Sci-Fi Double Feature Worth Believing

This week I saw both X-Men Origins: Wolverine and Star Trek and I must say, Science Fiction never seemed so appealing… To begin, this installment of the X-Men film-experiments might just redeem the disaster the previous three movies of my favorite childhood cartoon had become. Wolverine is by no means in my top five mutants but I get that he has the biggest appeal as some sort of patriotic rebel, a loner with a cause, steel bones with a soft heart, whatever you want to call it. His past is certainly dynamic, eventful, and dramatic enough to make a prequel too. The story probably surprised me more than anything: After we get past the 10-min, hard-to-believe, intro where we learn that Logan and his brother, Victor Creed (Liev Schreiber) have fought side-by-side, in the Civil War, the World Wars, and Nam (really? I never thought of Wolverine as the devoutly patriotic type and I’m not sure if this was necessary) we proceed to present-day where Wolverine is part of a covert government assassin squad, alongside other morally-corrupt mutants. His conscience gets the better of him and he abandons the evil side for a calm life with his beautiful Canadian fiance. The rest of the film chronicles his search for revenge, redemption, and answers… At times, I thought it moved a little fast. We would see flashes of his journey in an attempt to get us logically to the next spot but I don’t think director Gavin Hood developed those smaller moments enough. I whole heartedly appreciate the inclusion of lesser-known mutants, and their individual personalities are a pleasant departure from the over stereotyped X-Men in the previous films, I only wish they were developed further. For example, we waited three movies to finally see Gambit and he is in the film for 15 min. and only uses his power once or twice… (Cyclops, my favorite character, was blind for most of the movie, but I guess we’ll develop him later.)

Other than that, I thought the story was “believable” and entertaining. Hood incorporated the right balance of special effects and personal character story. Unfortunately, the only unrealistic looking effect was Wolverine’s claws. For some reason the designers chose this to be the thing they spent the least amount of time on. Everything else looked great but those darn claws looked fake… The fight scenes are well worth the price of admission (even if die-hard comic book junkies might find issue with some of the story points). Overall, I found the film was way better than I thought it was going to be, and I’m excited to see the series move away from the cheesiness that it had become.

I watched the first season of Alias and never really got into Lost but I instantly became a fan of JJ Abrams after seeing his first venture into directing film, the latest installment of the classic Sci-Fi story, Star Trek. I should preface my thoughts by saying that I am by no means a Trekky, I’ve never seen a Star Trek movie before, but I did watch Star Trek: The Next Generation every night before bed in middle school. I had enough Trek knowledge to know that this movie looked younger, hipper, and more exciting than clips I had seen from the earlier films.

That being said, I was hooked from the very beginning! Origin stories can be a little heavy handed and either too boring or too quick. This was a great balance of character development and plot advancement. We meet James T. Kirk (Chris Pine) being recruited by Star Fleet and follow his journey across the galaxy fighting aliens, disrespecting authority, establishing those iconic relationships, and trying to save the day. One of the most fascinating features of this film is that I believe it would work for people with many different Trekky backgrounds. You don’t have to know much about the series to follow the plot, but, if you do, the one-liners and allusions are hilarious (and handled seriously, something not to be devalued). I don’t like to use the term “adrenaline thrill ride” too much because I think it’s thrown around a lot (or do we not remember the marketing for Valkyrie?) but I did not once lose interest or become distracted; I was reacting to every emotional up and down, laughed when appropriate, and empathized with the characters (a credit to Abrams’ delicate handling of the very popular subject matter and the possibly complicated plot (time travel is always difficult to follow in films..)).

The relationships created were believable and not a means to an end. I really appreciate the fact that all the characters were not introduced at the same time but we followed Kirk’s journey, and therefore understood how each one of the soon-to-be crew members of the Enterprise relates to him. Of particular interest is Karl Urban’s interpretation of Dr. McCoy: each of the supporting characters certainly did their homework in regards to the old school personas they brought back to life, and they found the essence of the humor, life, and personality of each one. Urban’s use of “Good God” and “I’m a doctor, not a_______ (insert profession)” were spot on and great to see created. John Cho and Simon Pegg also did wonders with Sulu and Scotty respectively. The entire cast was believable and interesting to watch as younger versions of the iconic crew. Eric Bana as the sole bad guy might have been the only blemish: his role (and acting?) seemed a little to big and too much at times and flirted with being over-the-top.

