Not This Time

   I'm a big "Time Magazine" guy.  My mom got a subscription back when I was in high school, and I've loved it ever since.  I remember bringing a ragged, dog-eared copy into my Physics class to talk to Mr. Nielsen about it because it had blown my mind (it was all about parallel universes and quantum theory and whatnot).  I've also always appreciated "Time" because despite having plenty of columns and opinion stories on both sides of the political aisle, they've always done a pretty decent job of keeping it middle-of-the-road.
   Until now.
   I was very, very disappointed to discover in the most recent issue of "Time" an article that swayed so far left that it was simply embarrassing.  Here's a link to the partial article (you have to be a member or buy the magazine to read the entire thing), but I will summarize it for you.  Basically this article was all about Republicans' attempts to make voting more difficult, obviously in an effort to keep minorities and the poor from being able to go vote for democrats.  The idea was that the big bad Republicans have been trying to enact all these nasty laws and rules as a desperate ploy to keep their party valid.
   Some of the rules, I have to say, are questionable.  For example, I remember one law that was passed in a state specifically outlawed voting on a day where a predominately African American church worked with it's lower-income community to try to get people out to vote.  That's not cool.  But most of the laws were more like "you must show photo ID" or "you must prove that you are a US citizen."  Really?
   This would all be well and good if it had been written in the opinions section.  But no... this was a national article, prominently shown in the magazine, lumped in with their other big articles.  You could have easily changed the premise of the story to "how Republicans are trying to save the voting system" and it would have been just as (if not MORE) accurate.
   When did it become wrong to tell non-citizens that they can't vote?  When was that considered big and bad?  What's the big deal asking someone to show you their driver's license before they go vote?  I don't get it.  These are rules that should be applauded.  They keep our system honest, they help stop fraud.  And yet, the Republicans who enacted them (or who tried) are now being harpooned as anti-american and anti-vote? Don't get me wrong, I'm sure Republicans were more than happy to find that enacting these laws would most likely benefit them... but at the end of the day keeping if keeping people honest helps one party more than the other, who cares?  It's the honesty that's important.
   So are we supposed to be outraged that Republicans are demanding we show our IDs and prove we are citizens before we vote?  Are we supposed to be angry because it might cost the democrats a few votes?  Or are we supposed to be thankful that someone is raising the red flag?  That someone is letting us all know our electoral system is being hijacked and we need to do something to protect it?  Is that supposed to piss me off?  It does.  At "Time."

Lie Strong

   So Lance Armstrong is in trouble.  I guess he's done trying to fight the accusations that he was doping his way to all those Tour De' France wins.  But forget the fact that no one should give two shits about a dude because he can ride a bike really fast.  Forget the fact that this entire thing takes place in France, the most ridiculous country in the world.  What this comes down to in the end is an argument over whether or not he actually loses here, and whether or not it's worth our time and money.

   Lance Armstrong is not a "loser" by any means.  Sure he's lost his sponsorships, and sure he was stripped of his titles.  But he is RICH.  He is FAMOUS.  And (something actually good) he has raised millions of dollars to help fight cancer.  So what if he has a trophy or two (or seven) taken away?  So what if Nike is walking away?  He's got his money.  He's going to be fine.  So what's the lesson here?  If you cheat to win and you're caught, you still kinda win?  Sure you only have one nut, but you still win?

   And even worse is how much money has been spent trying to get this guy to fess up.  You think the Roger Clemens stuff was ridiculous, the authorities have been tracking, tracing, and trying to catch Lance Armstrong for YEARS.  How many hundreds of thousands, MILLIONS of dollars have been poured into trying to prove that this guy wasn't able to do the unthinkable without some kind of outside help?  We're trying to buy our way out of two wars, we're in debt up to our asses with other countries, and we're pouring out time and money to try to catch a CYCLIST?  A CYCLIST???

   There is, of course, the argument about keeping sports honest.  "What are we teaching our kids" after all?  Well, chances are none of those kids are watching bicycle racing.  If they are, you need to get them a new hobby.  But even if you are upset about the lessons these kids might learn, this situation is no better.  What your kids have learned is that you can cheat your way through professional sports, and if you're caught, you get slapped on the wrist while you drive away in your Ferrari.  Nice lesson.

   Who really cares about Lance Armstrong?  The people who have benefited from his charity.  And if it took one dude cheating his way through a silly cycling competition full of french weirdos, then I say that's worth saving lives and furthering cancer research.  Not saying it's cool to dope, just saying look at the big picture here folks.

(500) Days Of Summer

   From Netflix:  When his girlfriend, Summer (Zooey Deschanel), unceremoniously dumps him, greeting-card copywriter and hopeless romantic Tom (Golden Globe nominee Joseph Gordon-Levitt) begins sifting through the year-plus worth of days they spent together, looking for clues to what went awry. As he recalls the good and bad times he spent with the commitment-phobic girl, his heart reawakens to what it cherishes most. Marc Webb directs this uncommon love story.

   My take:  This movie warns you right off the bat that it's not a love story.  Kind of strange, I thought, considering that seemed to be the target audience for the movie.  But it had two actors I really like, an interesting premise, and a good strong opening couple of scenes, so I figured what the hell I'll stick with it.

   I found myself laughing on more than one occasion.  I caught myself feeling angry and frustrating.  I felt sorry for the main character.  I got mad at Summer.  And then I realized... I was falling for this movie just like the main character had fallen for Summer.  The movie even warned me right up front that it wasn't going to be a love story (just like Summer warned him that she wasn't looking for anything serious)... and yet here I was angry that it wasn't playing out like a traditional love story.

   I also realized something else.  I have been that guy before.  I think many of us have.  Trying to understand a situation that just isn't mean to be, even though you're SO SURE that it HAS to be.  You spend weeks, months, sometimes years trying to fit a square peg into a round hole.  You pour so much of yourself into trying to make something work that it almost breaks you... and on the other end is someone who gets all of the benefits of your hard work without having to reciprocate in the slightest.  And whaddya know... things work out just fucking fantastic for her, and you're left feeling empty and worthless.

   It's a terrible feeling, and it's a feeling that I actually found surfacing inside of me as I watched this movie.  And that's when it hit me.  "(500) Days Of Summer" is a work of pure genius.  Oh sure, it's a good film.  It's well-written, well-acted, funny, has some great dialogue and moments and characters.  It's even cool stylistically (I like the counter graphics, very nice).  But what really makes this movie sing is the fact that it can reach into your life and make you feel these things that you have suppressed for so long.  It can bring out these feelings that you have so expertly ignored and tucked away.  It's not a sappy love story where everything works out in the end.  Or is it?  It's so close to real life that it's scary.  And it makes me feel bad for the writer/director, because you can just tell this is something they've experienced firsthand.

   Bravo to everyone involved with this movie.  You've done more than just make a great film.  You've figured out a way to grab all of us beyond the screen and pull us into your story in a way that I never thought possible.  In other words, see this movie.

The American

   From Netflix:  On the heels of a rough assignment, assassin Jack declares that his next job will be his last. Dispatched to a small Italian town to await further orders, Jack embarks on a dangerous double life while falling for a lovely villager.

   My Take:  Here's one that slipped under the radar.  Well, I say that but in reality it was buried in my Netflix queue so I heard about it from somewhere.  Much like the role in "The Descendants" was perfect for Clooney, the role in "The American" was not.  And I hate to say it, but I think it's mostly because Clooney is just too old.  He was trying to be the lean-mean-fighting-machine, but he just came across as sort of frail.

