The Passenger

End of the Week Close-Out Sale (or blog post)

Ok, first off, let me make a quick promise. I may have gone to see Billy Bob Thornton in Bad News Bears and then posted about it here. That doesn't mean that I'll buy a ticket to just any garbage that shows in my local Loews. For example, I'm not going to see Stealth. But, Ty Burr's review in The Globe is still worth checking out. Assuming Anthony Lane doesn't write it up, this might be as good of a take-down as we'll be able to find, though he does get a little heavy handed towards the end. I mean, come on, after writing about how goofy the whole movie is, can one really work up too much concern if it doesn't give the nature of war a mature treatment? That seems redundant to me. But hey, I didn't see it, and I'm not going to, so what do I know?

Prediction: putting Tucker Carlson head to head with John Stewart won't help his dismal ratings.

And seriously for a minute, is Pervez Musharraf really going to toughen up in a sustainable way or is today's announced crackdown on extremists in his country a one hit wonder? He claims that he has been freed up by improved relations with India and a quickened economy. But, in light of the Pakistani roots of the London bombers as well as the Mukhtar Mai scandal, in which Musharraf and his government behaved shamefully, he needed to make a public relations splash on the international stage. I won't rush to judgement. It is, after all, Friday evening. But over the last several years, I've grown cynical about Musharraf as a partner for the United States in combatting terrorism. I hear the point that he's keeping the lid down on potentially more extremist leadership, but at a certain point, you need to re-evaluate your friends. At any rate, I'll give him the benefit of the doubt for the weekend. Let's see how effective his new policy regime will be.

Reassuring?

Here's a headline for you: Roberts Assures Dem He Won't Be Activist.

After meeting with Roberts for 30 minutes, Ben Nelson (D-NE) told a reporter that "He said he would not be an activist judge." Well, as long as he confirmed to Ben Nelson that he won't conform to an amorphous buzz-word, I'd say that NARAL's work is done and the "moderate" (speaking of amorphous buzz-words) Gang of 14 should quickly schedule a press conference to declare John Roberts completely sweet.

Thus far, John Roberts has walked the tight and narrow path towards confirmation well. To the right, he's a closet-reincarnation of Scalia, to the left, he's kind of an x-factor, hopefully with a penchant for stare decisis--in other words, folks are hoping that even though he himself might be pro-life, he might care more about following judicial precedent than doing the bidding of right wing activists. Which brings us back to the fateful headline that spawned this post.

"Activist Judge" is basically a slur that politicians throw at judges who do things that they don't like. Since a lot of Republicans don't like legal abortion and (at least publically) prefer laws about sodomy, they've been hurling it more frequently than liberals in recent years. However, articles have shown--and here I must apologize for not digging up the "articles" in question, but trust me--that the "conservative" judges on the courts have moved to strike down legislation more frequently than the "liberal" judges. By a seemingly objective standard, that makes the "conservative" judges more activist.

Of course, judicial activism isn't always a bad thing. Just look at Brown v. Board, which by many standards was an act of judicial activism, but, in my opinion, an excellent and noble decision.

All that said, the White House should release the documents that Chuck Schumer and other Democrats in the Senate are asking for, and Roberts should explain his position on abortion. The Senate must be allowed to play its role, and should be allowed to do so in more than a superficial way.

Like Watching World's Craziest Animal Attacks

Rick Santorum, ladies and gentlemen: he's so wrong about so much, but you just can't quite bring yourself to look away. And now there's a blog to track all of his mishaps.

They've got all the hits. Suing for a large malpractice settlement and then legislating to prevent other people from doing the same, using PA taxpayer dollars to subsidize his decision to home-school his kids in VA, attacking the "cultural elite" while appearing on Hardball and getting his paycheck from the US Senate, awkwardly flailing on the topic of stay-at-home moms (and dads), "not that there's anything wrong with that," questioning the legality of married couples using birth control, segregation, and, of course, child abuse.

Anyway, check it out. They've got quite a collection of video and print media clips.

Can Larry Brown Turn the Knicks Around?

I have no idea. I hope so. Either way, I love that he's a New York kid who grew up dreaming of coaching the Knicks. Mike Lupica has an excellent column today that gets into the history of Larry Brown and his idol, the great Red Holzman, who led the great early 70s teams with Walt Frazier, Willis Reed, Bill Bradley and Earl Monroe to a couple of NBA titles. It's long passed time for the Knicks to write themselves some new history. They are one of the classic franchises in all of sports, and they need to get up off the mat.

