A Note of Explanation

Sorry for the slow blogging. The past two days I've been at the Take Back America Conference right here in DC. I'll be there again tomorrow. It's my hope that I reach my normal blogging output by Thursday. Until then I will try to post when I can. Thanks!

Review: 10,000 B.C.

Well, 10,000 B.C. was pretty bad. Roland Emmerich is such a hit or miss director to me. I loved Independence Day, Stargate, and The Patriot; The Day After Tomorrow was ok; and Godzilla totally sucked. Well, ok, I guess that's mostly hits, but I'm gonna stick with my "hit or miss" label anyways. I just couldn't get into this movie. The script, co-written by Emmerich himself, was just painfully bad. The guy goes on perilous journey to save girl plot is beyond cliche. The character development is lax and the acting is terrible. Some of the visuals were kind of neat, but today it's your run-of-the-mill CGI. I would avoid this movie if at all possible, and if you must see it, rent it on DVD.

Rating: *1/2

* Uwe Boll/Michael Bay Bad **Keeanu Reevesish ***Great ***Fantastic

Our Conquering Hero

Via Matt Yglesias, I stumbled upon this Reuters article that includes this fancy little tidbit:

"I must say, I'm a little envious," Bush said. "If I were slightly younger and not employed here, I think it would be a fantastic experience to be on the front lines of helping this young democracy succeed."
"It must be exciting for you ... in some ways romantic, in some ways, you know, confronting danger. You're really making history, and thanks," Bush said.

Wow. Where to start. Actually, nevermind. You all are smart enough that you know that what Bush said is beyond preposterous and it would be insulting of me to point out all that's wrong with that statement. That being said, look on with a mixture of wonder and disgust at our glorious commander-in-chief.

Um, Brilliant

By way of Jonathan Chait's recommendation, I read Michelle Goldberg's brilliant column for the Gaurdian deriding certain feminists for alleging (in so many words) that refusing to support Hillary Clinton is sexist. Finally! Look, this is just a great piece, and I agree with Chait, you need to take 10 minutes out of your life to read it, because you will emerge smarter. I consider myself a feminist. Yes, I'm a straight male that has no problem saying that I'm a feminist. I am really offended though that people like Gloria Steinem are accusing those of us that support Obama of forgetting about the victimization of woman. There is no doubt that the MSM's treatment of Clinton has been deplorable, but it's not fair to group Obama supporters in with the media. Many, if not most Obama supporters will enthusiastically support Clinton in the general election if she is the nominee. I very highly doubt that this will be the case, but it's true regardless. It's especially unfair for older women to accuse younger women (that overwhelmingly support Obama) of abandoning them. The cold hard truth is that Obama appeals across gender and racial lines, especially among young people. Clinton's base consists of older women, Latinos, and working-class whites. Clinton's lack of support among young women is more a result of demographics than anyone abandoning or shunning the feminist cause.

This is all the more frustrating because people like Steny "I really kind of suck as the Majority Leader" Hoyer are worrying that the ugly gender and racial attacks are hurting the party. What? Which gender attacks are you speaking about Steny!? The Obama campaign has not made gender an issue. As I stated above, the MSM certainly has, but it is patently unfair to accuse the Obama campaign of making gender-based attacks. That's simply not the case. Conversely, the Clinton campaign has made race a centerpiece of their attacks on Obama. The latest example is the public meltdown of the once great Geraldine Ferraro.

In conclusion, it's not fair, and frankly, it's wrong for Clinton supporters to accuse those that don't support their candidate of being sexist. I like Hillary too, and I think she'd be a great president, but please, she's not so great a candidate that the only reason that anyone wouldn't support her is because they are sexist. That's just an offensive and illogical argument. This race has been divisive enough already. Clinton's continued presence has become increasingly toxic. While I consider the fearmongering of Steny Hoyer and others that the campaign will fatally damage the party overblown, the continued racial attacks can only hurt. Hillary needs to accept a dose of reality and end her campaign.

20 in a row!

