<3 : Wall-E

An emoticon seems perfectly appropriate here.

I saw a midnight showing of Wall-E last night… and it was fantastic. Maybe even the best film Pixar has made (at least since Toy Story 2). I also can’t remember the last time I saw a genuine love story that was this good. Believe it or not, they manage to capture a lot of subtle emotional miniuate just using two beeping robots.

But the great shame is there’s going to be a whole bunch of people who think this movie sucks and is pushing some stupid liberal agenda.

And that’s a horrible shame. The politicization of environmental issues drives me nuts cause the integrity of the issue should be exclusive from that stuff. But whatever the film works as part satire and to let your political bent prevent you enjoying a film is just ridiculous.

Take it the other way for example: a lot of films feature vigilantism or massive amounts of violence or assassinations, etc. All of which are things I’m obviously “politically against.” Just because this film deals with the environment and the laziness of modern man doesn’t mean you should politicize it and let it get in the way. Those elements are freaking satire anyway.

And the robots are cute as shit.

Don’t Like: Hillary Supporters Turned McCain Supporters (PART 2)

What follows is the letter from Hillary addressed to her supporters. It’s a fantastic letter and speaks for itself:

I wanted you to be one of the first to know: on Saturday, I will hold an event in Washington D.C. to thank everyone who has supported my campaign. Over the course of the last 16 months, I have been privileged and touched to witness the incredible dedication and sacrifice of so many people working for our campaign. Every minute you put into helping us win, every dollar you gave to keep up the fight meant more to me than I can ever possibly tell you.

On Saturday, I will extend my congratulations to Senator Obama and my support for his candidacy. This has been a long and hard-fought campaign, but as I have always said, my differences with Senator Obama are small compared to the differences we have with Senator McCain and the Republicans.

I have said throughout the campaign that I would strongly support Senator Obama if he were the Democratic Party’s nominee, and I intend to deliver on that promise.

When I decided to run for president, I knew exactly why I was getting into this race: to work hard every day for the millions of Americans who need a voice in the White House.

I made you — and everyone who supported me — a promise: to stand up for our shared values and to never back down. I’m going to keep that promise today, tomorrow, and for the rest of my life.

I will be speaking on Saturday about how together we can rally the party behind Senator Obama. The stakes are too high and the task before us too important to do otherwise.

I know as I continue my lifelong work for a stronger America and a better world, I will turn to you for the support, the strength, and the commitment that you have shown me in the past 16 months. And I will always keep faith with the issues and causes that are important to you.

In the past few days, you have shown that support once again with hundreds of thousands of messages to the campaign, and again, I am touched by your thoughtfulness and kindness.

I can never possibly express my gratitude, so let me say simply, thank you.

Sincerely,

Hillary Rodham Clinton

Don’t Like: Hillary Supporters Turned McCain Supporters

So, to the aforementioned, let me get this straight… you’re going to abandon Hillary, your beloved candidate, who is for/represents the following: universal healthcare, pro-choice, gun control, strategic removal from Iraq, raising taxes for the funding of schools/police/fire departments, investigating gas price manipulation, the creation of green collar jobs, and lenient on immigration .

… And you’re going to vote for McCain, a candidate who stands for/represents the following: privatized health care, pro-life, against gun control, long term military presence in Iraq and probably Iran, keeping taxes low, no new global warming legistlation, and has a hard stance on immigration.

In other words, they’re complete political opposites.

How, in the name of all that is good and holy, could you possibly do that? It’s akin to saying “I don’t care what a candidate represents whatsoever, just if I identify with them and will even vote for someone else out of spite.” It’s unfathomable to me.

Is the presidential office a game of “who’s your nominee?” NO! There are candidates who fall much more in line with Hillary’s viewpoint. The closest? Yup. Barack Obama. They are nearly identical in political policy and if the direction of the country is important to you (isn’t that core of what politics is supposed to be about?. If Obama lost the nomination I would have voted for Hillary in a millesecond. That’s how similar they are.