East Meets West at the Phillips

Not that staring at huge slides of nudes wasn’t a good time, but my art history class in college would’ve been a helluva lot more fun if I had taken a class on Japanese wood-cutting, specifically the work of Ando Hiroshige.

Hiroshige populates his prints with a cast of comical characters: litter-bearers grunt under the strain of their prosperous and portly payload, peasants scramble to find cover from the elements, and for whatever reason, the bare arses of men and horses can be found in many a print (so here I am staring at nudes again – maybe Titian isn’t that bad after all…).

For their impresive exhibit, the Phillips Gallery’s curators have interspersed the prints with Western paintings (tour rejects, alas).  Their intention is to show how artists like Cezanne and other impressionists were influenced by Hiroshige’s work, particularly the way he composed his prints.  The effect (on people like me, at least) was to highlight just how little I knew about Eastern tradition of art and Japanese history and culture.  I could fit each Cezanne, Degas, or Picasso into the narrative of Western art, but for each Japanese print, it felt like the image was floating in a contextual void. 

I imagine Cezanne, Degas and Picasso felt similarly when (if) they saw Hiroshige’s work.  For both for myself and my imagined luminaries of Western art, Hiroshige’s compositions were revolutionary in their alien presentation of the familiar.  The stylistic elements of the woodcuts are utterly foreign, and yet the tribulations of Hiroshige’s weary travelers, hard-working peasants, and elegant geishas are immediately recognizable.  In short, Hiroshige’s gift, and the key to this exhibit’s success, is his humanity.

Definitely check it out while you can.  The exhibition runs until Sept. 4^th, tickets are $8, $6 for students/seniors.  For more information, visit http://www.phillipscollection.org/.

Dems in the Desert

Most people (especially you Leftists-of-faith) know that the Israelites wandered in the wilderness for 40 years before they entered the Holy Land. Fewer people know that they had a chance to get there much sooner - shortly after the exodus from Egypt, in fact - but they blew it. The Israelites who left Egypt had too much of a slave mentality to be able to live successfully in the Promised Land, so God cursed them to die in the desert.

I'm beginning to feel like the Democratic Party may have the opposite problem: a master mentality that prevents them from living successfully as a minority party. At both a policy and political level, the Dems' resistance - and sometimes outright refusal - to innovate new ideas and take risks, has condemned the party to wander in the minority until a new generation comes to power.  Thankfully, turnover in politics is high, so the next political generation should be calling the shots well before 2045... I hope.

X Box and The Minds of Kids

Somebody had to say it, and I'm glad that in today's LA Times, that somebody is Steven Johnson, recent author of Everything Bad is Good for You: How Today's Popular Culture Is Actually Making Us Smarter.

He takes a swing at Hillary Clinton's assault on Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas.

Look, I don't own an X Box (though, my younger brother does, and to my knowledge, he's not a violent criminal). And I think Hillary Clinton is all right. I believe she'll run strong in 2008. I just hope that in the meantime she stops listening to whoever is telling her to attack video games like they were Sister Souljah. To me, politicians who gripe about video games, movies, rap, rock, broadway muscials, and whatever else they think is poisoning kids' minds this week are dodging the real issues. To strategists, it's a cheap and easy way of grabbing headlines and talking with "moderate" parents who are concerned about how their children spend their time and like to reminisce about times when "life was more simple." Indeed, parents might be concerned--they usually are. And teen violence, like adult violence, is a serious issue. But video games aren't the problem. In fact, as Johnson explains, as video games have risen in popularity, teen violence has dropped. Now, I'm not going to say there's a connection or that more video games equals less teen brawling and car theft, but I think you'd be hard pressed to say that video games lead to those things either. Video game ratings should be made more reliable, so that people can easily understand them like movie ratings. Ratings already exist, maybe they're not enforced well enough.

But the call to censorship, implicitly or explicitly, is a real problem. And it's not one that is helpful to teenagers. If anything, they need to understand the nature and value of free expression. A study released last winter indicated that high schoolers are alarmingly clueless or apathetic about the First Amendment. I'm waiting for a politician to address that crisis. Lets talk seriously about freedom of speech. Lets talk seriously about critical thinking. And lets talk seriously about teen violence. But lets not score cheap points while time ticks by on real solutions.