Abrams and his talented cast and crew understand the essence of Star Trek and after having watched this film I now know what they were trying to do with the original TV show. There is the right amount of humor, action, and aliens to please any Sci-Fi nut (and the guy/girl they forced into coming). I may have only seen 2 or 3 movies this year but it is the best one so far…

Steroids: Move On Dot Org

Is it me or do we need to finally stop talking about steroids? I get that when we talk about sports 24 hours a day on tv, radio, print, and the internet we need to find something to fill the headlines… And, I also get that our in-your-face society loves to see a person’s career and life ruined by allegations and press coverage, but I think it is finally time to stop talking about steroids in sports (especially baseball) and move on!

ALL PROFESSIONAL ATHLETES USED STEROIDS!! And by all, I mean around 60%… I would, with no real evidence, guess. Yes, I believe over half of all professional baseball players have at one time or are currently (while trying very hard not to get caught) using some form of performance enhancing substance. College athletes are pressured by coaches and agents to get bigger so they can be drafted, high school athletes are pressured by coaches (and parents?) to bulk up in order to win scholarships. I must say that I do not like the idea, nor do I condone it at all, but I certainly don’t think it is newsworthy anymore. I avoided using drugs to help myself when I was playing high school and college ball because I did not want to go down an illegal and unhealthy path; granted, I was never going to make it anywhere… but I knew it existed.

I would favor any and all strengthening of drug testing policies but it is laughable to beat two or three athletes to death while ignoring the bigger issue. Barry Bonds is the perfect example. I like Barry Bonds, and I was excited to see him go on that home run record chase. It is my understanding that he has never failed a drug test right? We don’t like his attitude off the field and can’t explain how one man’s body could change shape so drastically over the course of 5 or 6 years. I don’t care whether he used steroids or not, my point is he was outsmarting pitchers who used steroids, hitting through middle infielders and speedy outfielders using steroids, and stealing bases off catchers who used steroids. He was still the better athlete (even if we’re only looking at a juiced-up sample). Bonds broke Aaron’s record… none of the other 2 or 3 hundred professional steroid users did it… he is obviously better than them…

Again, I know it is not fair and not the way the sport is supposed to be played. I hope some day all the players are clean and I’m glad the commissioner continues to support expanded testing. We can’t simply put an asterisk on the stats of the players we don’t like, or the ones that are big stars. It quite literally has become the steroid era, if anything we have to put an asterisk on the era as a whole and when talking about stats from this time simply remember, “Oh yeah, that was when everyone was juiced… they were the best then… damn, glad we cleaned that up.” This cycle of secret names, scandals, wondering if the players are lying or not, tears, forgiveness, and tell-all books has to end.

And while talking about forgiveness: why is it that we so soon forget that players had broken the law, were bad team players, and put their health at risk once they apologize? It’s like saying “I’m sorry” is some sort of panacea and the public loves them again. Roger Clemens (I had a poster of him in as a Red Sock in my room as a kid), we all hate him, he cheats on his players, he cheats on his wife. He’s such an asshole. Andy Petite, close friend and teammate of Clemens, shed a few tears, said he was sorry, now we can’t wait for him to get back on his feet. Alex Rodriguez, what a chump, did drugs to live up to his $250 million dollar price tag, not a nice guy anyway, tried to explain himself, not good enough. Jason Giambi, teammate of Clemens and Rodriguez (maybe we just put an asterisk on the Yankees organization…) said he was sorry, grew a mustache, let’s give him an MVP award…. Are we really just looking for the apology?

Steroids are bad and I hope they are gone from athletics soon. But let’s not create these long lists of names, let’s throw out the  decade, or put an asterisk on the whole thing, and move on!

Finally… a Good Decision for UK Athletics

Yes, it’s confirmed! Even Mitch Barnhardt can’t mess this up now. John Calipari is on his way to the Bluegrass. And I think we can all agree, this is a perfect fit for everyone… I had the privilege of watching Calipari in action when his Tigers came down to Orlando to tackle the Golden Knights of the University of Central Florida (a game he only won by two or three points–leading me to ignorantly overrate Memphis for the rest of the season). While I am excited about the comparisons to Rick Pitino, I also think we have moved passed him. Calipari is energetic, young, talented, and public savvy enough to take on the hype and pressure of becoming the figurehead for the Wildcats. We don’t need someone like Pitino. Let Calipari be his own man.