   This was an interesting story, but it really was beneath an actor of Clooney's caliber.  Someone like Jason Statham could have very easily performed this role.  I know it was trying to be the "classy hitman movie," but a hitman movie is a hitman movie, and at least Statham would look like a badass beating the everliving shit out of people.  Unlike Clooney, who just sort of looked like he was flailing around with a frightened look on his face.

   I guess in some ways this movie was much more realistic in the portrayal of that kind of lifestyle.  Sure, I don't really know.  But as far as an entertaining movie goes, this one fell kinda flat.  And the final scene wrapped up so tightly and perfectly, it reminded me of something I would have worked into the ending of one of my childhood movies.

   "The American" tries.  But it fails.  Don't bother.

Cloud Atlas

   From Netflix:  In this star-studded drama, six seemingly disparate stories take viewers from a South Pacific Island in the 19th century to 1980s America to a dystopian future, exploring the complicated links that humans share through the generations.

   My Take:  The Wachowskis have lost their edge.  That's what I would have told you if you had asked me my opinion before going into this movie.  Ever since the Matrix it's just been downhill.  I couldn't even make it through the first 10 minutes of "Speed Racer."  But "Cloud Atlas" was the moment when the Wachowskis restored themselves.  To an extent.

   This movie is a HUGE undertaking.  I never read the book, but if it covers this much ground it must be just gigantic.  To the Wachowskis' credit, they were able to take what was probably a huge and complicated storyline, and compress it into something watchable.  I will give them that.

   The visuals are gorgeous.  The graphics and special effects are amazing.  The idea is genius.  The concept is deep and thought-provoking.  This movie had all the pieces in all the right places.  The only thing that threw me was the element that tied it all together.  I won't give it away, but you won't be able to miss it.  It's stuffed down your throat so hard it will make you gag.  It's like they had this delicate, wonderful, nuanced movies, and then some idiot from the studio came in and said WAIT DO THIS.  SEE?  NOW IT'S ALL CONNECTED!  GET IT???  Yeah no, we got it.

   Still, I did think this was a fantastic movie.  Very well done.  And it gives me hope that the Wachowskis are back on the rise.  Give us "The Matrix" again, guys!  This movie isn't it, unfortunately... but it's close.  See it.  See it in theatres if you can.  And then feel smarter for having seen it.  Trust me, it's better than 99% of the bullshit farting around in theatres right now.

   Before I go, I just want to say one thing about Sandy the "Super Storm."  This hurricane has gotten more coverage than any other storm I think I've ever seen in my life.  Sure it's historic, and it was by no means a wimpy storm.  But you want to know why it's getting so much attention?  Because (A) it's hitting New York, and (B) there's nothing else going on in the news right now except politics, which everyone is more than happy to take a break from.

   But compare this to Hurricane Ike, which rocked Houston's world back in 2008.  That storm was also a monster, also historic, also very damaging.  And yet it was nothing more than a blip on the national media's headlines.  It was "the economy!" followed by "the election!" followed by "chi chi the baby panda!" followed by "oh yeah Houston got its ass rocked off by a hurricane."

   I turned on my TV this morning to see a news reporter being WAY too dramatic talking about a tanker boat which had blown across the harbor and ran aground on the beach.  She was freaking out because it was "JUST A COUPLE DOZEN FEET FROM THIS MINOR ROADWAY!"  Does anyone remember Ike, when boats were on the FREEWAY about 50 miles from the ocean?  No?  Not surprising, I'd be shocked if any of that footage made it out of Texas.

   Situations like this are always a good eye opener for those of you who blindly follow the media.  It's also good for those of you who claim to be smarter than that, and yet you spent the last three days talking about nothing but the "Frankenstorm" or the "Super Storm."  For those of you posting on Facebook about how many times you've been to New York, like that means you're feeling this storm more than the rest of us.  Consider this:  While all of the storms listed were very damaging and ruined many many lives, from a media standpoint, Sandy was a big deal because it hit New York during a media "dead time."  Katrina was big deal because it turned into a political "everybody hates George Bush" story.  Ike was not a big deal because it happened to Houston, a city the media just seems to kind of ignore, and because Houstonians are incredible people who, when faced with unbelievable challenge and hardship, put their heads down and get things done instead of crying for help or trying to paint something as unfair or blame it on someone else.

   There, I said it.  It's my opinion, doesn't represent anything or anyone else.  Just my opinion.  Hate me if you like.  I've never been to New York.

Decisions Decisions

   Well, that does it.  We've sat through four debates, we've heard both sides say the same thing a thousand times, now all that's left is for all of us to make our decision.  Well, really it comes down to the 10 or 11 undecided voters left in a couple of key states, but hey!  Democracy!

   Just because your vote doesn't really count (thanks electoral college!) doesn't mean you can't have an opinion.  And by the way, that's all you are seeing here.  My opinions.  But it also doesn't mean you shouldn't vote... there are plenty of local and state races that you really can make a difference in, and those outcomes will affect your day-to-day life a lot more than the presidential election anyway.  But because chances are you're not one of the 10 undecideds who will sway this thing one way or another, might I suggest you take this opportunity to open yourself up?  To consider viewpoints that you may not have considered in the past?  To look at this election as a chance to really view things from the other side of the aisle?  Don't worry, I won't tell anyone.  But consider the following...

   On healthcare -- There has been a LOT of talk about Obamacare and whether or not it's what's right for this country.  This is dumbing it way down, but the basics of the argument is one side saying that government is capable of managing a healthcare system for everyone in this country, and the the other side saying that it isn't.  The argument against is one that say government was never designed to take on a role like that.  Sure it works in other countries, but other countries aren't America.  They aren't set up the same way.  The idea is that private companies competing with one another will drive prices lower and improve healthcare because they are constantly trying to one-up each other.  That side also argues that those of us who work every day should not be held responsible for the healthcare of those who don't, can't, or won't.  On the other side of the fence, the argument goes that we are already taking care of those people.  There are hospitals that don't require insurance, and the way I understand it those hospitals pay for treatments out of taxes.  That's still your money and mine, it just gets to those people in a different way.  Also they argue that private industry is not so great as it might be made out to be.  Competition is SUPPOSED to keep prices down and quality up... but time and time again (not just in the medical industry) we have seen where private industry almost seems to work together, AGAINST us... slowly raising prices, coming up with more and newer ways to cut corners and provide less service for more money.  Honestly private industry can be a bit of a dick sometimes, and while government may not have been designed to handle something as massive as Universal Healthcare, it can probably do a better job of keeping things fair.  I give the edge to Obama and his pals on this one.  I'm not a big fan of handing ANYTHING over to the government, but the reality is that private health insurance has done nothing but prove that they are a money-making machine.  Rates go up, coverage goes down, and more and more they are finding ways to establish reasons why they can't cover those of us who actually need it most.

   On Taxes -- Obama says he wants to raise taxes on the wealthy while keeping rates the same for everyone else.  Romney wants to lower taxes for everyone across the board.  They've both traded barbs over the specifics of their plans, while neither of them has really provided us with those specifics.  Romney says he'll cut out loopholes in order to make up the difference.  I don't get that.  Obama says it's time for the rich to carry more of a burden.  Why?  First off, I don't think the taxes are the root of our problem as much as our spending.  Our government spends sooooo much money... from the massive military, to the sloppy and un-policed social programs, right down to the ludicrously large (and permanent) paychecks that our elected officials earn.  THAT should be what these politicians are addressing, not the taxes.  But if we're going to talk about taxes, I'm going t lean Romney's way on this topic.  While I agree that the rich should do their part, I don't believe they should be obligated to do any larger part than the rest of us.  That, I believe, is the road to Socialism.  What we don't want to do is get to a point in this country to where you are penalized for being rich.  I'm definitely not rich, and if Obama is being honest about his plan, it would probably help me more than Romney's.  But that doesn't matter.  What matters is how FAIR both of these plans are, for EVERYBODY.  It's time for us all to face some hard facts: some people are going to be rich.  Some people aren't.  Some people will always be in the middle.  That's life.  That's what makes this country work.  But taxing people more because they are successful is not a good formula.  In my opinion, the better formula is to give everyone more money in their pockets so that they will hopefully turn around and spend it, pumping more into the economy and juicing it back up again.