If video games cause a problem, it's that time spent playing them could be spent socializing or engaging in physical activities. But that's a problem that video games share with TV, and it's independent of the content.

C'mon, Mitt's Not Even His Real Name...

Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney published an op-ed piece in the July 26 edition of the Boston Globe outlining his stance on abortion. Considering that he’s a Republican governor of a largely Democratic state, he’s had to walk a fine line in discussing this issue in the past, and has always played towards the "I respectfully disagree with abortion-rights advocates, but it’s the law and I won’t touch it" line. Now, as he tries to make himself more palatable to the national Republican audience, he’s been fine-tuning his stance. For those of us who don’t feel like reading between the lines, I’ve done a little of the translation work:

MITT ROMNEY

Why I vetoed contraception bill

By Mitt Romney | July 26, 2005

YESTERDAY I vetoed a bill that the Legislature forwarded to my desk. Though described by its sponsors as a measure relating to contraception, there is more to it than that. The bill does not involve only the prevention of conception: The drug it authorizes would also terminate life after conception.

TRANSLATION:

This drug would help prevent unwanted pregnancies by women who are not in a position to care for a child. But considering that my friends and I in the Republican Party continue to resist commonsense measures like funding social services, women’s health/family planning centers, and straight-talking sex education in the schools, we think it’s best to stay consistent and make the problem worse.

Signing such a measure into law would violate the promise I made to the citizens of Massachusetts when I ran for governor. I pledged that I would not change our abortion laws either to restrict abortion or to facilitate it. What's more, this particular bill does not require parental consent even for young teenagers. It disregards not only the seriousness of abortion but the importance of parental involvement and so would weaken a protection I am committed to uphold.

TRANSLATION: I’m speaking to those of you who actually believe this bill only affects the teenage trash usually seen on the likes of the Jerry Springer show. Yes, these 14 year old girls go out, dress like sluts, have wild sex with anyone and everyone, and get pregnant over and over. So, they think they can just take a pill and make it all go away?? What they need is an attitude adjustment, some prayer, and a nice sit down with Mom and Dad–not a pill (and let’s ignore that Mom and Dad maybe aren’t the greatest people. Maybe we’ll look beyond their own shattered childhoods, drug abuse, untreated mental illness...it’s all going to be a-ok).

I have spoken with medical professionals to determine whether the drug contemplated under the bill would simply prevent conception or whether it would also terminate a living embryo after conception. Once it became clear that the latter was the case, my decision was straightforward.

TRANSLATION: After speaking with medical professionals, my staff and I felt we found sufficient cover for me to reverse my prior statements on abortion [cough, cough, flip-flop! cough] from the days when I was playing to the liberal-commies of Massachusetts; NOW I can safely play to the right wing of my party as I seek the presidency. What, you thought I was sleeping during the Democratic primaries? I was taking notes!!

I will honor the commitment I made during my campaign: While I do not favor abortion, I will not change the state's abortion laws.

TRANSLATION: I’ve got one foot out the door, anyway, so who cares if Massachusetts falls into the sea? Big loss. I’m not going to carry it in the general election, anyway.

I understand that my views on laws governing abortion set me in the minority in our Commonwealth. I am prolife. I believe that abortion is the wrong choice except in cases of incest, rape, and to save the life of the mother. I wish the people of America agreed, and that the laws of our nation could reflect that view. But while the nation remains so divided over abortion, I believe that the states, through the democratic process, should determine their own abortion laws and not have them dictated by judicial mandate.

TRANSLATION: This scenario worked well for slavery, if I remember my history correctly. Any hot-button issues should really be decided by the states. Unless, of course, I happen to agree with all the members of the Supreme Court, in which case, maybe this IS a problem for the federal government to decide. Really, the only way to know how I feel about this is to vote for me. Suckers.

Because Massachusetts is decidedly prochoice, I have respected the state's democratically held view. I have not attempted to impose my own views on the prochoice majority.

TRANSLATION: Wake up. Becoming governor of Massachusetts has always been a stepping stone to bigger and better things for me. There has been no reason for me to impose my views on this liberal hell hole. But now my resume says I’ve been a governor, fought the good fight, and I can run against this land of sin as I gear up for ‘08. Brilliant.

For all the conflicting views on this issue, it speaks well of our country that we recognize abortion as a problem. The law may call it a right, but no one ever called it a good, and, in the quiet of conscience people of both political parties know that more than a million abortions a year cannot be squared with the good heart of America.