It’s true, UK fans have short tempers and grant very little slack. I loved Tubby Smith and was sad to see him leave but it seemed as if he was booed out of the city and he certainly didn’t deserve that. I was willing to give Billy G. a chance at the beginning of the season and after we recouped after the VMI loss I defended the Cats and the turn-around I saw coming right around the corner. But after failing to compete with a less-than-average non-conference schedule and lackluster at best SEC, it seemed Billy G had just given up. Calipari is the big name that we have desperately needed since Tubby’s withdraw and I have confidence in saying he will not disappoint. You can almost relate it to Torre going to the Dodgers or Nick Saban going to Alabama; sometimes it’s time for a change and it’s almost fate when the perfect coach is available.

Even better news is the great press UK has received over the last week and a half. (I am surprised how frequently people have used the words “crumbling… failing… broken” etc to describe our program. It’s not like we’re the Indiana Hoosiers and completely off the radar, we did almost win 20 games this year…) But now we have gone from being made fun of and rejected as a legitimate contender to hisorically the greatest. It’s almost funny how quickly commentators can change their negativity to more accurately reflect the prestige of the University of Kentucky. There is absolutely no question that the Wildcats were the best team of the 20th century in college basketball (if you look at the entire century) and now we have a chance to take that back from UCONN, UNC, and Duke. [Yes, UCLA has all those championships but one decade a century does not make. UK was over in the better NIT at the time anyway.]

On a slightly different note, Dick Vitale believes that committed freshman should not be allowed to transfer their intent to the school that their coach has transferred to and I completely disagree. I’m not intimately  familiar with big time college athletic recruiting but I would imagine 70%, if not more, of the kid’s decision is based on the relationship he/she has established with their soon-to-be coach. If that coach is then not there when they show up in August it is as if they have been locked into a warped shadow of the dream they thought they would be living. For an area always so concerned with the students, and their success/happiness, I find it completely counter-intuitive to not allow them to follow the coach.

This is a great time for UK fans and central Kentucky in general. We deserve it and it’s time to be a national condender once again. Now, if Mitch Barnhardt could only find Tommy Tuberville’s numer… I’ll even take Chris Petersen….

Valkyrie a Sheep in Wolf’s Clothing. (Spoiler alert, if you can call it that)

Most everyone knows Hitler committed suicide in 1945 while the Allied forces were marching towards Germany. Fewer know of the no less than 15 attempts on Hitler’s life performed by “righteous” members of Germany’s Nazi party. Bryan Singer’s (Usual Suspects, Superman Returns) Valkyrie depicts the rise and fall of one such attempt: from the recruiting of upstanding men, to the formation of the plot, to the eventual quieting of the overthrow…

I somewhat apologize for the spoiler there but now is as good a time as any to discuss my opinion on making a historical suspense movie. Based on true events, this story takes the audience on a suspense ride to assassinate a man who everyone knows dies a year later. This fact is more than common knowledge so I must ask, Do the film makers want us to just put that idea aside for the duration of the film? Or do they actually think we don’t know our WWII history? What is it? I talked to a few people after watching and I told them that I was a little confused about seeing a movie where I know the outcome going in; they all jumped exactly to the movie that first popped in my head as well: Titanic. I think this is different though. That movie used the sinking of the Titanic as the occasion to showcase a tragic love story, the movie wasn’t really about the sinking of the ship. Valkyrie is a suspense thriller about the failed execution of an assassination plot. We know it fails because they chose the most famous man in modern history as the subject of the movie. Fear of unknown events creates suspense. We shriek in horror movies because we are never quite sure when the monster is going to pop out. How much suspense can a film create when the audience knows the protagonists are going to fail before the opening credits ever roll?

So while I was sitting in the theatre I kept asking myself, “Ok, would this be suspensful/thrilling/scary if I didn’t know that it was going to fail?” Maybe, but I doubt that is the question the movie producers want their audience asking so they must just assume we are going to suspend our disbelief right? Harder than it sounds.

