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.

True Progressives

E.J. Dionne has another great column today, this one dealing with Obama and Clinton's channeling of Paul Wellstone in their campaign rhetoric. America lost a great progressive voice in 2002 with the death of Senator Wellstone. I've blogged about this before, but the point bears repeating, it is very encouraging that both Obama and Clinton are talking like progressives in this election. Neither candidate has attempted to outflank the other to the right. One can only hope that this will continue in the general.

Going Veggie

According to this Journal Sentinel article, Prince Fielder is now a vegetarian. While I still count myself among the carnivorous ranks, I find this pretty cool. Fielder decided to go meat-less after his wife bought him a book that describes some of the methods utilized to slaughter animals. I have always tried to avoid these books and videos because I love meat, and I also love animals, so I'm afraid that I'd have to stop eating meat, and it just tastes so good! I realize this is lame, and I'm a wuss, but I can't help it.

In other cool Brewer news, Ryan Braun donated his Rookie of the Year bonus to Habitat for Humanity. I mean, how cool is that? This guy is a class-act and a positive presence in the clubhouse. It's stuff like this, and his impressive playing ability, that make Braun my favorite player.

Go Brewers!

Iceman!

The Washington Post has a well-reported article on St. McCain's connections to numerous lobbyists. It turns out that holy John the maverick has more lobbyists working on his campaign than any other candidate this election cycle, Democrat or Republican. That is what I think is most telling about this Vicki Iseman story. While the possible affair is interesting, and relevant, since it speaks to McCain's supposedly impeccable character, the real story is the favors he did for her clients. St. McCain casts himself as the enemy of lobbyists and special interests, he claims to be a "maverick" Republican that always puts the nation's interests before those of corporations and their beltway lobbyists. All this is clearly bullshit. With the possible exception of Mitt Romney, John McCain may very well be the fakest presidential candidate in decades. He's a hypocrite people, and a liar.

Gabriel Sherman has a fascinating piece over at the New Republic that details the run-up to the Times' publishing of the Iseman article. It's very unfortunate that Bill Keller decided to wait as long as he did before publishing the story. As Josh Marshall reported the other day, it seems that the Times nows much more than they are letting on. In a way, like Marc Cooper said yesturday, McCain should be thanking the Times. The conservative base, that was once wary of McCain, seems to be rallying to defend him. The media, especially the assholes over at MSNBC (of course with the exception of the great Keith Olbermann) are turing this into a story about the Times. Really it's all very sad. The media seems to be willing to do just about anything to defend their hero, John McCain. While I still think this story can be damaging to him, it's not going to have nearly the same effect on him as it would on any other candidate. This is a sad commentary on the state of media in this country, one can only hope for better days.

P.S. I know that Vicki Iseman isn't pronounced like Iceman, but honestly, who doesn't like Iceman? Wait to go, Bobby Drake!