TRANSLATION: We also know that cutting off funding for family planning centers, medicaid, medicare, homeless shelters, drug treatment centers, psychiatric facilities, and so forth also cannot be squared with America’s good heart. And I think we should have a serious national discussi—wait, I just upped the local Terror Alert Level To Super Fruity High Orange! Let’s get the terrorists!

You can't be a prolife governor in a prochoice state without understanding that there are heartfelt and thoughtful arguments on both sides of the question. Many women considering abortions face terrible pressures, hurts, and fears; we should come to their aid with all the resourcefulness and empathy we can offer. At the same time, the starting point should be the innocence and vulnerability of the child waiting to be born.

TRANSLATION: But let’s be honest–if we knew the kids were going to end up as liberals, homosexuals, agnostics, French, or people with an income level below $150,000 a year, we wouldn’t knock ourselves out helping them as unborn children. Which is why I’m proud to announce that we now have labs set up under MIT which are hoping to develop genome tests to determine exactly that. Hopefully, in five or ten years, we won’t have to waste precious resources on any potential "undesirables."

In some respects, these convictions have evolved and deepened during my time as governor. In considering the issue of embryo cloning and embryo farming, I saw where the harsh logic of abortion can lead -- to the view of innocent new life as nothing more than research material or a commodity to be exploited.

TRANSLATION: You see? I haven’t flip-flopped, like that evil John Kerry. I’ve evolved. It’s entirely different. You can trust me.

I have also observed the bitterness and fierce anger that still linger 32 years after Roe v. Wade. The majority in the US Supreme Court's Casey opinion assured us this would pass away as Americans learned to live with abortion on demand. But this has proved a false hope.

TRANSLATION: Attention Right Wingers–please note that I just managed to insult the activist judges on the bench from three decades ago. This has GOT to play well down south!

There is much in the abortion controversy that America's founders would not recognize. Above all, those who wrote our Constitution would wonder why the federal courts had peremptorily removed the matter from the authority of the elected branches of government. The federal system left to us by the Constitution allows people of different states to make their own choices on matters of controversy, thus avoiding the bitter battles engendered by ''one size fits all" judicial pronouncements. A federalist approach would allow such disputes to be settled by the citizens and elected representatives of each state, and appropriately defer to democratic governance.

TRANSLATION: Hey, if the liberal states want to have abortions–for now–let them. Republicans are taking over the country piece by piece, so let’s go with this "states’ rights" argument for now. It’ll be moot soon enough, anyway.

Except on matters of the starkest clarity like the issue of banning partial-birth abortions, there is not now a decisive national consensus on abortion. Some parts of the country have prolife majorities, others have prochoice majorities. People of good faith on both sides of the issue should be able to make and advance their case in democratic forums -- with civility, mutual respect, and confidence that democratic majorities will prevail. We will never have peace on the abortion issue, much less a consensus of conscience, until democracy is allowed to work its way.

TRANSLATION: I’m very lofty and dignified, and I’d love for us all to join hands, smile at each other, and live in harmony. Now if you’ll excuse me, I’ve got to go run to be interviewed by uber-patriot Sean Hannity, who will help soothe the national dialogue with his dulcet tones. Suckers.

Mitt Romney is governor of Massachusetts.

Entourage

For a while now I've held the opinion that HBO's Entourage was better than most people realized. Many people, perhaps understandably, were initially turned off by a show that is kinda-sorta based on Mark Wahlberg's early days in Hollywood. And while the show gets some cheap entertainment out of its setting (nudity, jokes about and cameos by real Hollywood personalities), the show is succesful because of its sharp, quick dialogue and the way it portrays male interaction. The way that the titular "entourage" bounces off each other in a combination of competition and fraternity (in one instance literal) is spot on. The show exists by throwing the characters through a series of insults, disses, and arguments but it always holds together--just like a high school sports team or something. And also, as is being noted with increasing regularity, Jeremy Piven ("let's hug it out") is great as the agent Ari Gold. But, despite it's seemingly breezy subject matter--movies, parties, sex, drugs, obscene cars and houses, there's some serious stuff at work. Though the entourage revolves around movie-star Vince (Adrian Grenier) it really focuses on Eric (Jeremy Connolly), Vince's best friend and now manager. Eric is the conscience of the group. He takes his relationships with women seriously, he needs to pay attention to the crew's cash flow, and he needs to make most of Vince's decisions for him. He also, constantly is fighting for respect--both social and professional. His self-image is often the focal point as he contends with how to embrace, and grow beyond, life as Vince's wing-man.