   I was going to do a bit on foreign policy, but after that last debate it appears the two guys are pretty close on most of those topics.  I'm not saying that is a bad thing either... I think Obama has some good plans in place, and there's no reason for Romney to disagree just for the sake of disagreeing.

   Honestly I did think these were all pretty good debates.  Biden made a bit of an ass of himself in the VP debate, but that's just how Biden is.  Can you believe that at one point that dude was gunning for the presidency?  Sigh.  Anyway, the townhall debate was definitely Obama's.  That's more his style, informal, off the cuff.  Romney was stiff and awkward, even in his walking around he looked like he was very out of place.  It kind of reminded me of the Nixon Kennedy debates (which yes, I only heard about).  The third debate was a little more straightforward, but it seemed like Obama was trying his best to ride his momentum.  Honestly I feel like that debate could have gone either way.  So much of it was agreement between the two candidates, it really wasn't much of a debate.  I'd give Romney a SLIGHT edge in that one, if for no other reason than the fact that he didn't come across as aggressive and he did a better job of pulling the discussion away from foreign policy (where it was supposed to be) and focusing more on domestic issues (which is what people actually care about).

   I'm not going to sit here and try to sway your vote one way or another.  All I'm going to ask is that you keep an open mind and try to see things from as many different angles as you can.  I know that's tough, I certainly don't always do a good job of it.  These are two very smart, very capable men.  They both have very different views for how to get the country back on track, and I'm not in a position to say that either one of them is wrong.  During the debates they have both made compelling arguments for their cases.  What I will say is this.  Romney is a man who has made a living out of turning things around.  Of righting ships.  I personally do believe that he has a better understanding of the economy, and while he may fall short in other areas, that is the priority right now.  However, while he may have a better grasp on what the problem is and how to fix it, he's also going to be in a very different position than he was in the private sector.  He can't just close a failing business and repurpose its funds anymore.  He has an entire country to worry about now, and those types of harsh, capitalist ideas don't tend to go over too well.  Obama appears to be a much more compassionate man.  He sells himself (and I believe he is genuine) as the guy who stands up for you, for us, for the little guy.  He wants to be an equalizer, which on paper might sound dangerous, but in practice he sees (like many of us do) that the rich are squashing the rest of us.  They are riding on their successes and holding a lot of us down in the process.  So while the differences between these two is very clear, the decision between them, at least for me, is not.

   Alright I think that's enough politics, don't you?  I'm kinda getting burned out here.  Let's do some movies and call it a night.

The Muppets

   From Netflix:  When Kermit the Frog and the Muppets learn that their beloved theater is slated for demolition, a sympathetic human, Gary, and his puppet roommate, Walter, swoop in to help the gang put on a show and raise the $10 million they need to save the day.
   My Take:  I haven't really kept up with the Muppets over the years.  I watched their original movie way back in the 80s, and it was incredible.  But I guess that was always enough for me.  If I've learned anything from "The Land Before Time," it's that a lot of times the original movie is all you need.  The sequels just turn into money-making garbage.  Now I'm not saying that's the case with the Muppets... Jim Hensen was a classy guy, and I can't see him allowing his product to sell out.  But the point I'm trying to get at is that Hensen didn't produce this movie.  Jason Segal did.  And while Segal was obviously very into the idea of this movie, I just wasn't sure if he was going to be able to pull off the same level of magic.
   But he did.
   "The Muppets" is a touching, heartfelt, and deeper-than-you-think story.  It tugs at the nostalgia strings way more than I ever thought it would.  And while it has its share of silly, childish humor, I think there's no doubt that Segal made this movie for adults.  It's safe for kids don't get me wrong... but the themes, the emotion, it's all very grown up in that regard.
   If you were ever a fan of the muppets, you owe it to yourself to see this movie.  It will take you right back to your childhood.  Enjoy the moment.

Haywire

   From Netflix:  A last-minute mission in Dublin turns deadly for stunning secret operative Mallory Kane when she realizes she's been betrayed -- and that her own life is no longer safe. Now, to outwit her enemies, she'll simply have to outlast them.

   My Take:  Hmmm.  When I stopped watching this movie, my first reaction was "hey that was pretty good."  But the more I think about it, the more I realize that no, really, it was not.  It has all the makings of an action-packed thriller.  There's great fighting, there are tons of plot twists, you don't know who's who and who's going to turn on who.  Except you do.  The entire first half of the movie is explained by the main character.  It's all told through flashbacks, and it's all explained.  I would say I get it, that they were trying to be meta or whatever... but really I think they just realized that the story was so out there and vague that without explanation there was no way the viewer would be able to hang.  Okay, I appreciate the help, but I would have much preferred you to not be lazy with your filmmaking.

   Granted, the flashbacks stop about 3/4 of the way through the movie... but by then you're kinda lost.  I felt like I had no attachment to the main character, other than the fact that she was mildly attractive and kicked a whole helluva lot of ass.  But the final scene of the movie is supposed to be some kind of payoff (I think), and I just was like "meh."

   I dunno.  Prove me wrong.  Check out this movie for yourself and let me know what you think.  Maybe I just missed the point.  I was eating some particularly good pasta while watching it, so maybe I was distracted.

The Descendants

   From Netflix:  With his wife on life support in the wake of an accident, an affluent landowner tries to mend his broken relationships with his daughters. All the while, he's weighing his marriage -- and the decision to sell land his family has owned for decades.

   My Take:  Here's George Clooney in a role that I like.  He's not some crazy action guy.  He's not a mastermind.  He's not even a silly jailbird (even though I do like him in that role too).  He's a father, a guy who is relatively clueless and harmless and dealing with something that is way out of his league.

   At first I thought this was going to be a sad movie.  Then I was completely thrown by the twist in the plot.  It was still a sad movie, but it had so much more layered into it... it really was enjoyable.  I don't know if it was Clooney or the script or the music or what, but I found myself actually feeling ambivalent about what I was seeing on the screen... just like the actors.  I hope that was the goal, because it worked.

   This isn't a fun movie to watch.  It's got some tough issues.  It's very real and it's sort of defeating.  But it's worth it.  It's a good role for Clooney, the kids and really the rest of the actors were all good as well.  It's an emotional wreck, but it's genuine and that makes it worth watching.

   I was going to write about the Texans sucking.  But then they didn't suck.  So I think I'm going to reserve my judgement for now.  All I'll say is that Kubiak and the gang better wake up and realize they can't "run the clock out" on the rest of the season like they have been in their blowout games.  There are a lot of teams, even one or two in our division, who are out for blood.  Until next time...

Vote Schmote

   You probably expected me to come out of the gate with some undoubtedly brilliant writing concerning the Vice Presidential Debate.  Well, be patient my friends, it's coming.  But first I want to take a moment to once again address the problem of voter turnout in this country.  Once again I want to show you everything that's wrong with our election system and how that directly contributes to the lack of interest in voting.  And being the nice guy I am, once again I am going to offer solutions that would fix it all.