But the perceived damage that has been done in this primary election is too much for some. I don’t understand this. Many supporters seem to be confusing the sexist comments being brandied about the internet message boards/blogs/quotes in articles as being Obama-centric. That could not be further than the truth as most of that is coming from conservative users and websites (or morning asinine radio shock jocks). Believe it or not, this has actually been pretty tame as far as bad tactics and insults go from the actual Candidates. It’s been hard fought and long, that’s for sure, but hardly as dirty as even 2004.

If you absolutely cannot vote for Obama there are a host of 3rd party candidates from the following who fall much more in line with Hillary’s policy: the Working Family’s Party, the Independence Party of America, the Centrist Party, and the Peace and Freedom Party.

*My friend Edu is the only who makes a good point on the issue by saying [to paraphrase] that the failure to elect Hillary has deeply shaken his confidence in the Democratic party and he thinks they have made a critical mistake. But still, the idea of voting for McCain is taking it too far. It’s much more legitimate to simply not vote at all.

Like: My Friend Edu’s Input on Why Wesley Clark is the Best VP Candidate For The Democrats

EDITOR’S NOTE: My friend Edu is my favorite person to talk politics with. He knows far more in regards to the minutiae than I do. Even with our liberal ideological similarities we consistently have different opinions and interpretations of political machinations/events/politicians themselves, and even the overall direction of the democratic party. What’s even better is Edu has a breadth of exposure to more global/European politics which always provides an anti-thesis to my wholly American way of viewing the political machine. I tend to paint in broad strokes (something that has advantages and disadvantages) so I love it when Edu provides his specficis-based input. The following are his recent thoughts on who should be the VP candidate (this is before last night’s election results by the way).

What follows totally qualifies as EDU’S GUEST BLOG:

I’ve been saying it for months now but at last his name is sounding in some democratic and pundit circles (To my great pleasure)…

(Drum roll…)

Wesley Clark!

If it’s not going to be Hillary (probably not), retired 4 Star General Wesley Clark is such an obvious choice, it makes my head hurt… seriously it does.  Here is why:

As much as many would like to think that Senator Obama has no flaws, he does in terms of election agenda.

General Clark bring too much to the ticket to ignore.  He supports the war in Afghanistan but was against the Iraq invasion (sound familiar?) from the beginning (trying to further research statements, but it my impression that he was skeptical of its true purpose, potential accomplishments on the War on Terror and believed that the military would be overextended.  Genius!) so they can run that all to the White House.  A staunch Hillary supporter, one of the biggest behind the scenes, he NEVER dare I say, questioned, Senator Obama (Rendell, Strickland and Beebe pretty much questioned his readiness, credentials, etc…) while promoting Senator Clinton on the campaign trail.

He was the driving force of Hillary’s 35+ military endorsements from top generals, admirals and Chiefs of Staff, showing that his respect amongst the military is paramount.  As Supreme Allied Commander of NATO in Europe and Allied Commander in Kosovo, it gives him implecable military, foreign policy and foreign relations credentials (They are better than McCain’s since he has commanded troops on the field and has showed many leadership skills).

However, apart from military, leadership and foreign policy credentials (need I say more?) what else could he bring to a ticket.  Well, he’s white (yes, I said it, but from a diverse background), from the south (Arkansas!), is pro-choice and pro universal healthcare, so policy would not be a significant issue.  Also, being a military man, he understands hierarchy and repects it.  He is very popular amongst veterans and could also sway some moderate democrats to support Barack.

On the bum side, well, he is a staunch Hillary supporter (he’s from Arkansas), brings little executive experience to the ticket and does have some baggage, Kosovo and Yugoslavia didn’t turn out to well.

Anyway, its a long shot, but I hope he is at least on the shortlist, maybe not as high as Richardson, Webb or Sebelius, but high up there.

Cheerio.

Don’t Like: The Recent Fox News Speculation on Michelle Obama’s Video of Her Saying “Whitey” When She’s Really Saying “Why’d He…”

Fox News is ALREADY pimping out the info about an alleged tape in which Michelle Obama said: “Whitey cut Medicare, Whitey put us in Iraq for no reason, Whitey do nothing about Katrina!”