Aside from lacking in genuine suspense the movie is just OK. No one uses a common accent. Everyone speaks in English and writes in German. All very distracting. I want to think that it was almost like a really good episode of the Mission: Impossible TV series. They get their mission, conduct it, and wrap it all up in a short period. They never really slowed down enough for character development or took the time to show us around Nazi Germany. I think the actors could have simply changed their costumes and it would have been a different movie. If they were wearing Storm Trooper outfits I probably would have thought they wanted to kill Darth Vador. They never once try and whisper to avoid being overheard discussing “the plan.” I mean, at least lower the Cone of Silence! Their actions are too much like every other suspense movie and not specific or detailed enough to be believable in WWII Berlin.

Most of the supporting cast delivered nice performances but Tom disappointed me. You put lipstick on a big, it’s still a big. I guess if you but an eye patch on Tom Cruise, he’s still Tom Cruise. I usually defend him because I think, at times, he can surprise you with nice character work but here he reverted back to the blockbuster deliveries and movements that have made him a star but held him back from Oscar status. This only adds to my thought that the movie is almost too general. The movie focuses too much on Tom, I’m sorry Cruise’s character, and ignores all the others needed to make this plan succeed.

At times my heart did speed up a little and I was interested in how they were going to make this work (again, after I let myself forget that they are going to fail). It was also fun to see a different side of Nazi Germany; a side where people wanted to stand up to Hitler and fight to change their country for the better. That is why this movie would probably work much better as a History Channel special. If you take away the Hollywood suspense and big name actors to distract you, you actually have a very moving story to tell. Making it something more than it is almost does injustice to the men and women who risked their lives to try remove this dictator.

Valkyrie will thrill you if you let it, but don’t set your expectations too high.

Slumdog Millionaire Your Best Bet This Holiday

Imagine the pressure of playing a game show for a million dollars… Got it? Ok, now add the hopes and dreams of your entire country whose eyes are glued to the nearest TV set watching every move you make; tack on the police who have arrested you under suspicion of cheating; sprinkle on the fact that the woman you have loved since you were 5 has been stolen from you… Oh, did I mention you are 18 and grew up in the Slums of India? How do you think you’d do?

Slumdog Millionarire, Danny Boyle’s latest creation (Sunshine, 28 Days Later, Trainspotting), brings this exact story to the big screen. Jamal Malik (Dev Patel) has one question to go as a contestant on India’s version of Who Wants to be a Millionaire but has been taken into custody to prove he honestly knew the answers. The investigation becomes the frame for detailing Jamal’s brutal, passionate, confusing, and true story growing up as an orphan in India. The police investigator (Irrfan Khan, The Namesake) plays back each trivia question and demands justification for Jamal’s knowledge of each subject. What could have turned into a very boring and predictable story-telling device, Boyle handles very delicately and artistically. Each question’s back story has its own vignette with an individual style, feel, and pace. (Think Paris Je T’aime meets Traffic.) The flashes build to construct a solid history of Jamal’s process from losing his mother at a very young age to possibly becoming one of the wealthiest and most popular men in India. Sounds cheesy, I know, but since Boyle handles each one carefully and with equal attention he never loses the audience. The pace fluctuates, yes, but never stalls.

Slumdog allows the skill of very talented, but lesser-known actors, to do the talking for it (like only a foreign film could; this film could never be made in Hollywood, and is probably better because of it). Children become the stars for the first half of the film and might be the biggest and most pleasant surprise of the piece. Aside from kids looking cute and adorable with everything they do, this film captures an honesty and reality in young characters that we rarely see. Since we believe the characters and their relationships from a young age the transition to their adulthood is a seamless and non distracting one.

The music and soundtrack, edited by Niv Adiri and created by AR Rahman, told its own story, complimented the plot, and masterfully kept the energy alive the entire run (literally and figuratively since much of the first half of the movie involves our young protagonists being chased through the crowded city streets). The energetic and always active shots, as well as Antony Dod Mantle’s dark, rugged, yet honest cinematography (the shot of a man drowning in a bathtub of money comes to mind), make it hard to look away from the sometimes horrific but always beautiful story being told.

Slumdog Millionaire is the story of one man’s literal struggle for survival and quest for love in a cruel world that has given him nothing. The success of this movie comes from the fact that it simply tells the story and tells it well, using all the tools of modern filmmaking. I like to be reminded that good stories and beautiful film work still have a place in our diluted cinema world. And I didn’t even see Regis Philbin once…

Quantum of Solace Falls Back into Genre Film, in a Bad Way

Director Marc Forster’s latest addition to the James Bond legacy, Quantum of Solace, has some nice tricks but never really solidifies itself to keep my interest. When I saw the trailer about a month ago, I knew I was going to love every minute of it. Daniel Craig instantly became my favorite Bond with his debut, Casino Royale. I thought that had the depth and intrigue of a classic Bond film but with the added storyline and contemporary flare needed to compete with today’s tough crowds.