   Get Rid of the Electoral College System - This is the single biggest problem with the election system.  The electoral college takes the popular vote, crumples it up, and throws it out the window.  Oh sure it made sense, like a hundred years ago, when the election was determined by a bunch of dudes on horseback who had to travel to DC and report on the results from their states.  It might have made more sense back then for them to simply say "Texas is for Wilson" than for them to roll up with thousands of pieces of paper tucked under their arms.  But while politics may not have changed much in the last 100 years, the country has.  There is no longer a need for an electoral college.  What that does in states like, say Arizona, is give liberals and democrats absolutely no incentive to vote.  You know the state is going to go Republican, so why bother?  The election ultimately comes down to a very small group of people in a very small number of states.  And the candidates spend millions and millions of dollars lying to those people trying to get them to swing one way or the other.  That doesn't sound like Democracy to me.

   Eliminate Campaign Spending Ability - We're actually going in the WRONG direction on this problem.  What we should be doing is limiting campaign spending across the board.  No special interest groups.  No Super PACs.  Each candidate should be given a set allowance, and that allowance should be the same for each candidate.  Instead, we're allowing them to break their banks outspending one another.  And don't act like political ads don't work... I consider myself a pretty smart person, but when there are a million people on the ballot and you can't remember who's who, I have recalled those ads and let them swing my vote if for no other reason than just because it was a name I was a little bit familiar with.  That's wrong.  Honestly it's better to go in blind than to let some shitty political ad tell me which way to vote.  My point is, we are now telling candidates to "go ahead and BUY the election."  He or she who spends the most, wins.  That is not democracy, and it's also annoying because political ads are ridiculous.

   Bring Voting Online - Oh yeah, there it is, the bomb.  "Are you kidding me?  There would be so much fraud!  That's the dumbest idea I've ever heard!"  Now wait just a minute.  Before you go flying off the handle, really consider this for a minute.  How many times have you entered your social security number online?  How many times have you handed over your checking account?  Hell, I bet you give your credit card number to the damn pizza guy when you order.  The idea that there would be massive fraud during the election is sort of hilarious to me.  Don't get me wrong, I'm sure people would TRY to hack in and screw with the election... but if we can keep China from breaking in to wall street I think we can keep hackers at bay for a presidential election.  It's simple... use your social security number to log in (add a driver's license number for added security if you like), cast your vote, hit submit, then log out.  Done and done.  It's no big deal.  I just don't get why everyone makes such a mountain out of this idea... I guarantee you this would increase voter turnout at least tenfold.  I know I would be much more apt to get off my ass and vote if I didn't have to go stand in line for an hour or two.

   Ultimately, nothing is going to fix the apathy of our voters except for making them realize just how lucky they are to have the ability to vote in the first place.  I think it would be awesome if this country required every resident to visit and volunteer in a third-world country before they could gain citizenship.  Make them understand just how good we have it here, and then maybe (just maybe) they would be a little more apt to take part in the political system.  As it stands right now we can't do anything that drastic, but we can at least make it to where your vote counts for something, and so that it isn't such a pain in the ass to go do something as simple as vote.

Malarchy!

   Alright let's get to it.  The Vice Presidential Debate, while far less important in the grand scheme of things, was far more exciting than the Presidential Debate.  I'll get to the issues here in a second, but really this debate was more about character than anything.  On one side of the table, you had a young, smart, energetic, unproven Paul Ryan.  On the other side was the wildcard, the guy who could say or do anything and pretty much get away with it, the passionate Joe Biden.

   And depending on which side of the fence you were on, Biden was either a passionate, well-spoken, heartfelt supporter of Barack Obama... or a buffoon who made an ass out of himself in front of the nation.  I consider myself a moderate, but I have to say I was a little offended by Biden's actions and mannerisms.  It's one thing to be passionate... it's another thing to be rude.  He continually stepped on Ryan's lines, interrupted both Ryan and the moderator, pointed his finger, laughed at statements made by Ryan... it was kind of like watching a little kid fight with an adult.

   Ryan, on the other hand, was limp.  He was well-rehearsed, but up against someone like Biden I think that counted against him.  It came across to me like he was nervous about going off the beaten path.  He was unable to improvise, even to respond directly to a question posed to him by Biden or the moderator.  It was a safe play, but it was also one that could wind up hurting his party in the long run.  I only recall one time where he stood up to Biden's actions, and even then it was a half-attempt ("let's stop interrupting each other?"  Seriously?  That's all you got?)

   And further, the moderator in my opinion was very weak.  She allowed interruptions, she left issues without responses.  She allowed both candidates to make highly inflammatory remarks about each other, and then simply moved on to other issues.  It was like she was in a race to get to that final issue: abortion.  And really, with everything else going on in this country, is abortion really something that should be deciding this election?  You may think so.  I don't.  Not saying it's not an important issue... but I think the possibility of nuclear war with Iran and a crashing economy sort of take the front seat right now.

   One thing I don't get... why don't Romney and Ryan explain their tax plan?  I get what they're trying to say... why don't they?  It's simple.  Romney has a goal for his tax plan.  He wants to cut them across the board, and make up the difference by closing loopholes and whatnot.  That is the endgame.  How you GET to that endgame is up in the air.  It will take Democrats and Republicans working together, finding those loopholes, determining what gets closed and who needs to pay what.  If they could just figure out how to explain that, I think they would win a lot of points and actually be able to put Obama back on his heels a little bit.  But they can't.  When the moderator demands specifics, they just stand there, clammy, and the media licks its chops because it now has even more to talk about.  If I'm in the Romney campaign, I'm spending an entire meeting trying to get them to figure out how to explain what should be a simple answer to the question.  They've already wasted too much time standing there with their mouths open on this one.

   And yet, despite all of my complaining, I will say again that I think this was one of the best debates I've ever watched.  This is by far the easiest election I've ever seen.  Not to say my DECISION will be easy, but determining who stands where on the issues is, for once, not a problem.  "Romney wants tax relief for the rich," "Obama wants a welfare state," you can spin it however you want... at least you know where these guys stand on the issues.  I salute them for that.  And if nothing else, Biden sure was fun to watch.

Paul

   From Netflix:  Nick Frost and Simon Pegg star as two science-fiction freaks who, while on a quest to discover what lies at the heart of Nevada's infamous Area 51, cross paths with an alien (voice of Seth Rogen) on the run from earthly authorities. The irreverent duo that brought us Shaun of the Dead assembled an impressive cast that includes Jane Lynch, Jason Bateman, Kristen Wiig and Blythe Danner for this raucous cross-country romp.

   My Take:  Boy this one set in my DVR for a while.  Not sure why... I really like Simon Pegg and Nick Frost.  Usually I would jump at a chance to see one of their movies (well, maybe not "Hot Fuzz," but you get the point).  I think it was the concept of this movie.  A pot-smoking, foul-mouthed alien runs into two sci-fi geeks and they have an adventure.  Yawn.

   Well, I was half-right.  The movie pretty much IS what I said it was, but it wasn't nearly as boring as I thought it would be.  While definitely not "laugh-out-loud" funny, it did have some great moments.  The casting was fantastic... even Jason Bateman was surprisingly good.  Like most movies by these two, the bulk of the action takes place in the end, ramping up suddenly and not letting go until the credits roll.

   Ultimately, I will admit that I enjoyed this movie.  It's not one I would buy, but if you enjoy these guys' quirky style, you definitely won't be disappointed by what they've put together here.