This is hilarious. A bunch of bloggers, using a simple search for quotes on the internet revealed that this was in fact her talking about Bush and saying: “Why’d he cut Medicare? Why’d he put us in Iraq for no reason? Why’d he do nothing about Katrina?”

Way to go, misunderstanding the way people talk! Yeah, that’s right I used misunderstanding the way people talk as a noun. Deal with it.

Like: Barack Obama (also complicated, but not as much)

Okay, here we go. I’m actually going to try and keep this brief.

I voted for Barack Obama in the California primary and I will for him again in the general election (barring anything crazy happening so that he wouldn’t get the nom).

I’ve liked Obama since his emergence on the national scene in 2004. What’s nice is that the public identity he established in those initial moments is still the public identity he has mid-election (which is rare). So many politicians have to mold themselves into the pinnacle of moderacy in the name of elect-ability and sometimes even downplay their strengths (Hillary for example). Instead, Obama has actually been able to create a rallying point around his political identity. What’s even better is that I geniunely believe Obama’s political identity is centered around his real-life personality. Once again, rare.

I’ve written about this at length, but Obama/Clinton supporters can’t really argue about policy between their candidates. There are minor differences (that are important) but they’re so collectively similar on this front that it has become an election of semantics. Because of this, I recognize the fact that many people are drawn to Obama in a largely symbolic syntax. To wit: “Only in America is my story possible”. CHANGE. Yes We Can. A truly new administration and a truly new direction for the country. Instead of 20 years of bush/Clinton/bush/Clinton, we’re moving into the 21st century. The first African-American president. He grew up all over the world. He’s got new ideas on how to handle “the Muslim world”. Yada, Yada, Yada.

This all very wishy-washy stuff. He’s been a senator for 4 years and will have spent 2 of those years campaigning. There isn’t exactly a large breadth of experience he can run on. So basically all he can go on is his identity, image, and promise of change.

The question then becomes, do you trust him and do you think identity is enough? Well, he is a politician and all… that always makes things difficult. But people are buying into him for a reason. He is a fantastic public speaker and historically there is large significance to that. Our most popular presidents have always been great communicators (not a nod to Reagan). There’s also something very powerful about the nature of promise when a progressive leader strikes a chord with a majority. Then you’re entering what I like to call “JFK” territory; the kind of territory where the aura itself actually has an impact. Obama isn’t there yet (not by a long shot) but politically I’m someone who fully recognizes the power of “the promise”.

The worst part of all of this is that it seems to boil down to “I like the guy”… which is awful. Just awful. It’s the kind of thinking that might have given us Bush II. But it all point to a bigger indicator for the national pulse; that there is actually something to the symbolism. The concept of “president as posterboy” is usually used as the butt of a joke, but I actually maintain that it’s strangely powerful. We love the person who stands as the model of decency and goodness. Can the president just be the ultimate role model? It’s just we often disagree on the definition of decency. Bush was endeared to his supporters because of his faith and essence. While I thought he might be the most misguided person on the planet, many of the religious right think he was a terrific president (regular old conservatives? not so much anymore). But there is a reason that the American voter respects The Posterboy… and it’s not because they’re stupid.

It’s because no matter how cynical you get. No matter how corrupt politics is. No matter how much we learn nothing really changes. No matter how much I really wonder if anything needs to change at all. No matter how disappointed I’ve been with the democratic party to the point where I’ve voted Green, yikes… There’s a part of us that wants to believe in someone who can cut through the bullshit, be themselves, be a voice of the people, and turn the country in the right direction.

So I’m going to believe in Obama.

… I’m also going to hold him to it.

Don’t Like: Hillary Clinton (But It’s Complicated)

Here we go.

First things first, I mentioned this the other day and someone said they were “sick of this sexist bullshit” and stormed off. I was really taken aback by this. How does not liking Hillary Clinton mean I’m sexist? Do some people not like Hillary Clinton for sexist reasons? Yes. But it’s a classic case of “correlation does not mean cause”  I mean fuck, I’m the guy who thought Winona LaDuke would have made a good Vice-President… and campaigned for her (she’d make a great politician on any level).