It’s hard to pinpoint exactly what makes QofS weaker than its recent predecessor. Forster (Finding Neverland, Monster’s Ball) takes great liberties with the camera work: his sweeping motion instantly adds energy to the shots and creates a ever-changing landscape for Bond to traverse; the inclusion of clever, super-imposed titles signifying a new location gave the film a edgy style that bordered on distraction but was ultimately just cute; the characters are beautiful and wear amazing clothes and drive amazing cars (a must for a Bond flick).

I hate to say it, but the story finally drug this installment down. Casino Royale is a tough act to follow. That film won back all the average Bond fans that had finally checked out with the last few Brosnan attempts and quieted the die-hard fans that thought Craig was too blond to be Bond. The writers tried to take the easy way out by continuing Casino’s story line and using the same characters (not usually seen with Bond films). Never revisiting that story, they forced us to remember what happened and hoped we would connect everything ourselves. Usually, I hate when they spoon-feed the back story to the audience but give us something to work with! I never really knew what the bad guys wanted, how they were going to get it, or what was stopping them. Most of the time, I didn’t know who was chasing Bond and therefore didn’t care if he got away or not. Because I never fully knew the story I never fully cared about the success or failure of his “mission” (which was never official). The film approached the end and I just thought, “is the world safer now? Did we win?” The writers never fully delivered because I would bet they didn’t think they would have to. James Bond sells itself.

There is no theme or image that makes this film distinct from the rest of the canon. Moonraker is in space! Goldfinger kills a girl by painting her with gold paint (an image revisited with oil in QofS… get some new material…) Absent is the enormous Cuban satellite to slide down, or the invisible/remote controlled car, or the jet pack; anything that the audience could talk about on the way to the parking lot. Which makes this just a collection of themes and stereotypes that have to be checked off the list or something. The recent films have also tried (with varying success) to include powerful women characters but now the sexism is back. The female leads are portrayed as dumb, persuasive, and needy and get in the way at best. A huge step back from where the franchise was headed, in my opinion.

I can’t say I was completely dissapointed, it still has pretty people doing amazing things (some even off-the-wall for a Bond movie though) and that must carry some weight. Maybe my expectations were too high but this never filled the shoes that current action movies are making bigger and bigger every day. Go to see pretty people but don’t expect to have much to talk about on the way home.

Gay Rights are Human Rights

I have never been more proud of political commentator Keith Olbermann then I was last night when he devoted his “special comment” to the embarrassing and disturbing passage of Proposition 8 (legislation overturning Civil Unions to gay and lesbian couples in California in the latest election.)

Olbermann actually personified my position and feelings on the issue quite accurately. He began by situating himself as a straight man with no close gay relatives but with friends and colleagues prohibited from enjoying the same freedoms he does because of their sexual orientation. This is exactly how I feel; I am not a gay man, nor do I have any gay relatives, that I am aware of, but I do have many gay friends that I would like to believe are just as American, and indeed, just as deserving of all the rights and responsibilities provided by those unalienable rights in our Declaration of Independence.

I also like how Olbermann used the analogy of other minorities getting married as a point of contention because that is one of the first defenses I use when I discuss gay rights as well. Basically, if we as a country think that African Americans should marry “white” people or marry each other (something once illegal in this country) then so should we defend the right for gay unions; if those with a mental or physical handicap can enjoy governmental sanctioned marriage then so should a lesbian couple [I am in no way suggesting that homosexuality is a handicap.] Or, since it is Veteran’s Day, what if there was a law saying all those that served in our nation’s armed forces could not marry? In my opinion, this is the exact same issue. It is the controlling body of the country personifying their fear of a group of people they are afraid of or don’t understand.