Badlands

   From Netflix:  Young garbageman Kit Carruthers (Martin Sheen) and his girlfriend, Holly (Sissy Spacek), kill Holly's father in South Dakota and hit the road on the run from the law. Writer-director Terrence Malick's script (for his feature film debut), based on real murders committed by a couple in 1958, does not judge its characters as they make their way to the Badlands of Montana, leaving a trail of senseless and random murders in their wake.

   My take:  I rented this based on how much I disliked "The Tree Of Life."  I have a friend who is a huge Terence Malick fan, and while even SHE agreed that "Tree of Life" was a miss, she said "well, you gotta see 'Badlands,' THAT'S a great movie."

   I guess.

   The first strike against this movie is one that can't be helped: it's old.  It feels old.  The film quality is meh, the acting is pretty bleh, and the story overall is just kinda boring.  Malick's movies usually aren't what I would consider exciting, but at least the writing is meaningful and the cinematography is gorgeous.  I guess he was still developing these talents when he made "Badlands."  What was already well in place was Malick's sort of perverse look at life.  A dog lying dead next to a trash can and two guys have a simple conversation about it?  Yep.  A weird relationship between a mid-20's dude and a 15-year-old girl?  Check.  Sudden, heartless, stoic violence?  Got it.  These are traits that Malick has fine-tuned in his later movies, but I guess you could say this is where it all started.

   I dunno, everybody's gotta start somewhere.  But I don't think I would suggest "Badlands" as THE go-to Malick flick.  I'll just stick to "The Thin Red Line" and call it a day.  You probably should to.  If you're a huge Malick fan, chances are you've already seen this one.  Hell you might even like it.  But if you're on the fence or don't even know who the guy is, don't bother with this one.  Pass.

   You ever feel like this guy?

   The flower, not the toaster (come on, who EVER feels like a toaster?)

   Have a nice day.

Are You Not Entertained?

   So I was watching TV the other night when a promo came on for the final season of "Jersey Shore."  I've never watched "Jersey Shore" and I really have no desire to (though I do enjoy saying "smush room"), but seeing this promo I came to a startling, disturbing realization.

   Reality Stars are this era's Gladiators.

   Hear me out.

   During Roman times, Gladiators were either captured or enslaved and the forced to combat each other, wild animals, weird machines, etc, in order to "entertain" the Roman people.  It was violent, it was brutal, but it was all the people had... and they put a lot of stock into their respected warriors in the ring.  We Americans like to think of ourselves as being more civilized than all that... and as far as the violence thing goes, we may be right.  But we are no more mature than that civilization.  The only difference we now have more toys.

   But surely there are better examples of gladiators.  Football players?  Ultimate Fighters?  Even "Pro" Wrestlers fit the bill better than Reality Stars, right?  Well, I beg to differ.

   Even though the whole concept of "reality" star is flawed, they are much closer to the idea of a Gladiator.  They are put on display every week, standing in front of millions of people, making complete asses of themselves.  They shame each other, they embarrass themselves, they put up with all kinds of challenges.  And for what?  Some money?  "Fame?"  I don't get it.

   Actually I do.  It's because they don't have anything better going for them, and because we as a society have come to love watching them fail.  Sure someone wins at the end of "The Amazing Race" or "Survivor," but that's not really why people watch those shows.  They watch for the drama, for the fighting, for the failures.  And shows like "Jersey Shore" are simply a "best of" in those departments.  There is no objective for "Jersey Shore" other than to entertain people who like watching a bunch of mildly intelligent people act like morons.

   I'm not saying we should be ashamed of this.  I'm not saying anything about it, really.  You can all be your own judges.  I know I'm guilty.  I watch "Hell's Kitchen" even though it's one of the more ridiculous shows on television.  I know it, yet I sit in front of the TV and watch it religiously.  Why?  Because I'm no better than the Romans.  The only difference is when I try to eat grapes lying down I choke.

Come Out Swinging...

   Finally, a debate worth watching.  I sat through the whole thing expecting yet another round of throwing insults at one another, challenging each other on non-issues based on non-facts, slinging charges at one another that neither could answer.  But I'm happy to say that I was pleasantly surprised by both Mitt Romney and Barack Obama during this first debate.  Both men were civilized, presenting intelligent arguments, not getting nasty (well, not really), and in the end I think it turned out to be a healthy discussion.

   There are two big things about this debate to take away.  First, we have to very smart and well-spoken men running for office.  Second, this is going to be the easiest election ever, because never have I ever seen a bigger gap in the beliefs between the two candidates.  But before I delve any deeper, I owe you some back story.

   I'm going to tell you my political beliefs.  You may not care.  That's fine, feel free to skip this bit.  But I feel like if I'm going to sit here and talk about politics and speeches and debates, then you deserve at least to know my stance on the whole thing.  For starters, I consider myself a true middle-grounder.  I have voted both ways in past elections (sometimes during the same election), and I tend to base my votes on character. I do that because I believe a man or woman can sit there and tell you what you want to hear all day, but ultimately his or her character is going to determine what kind of President he or she will be.

   In social issues I tend to be very liberal.  You have the right to live your lifestyle the way you see fit, and so long as you aren't harming or harassing anyone else, you can do whatever you want.  If you think you can lead a productive life and do drugs, go right ahead.  If you think abortion is fine and you can live with that on your conscience then by all means do what you think is right.  If you want to worship God, or if you want to insult Him, that is your choice and your right.

   In fiscal issues I am definitely more conservative-leaning.  I believe that the free market should determine its own fate.  I don't think the government has any right or does any good by over-regulating or sticking its nose into private enterprise.  I think the smaller the government is, the better.

   In matters of defense I am very much isolationist.  We have no right and no business policing the world.  The world has a pretty negative view of us, but I think that's because they don't realize what we do for them on a daily basis.  If our troops and our funds left their country, think about how much more secure and rich we would be.  And think about what would happen when those countries realized just how badly they need us.  We would become the heroes of the world once again, and we would not have families split because one member is a soldier stationed overseas.

   Of course, all of these issues become very cloudy and are much more complicated than I just wrote them out.  And that's why, even though I say this election should be the easiest one ever, it has me more on the fence than I have ever been before.

   It would be great if the free market could truly regulate itself... if competition truly kept prices down.  But the fact is that it doesn't.  Just look at cell phone companies.  They are making money hand-over-fist.  They are so big and so controlling of the assets that no little company stands any chance of serving up real competition.  And they have "gentlemens' agreements" which prevent them from directly competing with one another on several levels.  In the meantime their prices have only gone up, charging more and more for data, for their phones, for features that we don't need.  The same thing is happening with electricity.  In Houston, power used to be regulated.  Then it privatized, and the argument was that the competing companies will keep the costs down.  That certainly has not happened.  I don't care how much more expensive energy has become, when I was paying almost $200/month for electricity in Houston and then moved to a bigger apartment in Sacramento (where power is regulated), and the most I ever paid was $45... there's something wrong here.  We lose those fights, and there's no one to stop these companies except for the government.  That brings up a whole other issue.  HOW does the government stop it?  Should the government directly influence and control those prices?  Or is it enough for government to simply enter the private world as another competitor, the "Wal-Mart" of cell phone companies for example?  Well, I suppose that depends on who you vote for.

   The real issue is that there are two very smart, very capable, very passionate men running for office.  They both have good morals, and they both want what's best for this country.  They have very different views on how to get there, but they both want the same end result.  And I think when you put the two of them up against each other, it makes for a very good and compelling argument.

   Obama had some good knocks going after Romney on specifics.  He accurately pointed out that Romney has made grand statements about what he wants to do, but he has not revealed how he plans to do those things.  I thought he had Romney cold, but then Romney responded well by saying that he doesn't have specifics because he's waiting to see what happens when he approaches congress.  I'm not quoting him directly here, but I thought it was very interesting when he said that in order to truly compromise you have to approach these things with an open mind and no "my way or the highway" mentality.  Great defense for a great argument.