But first, reasons why I like Hillary: 1) She’s smart as a whip, an absolutely brilliant tactician. Her career as a lawyer is renowned for a reason. Really, nothing gets by her and she’s painstakingly conscious of the political machinations involved with Washington on every level. Bill Clinton was the same way (He was a Rhodes Scholar for pete’s sake). 2) for all intensive purposes, she’s a party elder. I’m constantly surprised how little this means in American Politics (It seems to be a bigger deal historically and internationally) but there is something to be said for being at the forefront of the democrats. She’s powerful and direct and would be able to lead swiftly. 3) She has a tremendous sense for the intricacies of policy and many of her policies line up with my own.  There’s many other things I like, but these are the main aspects.

What I don’t like: 1) She’s insincere… and she IS insincere . It has absolutely nothing to do with her being a woman and has anything to do with her longstanding tradition of saying or doing anything that benefits her in the given moment. Some people call that politics (and I supposed that’s fair) but if there’s anything people voters seem to appreciate these days it’s the appearance of sincerity (witness: Bush II, Obama). I’ve followed Hillary’s political career since 92, when she became First Lady, all the way up until now… And she’s wholly transparent. Perhaps, the most telling part of this was the famous chronicling of her “baseball fandom” in the 2000 senatorial race. Hillary grew up a Cubs fan in Illinois and that fandom had been relatively well chronicled throughout her life. She was never a huge sports fan or anything, but so it goes. Anywho she starts her campaign for New York Senate and all of sudden starts talking about her being a lifelong Yankees fan. Then there’s the now infamous campaign meeting where they realized they wouldn’t be able to “out-yankee” Rudy J so they decided to go with the Mets. Suddenly Hillary, was talking about how she was becoming a Mets fan . Yes, this is all completely ridiculous and should have no bearing on whether you vote for someone. It sure as hell doesn’t for me. It’s just baseball and completely meaningless in the political arena. However, this episode is WHOLLY metaphoric for problem with sincerity. Heck, lots of people like to approach politics just like they do baseball… and this is the kind of fan you don’t like to bring to games. It’s complete transparency in the attempt to fit in. Like I said, the entire behavior was indicative of a larger problem with her personality.

2) She has never been able to work with Republicans.  I think we all know the history here. It probably culminated with the whole “vast right wing conspiracy” episode.

3) She tells way too many white lies. Not big bold face GW Bush lies, just the kind of white lies that pile to the point where they become overbearing. Snipergate. When she met my dad’s personal hero Sir Edmund Hillary, she told him that she was named after him and his famous feat… Too bad he didn’t become famous (even within the climbing community) until 5 years after Hillary was Born. At another point she chronicles her time spent on her high school soccer team and what she learned about race relations… too bad her high school didn’t have a soccer team. That she learned in The Wall Street Journal how to make a killing in the futures market. (It didn’t cover the market back then). These are just the examples I could remember, I swear there must be literally thousands of them at this point. And here’s the rub, Bill constantly did the exact same thing . And his ultimately got him in BIG trouble.

4) We are officially at the point where she would tear apart the democratic party to insure a) she still has a shot at a nomination regardless of how badly it looks (she should listen to Al Gore’s famous and humane words after deciding not to appeal the 2000 election decision “Even if I win, I wouldn’t win”) or b) completely tear down Obama and her party to ensure she gets another shot in 2012. Look, at every thing she’s done and regardless if you’re a fan of hers or not, it’s just so readily apparent.

5) She’s a horrible public speaker. I’m sorry. She just is. She sounds bored listening to herself. I always like the words themselves, she just doesn’t have the ability to communicate. And I’m sorry, but that’s a HUGE part of being president. Even for the republicans, it’s the difference between Reagan (”the great communicator”) and Bush I+II (bad communicators). Bill Clinton got as far as he did in life because he was an wonderfully charming public speaker (almost bordering on smarm).