Over at the Plank, Isacc Chotiner has a great post up describing his elation at the Rockets' win last night, which marked their 2oth in a row. I have to admit I haven't been paying too much attention to the NBA this year, as the Bucks have been beyond lousy. However, it is not lost on me how amazing it is for a team to win 20 games in a row! Houston's 20 game streak has propelled them into a tie with San Antonio for first in the Western Conference's Southwest Division. This streak continued even after Yao Ming was lost for the remainder of the season a couple of weeks ago. Moreover, as Chotiner points out, Houston is doing all this with a very likable group of guys. Tracy McGrady is an extremely likable and talented player that is as socially conscious as he is gifted in the art of basketball. Chuck Hayes, Shane Battier, Steve Novak (yeah Milwaukee!) and the rest of the crew are the epitome of class and professionalism. I hope these guys beat out the arrogant and chronically boring Spurs for the Southwest title and roll over Kobe and the Lakers to the finals. Only time will tell!

The Love Affair: Bush and McCain

Juan Cole has got another great article over at Salon about John McCain. Cole compares Bush to McCain and it turns out that, at least in terms of policy, they are quite similar. McCain has bought into the neoconservative mantra hook, line, and sinker. McCain supports an ever toughening stance on Iran, staying in Iraq for hundreds if not thousands of years, and perpetual war in general. As I've said before St. McCain loves war. War, in his eyes, is not a means but an end in itself. He believes that the state of war is good for the country. All this is very disturbing to the sane mind.

While Cole is a foreign policy expert by trade, he also delves into holy John's support for tax cuts and radical conservative economic policy. McCain use to oppose Bush's tax cuts, but now he supports them, stating that his previous opposition was concentrated on the absence of offsetting spending cuts. However, at the time, McCain stated that his opposition was based on the fact that only the very wealthy stood to benefit much from the cuts. What this means is that St. John McCain, son of God, heir to the throne of the Lord, is the ultimate flip flopper. He is just as flip floppity as Mitt Romney. McCain has sold his soul in order to lock up the GOP nomination. Interesting that the meida's ongoing love affair with McCain allows them to continue labeling him a "maverick."

Tune Her Out

Over at the Plank, Jonathan Cohn has an interesting post suggesting that the Obama campaign should just ignore the musings of Geraldine Ferraro. I agree. Granted, it is frustrating that the brilliant Samantha Power had to resign after calling Hillary Clinton a monster (off the record!!!) and the Clinton campaign is making no such move in regards to Ferraro. Ferraro's comments were made on the record and have a clear racial connotation. "Monster" is not a gender or racial specific label, so calling Hillary a "monster" could not be implied as sexist. Moreover it should be noted that what Ferraro said is, for the most part, accurate. Barack Obama more than likely would not be were he is today if he weren't a black man. At the same time, if Hillary Clinton wasn't the wife of a two-term president she probably wouldn't be were she is today either. My boss pointed out to me that this was a great year for John Edwards to run for president, but the presence of strong African-American and female candidates did much to destroy the luster of his campaign. I think this is correct, and I would go so far as to say that if either Obama or Clinton had decided not to run, John Edwards would be the current Democratic nominee for president.

Anyways, I digress. Obama should ignore Ferraro because she's just destroying her own credibility and making herself look like a jerk. She now even is alleging that the only reason the Obama campaign is attacking her is because she is white. What? This is an odd thing for a liberal Democrat to say. Seriously, turn on your television and watch Ferraro destroy herself. Plus, in the end, this is just going to make Clinton look bad. As Cohn points out in his post, the exit polls in Mississippi showed that the vote broke down on racial lines and it makes sense (though it's dirty as hell) for the Clinton campaign to keep Ferraro around for Pennsylvania where similar working class racial divisions exist. My point is that Obama should just ignore this and turn all his guns in the direction of John McCain. Obama is the frontrunner. He has a substantial delegate lead that it is very unlikely that Clinton will ever be able to surmount. It is the role of the Democratic nominee to respond to attacks from the Republican nominee. Obama shouldn't bother himself with the nagging attacks of dying campaign.