   Another good one was the whole Obamacare issue.  I thought Obama was going to corner Romney when he started talking about how Romney had the same healthcare system when he was Governor of Massachusetts.  But again Romney dodged the bullet by saying that it worked for his state, and that's what he planned to do (give healthcare back to the states).

   On the flip side, I think Obama did a great job of appealing to the people.  He made it very clear that he is trying to watch out for them, that his main goal is to make sure none of us are taken advantage of and that we all get a fair shake.  I think he did a better job of that than Romney.

   Ultimately this is probably the most important election I've ever been a part of.  It's not just our country -- it's the entire world that will be affected by the outcome of this election.  Both of these guys have good ideas, and both of them have flaws.  But the good news like I said, they are both smart, and there's not a wildcard that could get us launched into a nuclear war... at least I hope not.

My Wife Is Not The Issue Here Dude

   Wow what a commotion over a tiny little piece of papyrus.  Or canvas.  Or whatever that thing is that someone wrote on claiming that Jesus had a wife.  Now there's talk of blasphemy and people freaking out because they are realizing that -- shocker -- their religious leaders may have at best been mistaken, and at worst been flat-out lying to them about Jesus and the religion that they have followed so dearly.

   I'm going to just say something here, and you can call me a blasphemer and you can hate me and you may never speak to me again if you like, but I'm going to say it anyway.  There is a difference between being religious and being spiritual.  It may sound like a small difference, but it is a very important difference.  Let me just remind you that when Mohammed walked the Earth, when Jesus was around, there was no Christianity.  There was no Islam.  These are religions created by MAN, based on something that is basically IMPOSSIBLE for man to ever comprehend.

   I can only really speak for Christianity because that's how I was raised and I have at least a fundamental understanding of that religion.  You know how the stories go... when Jesus was risen, a bunch of religious leaders convened and said "okay how are we going to do this Bible thing?"  They took a bunch of scriptures and put them together, and some they left out.  Why?  What gave them the right to choose what went in and what was left out?  These were imperfect beings trying to understand perfection.  And yet, these imperfect beings determined an entire religion based on their beliefs!

   That religion, along with many others, has been the instigator of wars.  Religion has caused death, it has caused bribery, it has caused people to do terrible, terrible things, and all in the name of someone who probly would be very upset about this fact.

   And suddenly here comes this little piece of paper which challenges everything.  Just a few simple words that are now getting attention in Time Magazine and threaten to turn religion on its head.  It's causing denials from church leaders, calling it a fake, saying that there's no way it can be true, etc etc etc.

   So what if Jesus had a wife?  Who cares?  What really is the damage that causes?  Other than the fact that Catholic Priests will probably feel a little ripped off for staying single and celibate, I just don't see the big issue here.  Is the Christian religion really that afraid to admit that it might have been wrong about something?  Is that really what religion is all about?

   If you've never seen "Kingdom of Heaven," I HIGHLY recommend that you watch it.  Watch the Director's Cut.  It's long, it's epic, it covers a lot of ground.  But in my opinion there is no better move to describe the differences between spiritualism and religion.  In its most simple terms, religion is man-made.  Spiritualism goes beyond.  And spirituality does not fight wars over land or "holy" relics.  It does not lead to hatred over beliefs.  It does not segregate or separate.  It accepts all comers.  It is moral.  It holds certain universal truths: be kind to others.  Be a good person.  Be generous.  Do the right thing.  It's ingrained in all of us (even though some of us have a harder time with it than others).  And it doesn't ruin your world if you find out that one of the most spiritual and amazing people that ever lived, may have had a wife.

   Hoo man we've covered some serious ground so far in this one.  How about some movie reviews?

Rise Of The Planet Of The Apes

   From Netflix:  This reboot of the Planet of the Apes franchise is a prequel set in modern-day San Francisco, where scientists are conducting genetic research on apes. The evolved primates develop advanced intelligence and revolt against being used as lab rats.

   My Take:  I've actually never sat through the old "Planet of the Apes" movies.  I know the story, I know the iconic scenes.  But I just was never really that interested in the concept.  It just never did anything for me personally.  I watched this movie for two reasons: one, because Colin said it was really good.  And two, because I have the movie channels right now and I have just been DVRing like a mad-man.

   The very first thing I noticed was the CGI.  It was good in most parts, but horrific in others.  I heard a lot of ballyhooing about how great the CGI was in this movie, and while it was cool, I certainly wouldn't put it up against "Transformers" or "Avatar."  What they did do very well was capture the emotion in the facial expression of the computerized apes.  I'll give 'em that much.

   This movie was actually surprisingly good.  It took a concept that really is kind of ridiculous and made lemonade out of those lemons.  Of course, you can't escape certain things... like the fact that there's no way a bunch of smart apes could defeat armed police.  It's silly to think that there wouldn't be better security at the pharmaceutical company where this guy worked.  Forget the fact that he was just able to walk out of there with experimental drugs... let's talk about the fact that there was apparently NO safety glass in that entire building and the apes could just break it with no problem.

   And yet, while there were several flaws in this movie, and while some of those flaws were laughably bad, I did have a good time watching it.  I actually sort of wanted the apes to win in the end.  And I really liked how they tied this in to the story of the "Planet of the Apes" that was such a big deal back in the day.  Props to the creators for paying respect to their elders.

   You might as well see this movie.  Why not?  It's fun, it's got some cool moments.  It also has some good (unintentional) laughs.  And it's got one of the worst titles for a movie I've ever seen in my life.  Seriously.

The Assassination Of Jesse James By The Coward Robert Ford

   From Netflix:  After Robert Ford joins the most notorious gang in the West, he grows tired of the charismatic Jesse James and begins to resent his widespread fame. But by hatching a scheme to gun down James, Ford risks forever being branded a coward.

   My Take:  I absolutely love movies like this.  Movies like this one don't take any shame in the fact that they are reading more like a book than a movie.  That doesn't always work, but to me Westerns are your best chance at success.  Plus you had some fantastic actors in this movie.  Even Sam Rockwell, who I thought for sure was going to be the weak link, surprised me.

   I actually started this movie a while back.  I rented it from Netflix, got about an hour into it, and then the disc skipped.  I pulled it out to reveal a giant scratch that I couldn't fix.  So I sent it back in disgust and never finished it... until now.

   I'm glad I gave it another shot.  I didn't really understand the movie last time I watched it, but this time it all made sense.  There's a lot going on here.  A lot of deep character development.  You have to know names.  You have to pay attention.  The movie is pretty merciless in that regard.  But it's a great story, and a very interesting look into the way things worked back in those times.  It's amazing the power one man can wield over another -- how that man can seem invincible despite the fact that he is just another human being like me or you.  But it happens.  It even happens today.  And that is fascinating.

   The music in this movie is also very moving.  Sort of odd, just like the movie itself... but it just has an interesting tone to it that fits perfectly and is also beautiful to listen to.  Unfortunately it's just weird enough that I can't justify buying it ha ha.

   And also unfortunately, I'm afraid I can't recommend this movie.  It's good, but it's definitely not for everyone.  It's slow, it plods, it has a definite pace that may or may not work for you.  If you like movies that hold your attention but also require your attention, or if you like westerns, or if you think Brad Pitt is a badass (which I happen to think), then sure, give it a shot.  But if you don't make it through, don't say I didn't warn you.