But, as much as the show is excellent for the way the characters interact on an emotional level, it is also hillarious. The scene's with Piven are amazing. The way he goes from zero-to-ballistic in half a second and bounces between arguing with his wife, ridiculing his staff and playing the angles to get what he needs from Eric and Vince is great to watch. And also, as Vince and his crew rib each other, Ari is in a constant battle with all of Hollywood, and the smallest thing--phone tag, for instance, becomes the Battle of the Bulge.

On a final note, Rhys Coiro is great as the indy-director Billy Walsh. The way that they put that character on a totally different wavelength and then sort of crash him through scenes with the others, calling everyone a "suit" or a "she-suit" and being completely condescending and aloof (and also relaxed and friendly), even as he indulges in all the vices LA has to offer, is fantastic.

Noseball With John McCain

Is John McCain the shrewdest politician this side of Bill Clinton? Over the past several years, McCain has built quite a name and reputation for himself, thanks mainly to his performance in the 2000 Republican primaries. McCain became the darling driver of the Straight-Talk Express, the Maverick Senator who plays by his own rules. Whereas mistrustful Democrats can't stomach most Republicans in elected office, they can give a little credit to John McCain.  They can even respect McCain.

They can respect him–-but for what, exactly? There was speculation back in 2000 that McCain was going to use his new, high profile to promote his own agenda (while keeping one eye on the next available Republican nomination for the White House), while giving Bush some well-earned payback for his shameful behavior during the primaries. And who could blame him?

But time and again, over the last five years, McCain has shown himself to be just another disappointing politician. The latest example of this was on the July 21 edition of Hardball with Chris Matthews, during which time McCain's nose was so far up this administration's ass that it was embarrassing. At one point during the program, Matthews and McCain's conversation drifted toward the Karl Rove scandal, and McCain once again rolled over for the Bush administration:

MCCAIN: Exactly. So, this is full of riddles that we won't know until we—until Fitzgerald comes out with his report.

Now, I understand that the grand jury expires in October, so it's very likely that he'll come to some conclusions by then. But I...

We all know why Karl Rove spoke to the reporters, because at least we know this, that he believed that Wilson was putting out false information concerning whether Dick Cheney sent him to Africa, which he didn't, whether there was actually some contacts between Saddam Hussein's regime and Niger on yellow cake, which the British still maintain that there was, and several other aspects that were, just simply—according to a study by our Intelligence Committee, were false, statements that Ambassador Wilson made.

And so, it's understandable why Rove would say to a reporter, "Hey, look, the vice president did not send Wilson to Niger. It was done at the recommendation of his wife," etcetera, etcetera.

Now, whether, during that period of time, Karl Rove or anybody else in the White House leaked her name, I don't know the answer to that. I really don't. Now, they...

(CROSSTALK)

MATTHEWS: If it—so, if he did, do you think that's serious enough to fire him? The president, in the first instance, said they had to be taken care of, in the second instance, said, if they've been proven guilty of a crime. He's lowered the bar for acceptable behavior.

MCCAIN: Well, look, I can't be responsible for the comments of the president, but I do believe that every American has the right of presumption of innocence until proven guilty.

Now, Karl Rove has stated that he did not do anything wrong and break any law. I take him at his word.

MATTHEWS: Do you believe that the White House—do you think that Karl Rove is guilty of any tough behavior, or hardball behavior against you in the race in South Carolina in 2000?

MCCAIN: Politics is not beanbags. I think that I—that they played rough with me. I think there were times—dare I say it—that my campaign played rough, too. I mean, politics is a tough game. You know that better than any—than the two of us.

Considering that McCain's primary challenge in 2000 went up in smoke mainly because of Rove's smear campaign, the fact that McCain will now go out on a limb for Rove reaks of pure partisan politics, along with good ol’ presidential ambition. It may be dressed up pretty and given the full treatment of the Honest-To-Goodness War Hero, but it's the same disgusting party line being dished out by Ken Mehlman and every other Republican talking head.  Here is a man who has the confidence and respect of voters across party lines, who has been called one of the most popular men in politics, and who has a platform to speak truth to power, level with the American people, AND burnish his creditials to further his own political agenda, yet he has consistently refused to do so. 

And this is the man that a considerable chunk of registered Democrats would gladly vote for, if given the chance, three years from now...?