Look, even with all this crap. I still think she’d make a good president. I’d certainly vote for her over McCain in a heartbeat. Plus, her policies are virtually identical with Obama anyway so liking on and not the other would be purely semantic. And this has turned into a race of semantics. And it’s only getting uglier.

The problem is a lot of people take the insincerity, the fighting, the white lies, and the ruthless political nature and extrapolate a lot of very nasty, sexist attitudes. That my friends, is BS. It’s a component of this election for sure but I’ll tell you right now sexism isn’t what sank her campaign (most of it was strategic, but that’s another column) Besides, most of the sexist crap is coming from conservative blogs and shock jock radio, not democratic voters.

The Last element of this? I’m a dude. I’ve commented about identity politics before and I have to say I have no idea what it is to be a woman. I’m a dude. And a good deal of women do feel a real resonance with her. I don’t entirely get it. I’ve felt one with other female politicians (mostly on the more local level) but not with Hillary. In fact a good amount of hardcore Hillary supporters (not you edu ) have struck me as being just as ignorant as some of Obama’s hardcore supporters… you know… like Rev. Wright.

Anycrap. I don’t especially like Hillary Clinton. She’s smart. I’d vote for her over most republicans. But it’s complicated to the point I feel like I’ve barely touched on it.

Don’t Like: Identity Politics

Note: I used two good pictures of the candidates instead of this “use bad picture of the one you don’t like” policy nonsense… I’m looking at you CNN.

Identity politics have always kind of baffled me. Then again, I’m a white guy. I mean, fuck, congress is my identity. But still I always found the idea that you vote for someone because they’re in your demographic as being just plain weird.  Politics is always something that refuses to be simplified and yet that’s always what we want to do.

In the beginning, I was touting the nature of how fame overrides race: Obama was Obama and Hillary was Hillary and their personas are bigger than that kind of simplification. I was wrong… sort of.

The reason identity politics emerged so distinctly are actually pretty simple: Obama and Hillary have virtually identical policies. With no real meaningful debate corresponding to voter issues, the entire race became an argument over semantics. And That is bad. You get into that popularity contest nonsense that usually seems to plague swing voters; only this time everyone’s arguing like that. As the race got more and more competitive,  the candidates started lashing out with attack ads. While people might not have been attracted to their candidates in terms of identity, they CERTAINLY came to defend them in terms of identity. Then things just got worse and worse.

It just sucks that we’ve reached the point where a bunch Obama supporters wouldn’t vote for Hillary and Hillary supporters won’t vote for Obama when their candidates are politically identical.

It’s nonsense.

Don’t Like: Arlen Specter

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=3395829

Seriously Dude? Still. You’re fucking still harping on Spygate? You want a full-on investigation like the mitchell report? FUCK YOU.

Everyone keeps digging and digging and digging and they just keep coming up with the same thing the Pats told Goodell in the beginning. He already gave them the HARSHEST penalty ever given by the NFL. What the fuck else do you want? Worse, you’re a self-professed die-hard Eagles fan and you’re getting into this over some fanboy bullshit. STOP WASTING CONGRESSIONAL MONEY.

The story is over. It was over after Matt Walsh contributed nothing new.

You’re the official fuck-stick of the week. Go hang out with Jay Mariotti. You should fawn over your mutual hate of the Patriots and give each other handjobs.

Like: Antidisestablishmentarianism

Wiki defines:

Antidisestablishmentarianism (listen to British sample (info), American sample (info)) is a political position that originated in nineteenth-century Britain, where antidisestablishmentarians were opposed to proposals to remove the Church of England’s status as the state church of England forwarded principally by both Payne and Tuffin.

The movement succeeded in predominantly Anglican England, but failed overwhelmingly in Roman Catholic Ireland – where the Church of Ireland was disestablished in 1871 – and in Wales whose Church of Wales was disestablished in 1920. Antidisestablishmentarian members of the Free Church of Scotland delayed merger with the United Presbyterian Church of Scotland in a dispute about the position of the Church of Scotland.

The term has largely fallen into disuse, although the issue itself is still current (see Act of Settlement 1701).