The Sitter

   From Netflix:  Jonah Hill stars in this giddy comedy about a student whose suspension from college leaves him available to baby-sit his mom's neighbors' children. The poor guy, however, has no idea what fate and the kids have in store for him.

   My Take:  This movie showed me one thing: Jonah Hill is not good as a standalone actor.  He is just one of those guys who needs to support.  He was hilarious in "Superbad."  In "Cyrus?"  Scary... weird... awesome. But in this movie he just never pops the way he should.  He's funny, sure, but he never reaches the level that he can when he's bouncing off another actor.  And having the tag-along kids just wasn't good enough.

   The good news is, the kids were pretty cool.  They were funny and they were good actors -- but I don't know if I would have let my kid star in a movie like this.  This is definitely not a kids movie.  It's no "Tooth Fairy," starring The Rock, that's for sure.  There are some very adult, very ridiculous situations in this movie.

   I think where "The Sitter" loses me is when it gets so unbelievably ridiculous and there is just no attempt to tie up any of the loose ends.  The guy steals two cars.  No cops.  They break into and blow up a jewelry store.  Where's the police presence?  Oh there they are -- no wait, they are corrupt and now there are no cops again.  Crazy drug lord with a gun?  Sure makes sense, and yet again, no cops.  You have to tie up the loose ends.  Even "Stealing Harvard," which gets absolutely ridiculous, ties up the loose ends.  What about the suing that would surely take place once the family found their van?  What about his Dad whose son just stole his car AND blew up his jewelry store?  We just never see any of that, and instead we're treated to some borderline racism and a half-attempt at Hill trying to instill confidence in a bunch of kids who he really doesn't know and went from hating to loving in all of 15 minutes.

   My point is, this movie is funny, but it just never gets "there."  It doesn't have that certain special something that makes it worth watching.  Or recommending.  Better luck next time.

   Whew, let's try to lighten up on the next entry, huh folks?  I'll do my best.  Until next time...

Iran Away

   Man is it just me, or is there nothing really to talk about right now?  Oh there's plenty going on... politics are in full-swing, but it's just more of the same.  Both candidates are so deeply entrenched in their own ideas, I really don't see much changing there until maybe after the first debate.  There's still plenty of anger in the middle east, but now that we're locked down and out of the danger zone, it seem like it's capturing much less interest in the public eye.  Fancy that -- when it doesn't directly affect us, we don't care.  Whaddya know?

   Oh here's something.  Iran is a nightmare.  Israel is about to start something the probably shouldn't, and probably won't be able to finish without US help.  And our government is just sitting here with its tongue tied, doing nothing.  Election years are rough, eh?

   Look I don't want Iran to have nuclear weapons any more than the next guy, but this is a delicate and awkward situation, one that could have far reaching implications.  And so I might be shunned for saying this, but really who the hell are we to say whether or not Iran is allowed to develop nuclear weapons?  Why is it that we're allowed to have them, that our pals over in India and Pakistan are allowed to have them, that our not-so-pals Russia are allowed to have them, that a nutjob in North Korea is allowed to have them, and Iran isn't?

   There are lots of reasons, I get it.  Iran is a pretty extreme government.  They have plans of their own that would at least destabilize the region, and at most wipe Israel completely off the map.  They probably wouldn't hesitate too much to attack America either, if they had the chance.  And unlike the nutzo in North Korea, Iran does have means to cause some real damage.
   But if Iran isn't allowed to have nuclear weapons, why is anyone?  We shouldn't be saying "do as we say not as we do."  We're Americans, and we're better than that.  Leading the world by threatening them with nukes is not a very effective way to lead the world, if you ask me.
   I also take issue with the idea of sanctioning Iran to try to get them to stop building nukes... er... researching nuclear power for powerplants.  That's what they say they're doing with it, right?  Whatever.  I don't think sanctions are not the answer.  Sanctions would work here in the US, in Europe, even in Russia.  But in countries like China, and (obviously) Iran, the people are so battered down, so afraid to stand up against their government, that sanctions are pretty pointless.  I mean that's what sanctions are designed to do, right?  To make people so miserable that they rise up and demand change from their government?  If the Arab Spring wasn't enough to get Iran up in arms, I doubt our sanctions are going to have any kind of effect.
   The people we're trying to stop don't care about sanctions... they still get their food, they still live a lavish lifestyle.  It's the people at the bottom, the people who are not in leadership roles, who are getting screwed.  And while yes they may hate their government officials, and they may wish that there was some way to overthrow them, they won't rise up to do it.  Instead, they will hate the West for putting the sanctions in place.  They will rebel against us.  They will burn our flag in the street and call us the great satan.  And we will take it, and we will regret it down the road because these people will discover that America is a much easier and more effective outlet for their anger than their own government.  This is not the way to do it.
   Nope.  If we want to stop Ahmnendnagjad or whatever his name is, the only solution is to send in the troops.  I'm not talking about all-out war.  I'm talking about Seals, or Rangers, or whoever is the most badass elite unit we've got.  Send in Master Chief.  Do some covert shit, and take that guy out.  Take out him, his supporters in leadership, and take out that other guy who doesn't like him but is also a radical religious leader.
   Of course, we're not going to do that.  We're America, and "we don't do that kind of stuff."  Right.  It's dirty, but it's effective.  It pisses off a lot less people, and it puts a lot less people in danger.  It might send Iran into chaos, but in the end what's better?  Wait. before you answer that, ask yourself another question: what's better for America?  It really is two questions, and you really do have to answer both.  Because I think you could make the argument that if Iran was a nuclear power, the rest of the world would take it much more seriously.  That would probably be better for the people of Iran, even though it wouldn't be better for us.  Taking out Iran's leadership would definitely be better for the USA, but think about what it could do to the people of Iran.  You could wind up with another Syria.
   This is all heavy, heavy shit.  And it makes me wonder why anyone would want to be president.  My uncle says that the reason you never like the president is because the only people who run for president are crazy people, because who in their right mind would want to take on all of this responsibility?  Makes sense to me. But I do ask one thing of you, and of our President, and of the media, and of everyone.  Let's be the world leaders that we like to call ourselves, and let's try to think about this situation from all the different perspectives.  Let's realize that Iranians are every bit as human as we are, and they are allowed the same basic rights that we and the rest of the free world are allowed.  Let's stop talking about them like how badly we're going to punish them for being naughty, and instead let's try to recognize and understand their side of the situation.
   Right now you're probably sitting there nodding your head, saying "oh absolutely, I always do that."  Really?  How did you react when Ron Paul said this?  Be honest.

   Alright fair warning folks.  I've been watching some movies lately.  And by some I mean a lot.  Sorry, I've just been DVRing like a mad man, and it's not like there's a lot of great TV on these days.  So here we go...

Cyrus

   From Netflix:  Indie favorites Jay and Mark Duplass co-direct this wry look at modern love and family dysfunction. John C. Reilly plays a divorced man who thinks he's found just the right woman (Marisa Tomei) to help him recover and move on. Unfortunately, the woman's son, played by Jonah Hill, has no interest in allowing another man into their lives -- a stance he proceeds to demonstrate in a variety of obnoxious ways.

   My Take:  This movie annoyed the hell out of me.  Not because it was a bad movie.  It wasn't.  It was very good, actually.  The story was very real and believable.  Everyone in it was human, and honestly the situation itself isn't that outlandish.  It wasn't the actors that annoyed me.  I thought John C Reilly was perfect.  Marissa Tomei was beautiful and incredibly transparent.  Even Jonah Hill was the perfect mix of crazy, funny, and utterly sad.  What annoyed me about this movie was the soundtrack.

