick begins with Bruce Banner (Norton) living in the projects of a Brazilian city (the name of which escapes me) attempting to control his emotions in order to prevent an "incident" (i.e. becoming the Hulk!). Eventually, a series of events culminates in Banner's return to the US, where he reunites with his long lost love Betty Ross (Tyler). General Ross, Betty's dad, see's this as an oppurtunity for him to capture Banner and harness his power in order to use it as a weapon. Injected into this is the underutilized Tim Roth as Emil Blonsky, a Russian-born Royal Marine on loan to government and he seeks, with the aid of Samuel Sterns (Nelson) to become a super soldier, in a similar grain to the Hulk.

Overall, this film is an improvement over Ang Lee's take on the not so jolly green giant. Bruce Banner actually spends more than 15 minutes as the Hulk. The action scenes are exciting enough, if not groundbreaking. Unfortunately, for some inexplicable reason they had Hulk try and talk, which I'm sure confirmed many stereotypes and induced many a snicker for those non-fans in the audience. Aside from Tim Blake Nelson's performance as Samuel Sterns, most of the actors meet expectations, but certainly don't exceed them. I have to admit that I expected more from Norton, a gifted actor, especially considering his proclaimed love for the subject matter. That being said, the movie managed to keep me entertained and the audience seemed to enjoy it as well. While not as good as Iron Man, The Incredible Hulk will be, with good reason, seen as another success for Marvel Studios. Way to go guys! Your'e 2 for 2!

Rating: **1/2

*Uwe Boll/Michael Bay bad **Keeanu Reevesish ***Great ****Excellent

R.I.P. Tim Russert 1950-2008

For those of you that are not already aware, Tim Russert, NBC's Washington Bureau Chief and moderator of Meet the Press died of an apparent heart attack today in Washington today while recording promos for this week's show. While I was often worked up into a frenzy over the way Russert conducted himself during interviews with his particular brand of "gotcha" journalism; there is no question that the man was an enormous talent and truly dedicated to covering American politics in the way he saw fit. In no way can I, or anyone else, hold that against him. According to many of the articles I've read in the past hour or so, Russert was an exceptional father and husband to his family, as well as a committed mentor and friend to his colleagues. There is no doubt that the political world will be remiss without him, and I can't imagine what it's going to be like this fall watching general election coverage that doesn't feature him prominently. Please keep Tim Russert's loving family and many, many friends in your thoughts and prayers.

Sebelius Follow Up

I just wanted to call everybody's attention to two posts by Chris Cilizza outlining the pros and cons of selecting Kathleen Sebelius as Barack Obama's running mate. I think that I will outsource my critique of Chris Cilizza's arguments to fellow Sebelius supporter Ezra Klein.

Photo used courtesty of Flickr user glennia June 1, 2008.

U.S. Constitution 1, Bush 0

In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled today that the prisoners held in captivity at Guantanamo Bay have the right to challenge their imprisonment in U.S. courts. The majority was made up of Breyer, Ginsberg, Souter, Stevens, and Kennedy. The dissenters were Alito, Roberts, Scalia, and Thomas. Scalia commented that the "nation will live to regret what the court did today." I know, classy. Look, I have no doubt that many, perhaps even a majority, of the dudes being held at Gitmo are bad news. However, it's not even worth fighting the so called "war on terror" if the US treats its prisoners as subhuman demons without rights. Also, we can be almost certain that at least some of the prisoners being held in Cuba were innocents picked up by Afghan warlords and turned over to US forces in exchange for cash. Our system should be one that risks the possibility that some of the guilty may go free in order to ensure that NO innocents are punished. This decision will be lauded around the world and hopefully it will begin to mend our image.

Scotty's Dream Ticket

This article by Sam Stein about Kathleen Sebelius, the Democratic governor of Kansas, is an interesting read. I'm rooting for Sebelius as Obama's VP nom. She basically has the same appeal as Obama: a proven track record of reaching across the aisle to get things done. Also, she's a blue governor in a red state, and it's not like she's had to compromise her core values and beliefs. She's a pro-choice, pro-universal healthcare, pro-labor, and anti-war governor. While she lacks national security credentials, Obama's supposed "weakness", I think she's great because she compounds his strenths, mainly his appeal to independents and young people. There's some rumors out that suggest that it would be the ultimate insult to Hillary Clinton, for Obama to choose a woman other than Clinton as a running mate. However, I think those that would be angry over that are probably not going to vote for Obama anyways, and hopefully many women would be inspired by one of their own on the national ticket. What do you all think?

The rest of my top 5 choices for VP is:
2) Wes Clark
3) Janet Napolitano
4) Bill Richardson
5) Joe Biden

Photo used courtesy of Flickr user Las Valley 702 January 29, 2008