   The soundtrack to "Cyrus" is beautiful.  It is stirring, it is intelligent, it is amazing.  Just listen to this.  The whole movie is like that -- and that's not even the best variation on that theme.  And it annoys the hell out of me because this soundtrack was never officially released.

   How can you do that?  How can you make something so brilliant and then just throw it away?  Thomas Newman, my favorite composer, did that very same thing with arguably his best soundtrack ever (the soundtrack to "Phenomenon," which I eventually found and bought of some dude in Belgium who probably just copied a cassette tape to CD and charged me 40 bucks for it).

   If anyone finds this soundtrack, I would really, really appreciate it if you would let me know.  It just drives me nuts that I can't have that music in my library.  Seriously.  How can this happen?  Oh, see this movie.  It's raw, it's kind of embarrassing, but I think you'll like it.

J. Edgar

   From Netflix:  Leonardo DiCaprio stars in this riveting biopic as J. Edgar Hoover, the longtime FBI director as notorious for his overzealous methods of law enforcement as for the rumors regarding his cross-dressing and close relationship with protégé Clyde Tolson.

   My take:  I don't know if "riveting" is the word I would use to describe this movie.  It's two-plus hours of difficult to understand dialogue, boring story, and a hidden tangent that I really don't know is very accurate.  Why is it that Leonardo DiCaprio gets picked to do these types of movies.  He's not particularly good at "becoming" another person.  He sort of plays Leonardo DiCaprio.  The worst part is he had to play a really old guy in this movie... it was funny to watch, but I don't think it was the intent.  Pair him up with a guy who looks and sounds just like the dude from 2001, and I do mean PAIR him up, and it's just one awkward scene after another.  It covers too much ground.  Or maybe it focuses on the wrong things.  I don't know, it just misses its mark.

   Honestly I couldn't sit still through this entire movie.  I found myself getting up to go do chores.  I actually started washing dishes at one point.  And then I would remind myself that I was watching a movie... there were no commercial breaks... and force myself to sit back down.

   In other words, don't bother with this one.  Clint Eastwood, I expected more.

The Green Hornet

   From Netflix:  Seth Rogen and writing partner Evan Goldberg (Superbad) apply their trademark humor to the superhero genre in this big-screen action-adventure about a newspaper-publishing playboy (Rogen) who dons a disguise to fight crime after hours. As the Green Hornet, Britt Reid's power is no longer limited to the printed page -- and thanks to a nimble martial-arts expert (Jay Chou), he has the skills to expose the city's roughest criminals.

   My Take:  I don't really know anything about The Green Hornet.  Super Heroes like that were always kind of stupid to me... I preferred the ones who put on badass armor and shot repulsor rays out of their hands.  But I like Seth Rogan, and this seemed like the kind of movie he would have fun with, so I figured what the hey, I'll give it a shot.

   Meh.  That's the best I can offer for this movie.  Maybe it was the material, maybe it was the on screen chemistry... I'm sure it had something to do with Cameron Diaz.  Seriously, how does she still find work?  There are so many hotter, more capable actresses out there.  As soon as I saw her show up, I had half this review written in my head.

   There were some funny moments, but mostly it was just sort of "let's get this overwith."  You could see the plot twists coming a mile away, the places where the two friends part ways only to save each other at the end.  It was so formulaic it was depressing.  It's like Seth and company just wanted to play with some expensive toys that blow up.

   I dunno.  If you like weird superheroes, maybe you'll enjoy this movie.  I know I didn't.

Despicable Me

   From Netflix:  Villainous Gru lives up to his reputation as a despicable, deplorable and downright unlikable guy when he hatches a plan to steal the moon from the sky. But he has a tough time staying on task after three orphan girls land in his care.

   My Take:  I've talked a lot about how sad it is that the other animation houses can't touch Pixar.  Sure they can hire some funny writers and actors who can deliver funny lines... but they just don't reach the depth and pull the heartstrings like a Pixar movie can.  Well, "Despicable Me" is probably the closest I've seen anyone get.  And I think it all has to do with Steve Carell.

   Steve Carell, the guy who could make you feel really sorry for an idiot in a suit ("The Office, folks), has managed to do it in his animated form as well.  The animation itself is really good too.  Actually this whole movie is just really good.  It would be funny for kids, and it has some great moments for adults too.

   It feels weird to me saying you should watch a kids movie... so I'll say this.  If you have kids, or if you're babysitting kids, this is a good one to put on.  You won't be bored, and it will give you all something to talk about when the credits roll.

30 Minutes Or Less

   From Netflix:  Two small-town criminals (Danny McBride and Nick Swardson) planning a big-time bank heist wind up abducting pizza delivery driver Nick (Jesse Eisenberg) and forcing him to commit the robbery -- giving him a strict time limit to boot. To pull off the caper, Nick enlists the aid of a former buddy (Aziz Ansari). With the law, the crooks and the clock all breathing down their necks, the duo also try to patch up their troubled friendship in this frenetic action comedy.

   My Take:  Sigh.  How can you get this many funny people together and end up with a piece of shit movie? I don't know the answer, but after seeing "30 Minutes Or Less," I know it's possible.  First off, I'm really sort of sick of the dude who looks like and tries to be but definitely is not Michael Cera.  His whole nervous, fast-talking demeanor just doesn't do it for me anymore.  In fact, after watching "30 Minutes or Less," I actually mailed back an unwatched "The Social Network."  There are a lot of reasons for that -- not the least of which is that I could care less how some douchebag made millions of dollars doing almost nothing.  But one of the reasons was that I'm just sick of watching that guy in movies.

   There's a lot of talent in this movie but it just doesn't click.  The lines all miss their mark, with the exception of a couple like the one about the Third Eye Blind song.  Those are few and far-between, and it's almost like they are accidentally included.  There's very little chemistry between the characters, and what you basically wind up with is that mouthy guy from "Parks And Rec" shouting a bunch of one-liners that, while funny, were most likely added in post.

   Swing and a miss on this one.  Definitely not worth seeing.

Kill The Irishman

   From Netflix:  This true crime tale from director Jonathan Hensleigh charts the bloody rise and fall of Irish mobster Danny Greene, who faced down the Mafia to claim control of organized crime in Cleveland, Ohio, in the 1970s.

   My Take:  I had no idea what to expect going into this movie.  At first I thought maybe it was going to be another "Snatch" type movie with a bunch of glitzy editing.  Then I thought maybe it was going to be a weird period piece with a truly "70s" feel.  But about 1 minute into the movie I saw Val Kilmer, and I knew that this was going to be one I had to sit through all the way.  Ever since his performance in "Kiss Kiss Bang Bang," I have had a new respect for Kilmer, and he does not disappoint in this movie.  Christopher Walken is in it too.  So is Bullet-Tooth Tony (from "Snatch," oddly enough).  But neither of them hold a candle to Val Kilmer.  And Val Kilmer doesn't hold a candle to Ray Stevenson.

   I know very little about Danny Green and the whole story behind this movie, but if ANY of it is true, then that guy was nuts.  Trying to take on the mob?  Getouttaheah.  You know what I appreciate most about this movie though?  The authenticity.  They wove in actual news clips from the terrible murders and mafia hits, but whenever you saw Danny Greene, it was always Stevenson AS Greene.  It kept the illusion while giving it an authentic feel.  And you know what?  They were pretty much spot-on with the look too.  Very, very impressive.

   This is not an easy movie to watch.  It's violent, it's gritty, and unfortunately it seems very close to what actually happened.  Probably.  Like I said I don't know much about it.  Still, great movie, not what I expected, and something that I think would be worth your time.

   Whew!  That is some serious movie watching.  Have a great week everybody...