Actually, I do not even think we have the right to put it on the ballot. This is not an issue that you can poll the general public about. It does not matter what the majority opinion is, the Bill of Rights was actually created to protect the minority. We would need no First Amendment if everyone spoke the majority opinion all the time, for example. Again, I would argue the majory of the South in the late 19th early 20th century would be opposed to African American unions but that doesn’t mean they shouldn’t be protected by our country. All that voted for Proposition 8, Amendment 2 in Florida, and the countless other public measures designed to inhibit freedoms to Americans should literally feel ashamed of yourselves. What gives you the right to think you have the power to legislate humanity? That does not sound like the “small government” conservatives hold so near and dear…

The following is a clip of Olbermann’s “Special Comment.” He more clearly and effectively conveys my ideas, giving more attention to the idea of love (or lack there of in the world) and the need to allow the ember of love to burn. Please take a look at this video. We must remember they have done nothing to us and their lives do not affect us in negative ways. We cannot legislate sexuality, we cannot legislate freedom, we cannot legislate love.

Final Election Thoughts Before We Move On (or so we can move on…)

Politics, and this historic presidential election in particular, seemed to be the only thing that dominated public discourse, popular culture, and this blog for the past two months. It’s finally over, but I have a few closing thoughts about the election and the state of the country before we move on.

Let me begin by congratulating President-elect Barack Obama, and his campaign. I must confess that while not everyone, including Democrats, believe he is that great I happen to believe he will be noted as one of the top 3 or 4 greatest Presidents of all time. I think his personality, speaking skills, background, political theories, and, yes, skin color will lift him to at least “Top 20″ status before even taking the oath. Bill Maher has called him the Jackie Robinson of politics and that holds true for a number of reasons. Jackie was the rookie of the year in his barrier-breaking season and became the MVP shortly thereafter. So not only did he “happen to be black,” he was a darn good baseball player to boot. Talent certainly makes shattering stereotypes easier. And most importantly, if it wasn’t going to be Obama than who was going to be our first minority? He’s talented, for the reasons I’ve mentioned above, and he did not want to be pitied or use white guilt to get elected; he used his policies to speak for themselves.

Obama’s campaign, without a doubt, has set the new standard for Presidential races. The painstaking deliberation, forethought, and holistic understanding that went into every decision they made is almost impossible to imagine. The money they raised (from 3.2 million contributors) is mind boggling. They never stopped and it paid off.

The first post-election question I have, however, is “what if?” What I mean by that is the Democrats ran a flawless campaign. They nominated a charismatic, uniting candidate. The economy is in shambles. The rest of the world does not have a good idea of us anymore. The campaign McCain became the figure head for might be documented in political science books for decades to come as the “what not to do” example. They never stuck to their message. They chose an unknown, nationally uninformed governor (who just happened to be very attractive?) from a state no one hears about except in relation to a wildlife reserve. Their economic adviser calls Americans whiners. [I recently received an email explaining all the differences between the Columbia/ Harvard grad and the man who finished 4th from the bottom out of over 850 at the naval academy; the community organizer vs. a man who crashed a million dollar plane 6 times; one married one vs. one divorced his wife after a disfiguring car accident, etc.] What I am trying to say here is what if even one of these things went the other way? Is this how crazy the country has to get and how lopsided the campaigns have to become for the Democrats to win an election? And while it might have been by a safe margin, it was by no means a land slide……..

One of the most respected men in American politics, Colin Powell, publicly endorsed Obama and while on meet the press he brought up an interesting point: in regards to the McCain supporters attacking Obama for being a Muslim Powell retorted with, “So what if he was?” Yes! What if he was? There is nothing in the Constitution that says you can’t be. Is it easier to hide your racism if he is Muslim instead of Black? There was another so what in North Carolina. Elizabeth Dole (who lost) attacked her opponent for consorting with Atheist organizations. So what! There is nothing in the Constitution that says you can’t be a Muslim and nothing that says you have to be a Christian… Luckily, so many personal attacks from the Right only distracted a little bit. It was actually amazing at times to see how effective McCain’s personal attacks were. He convinced his followers Obama was a terrorist, un-American, a Muslim, etc; so much so that he actually had to calm his rallies down because they were getting violent. After controlling those, he switched to Socialist and that stuck like sweat beads on Joe the Plumber’s forehead. I watched an episode of the West Wing last weekend and the Democratic President was in a town hall meeting and jokingly said to the man in the back, “you’re getting ready to call me a Socialist aren’t you?” That was 10 years ago! Find some new material guys! Taxes distribute wealth, democrats didn’t invent the idea of taxing. Find some new material.

On a different topic, Florida, and I would assume other states as well, did pass a Marriage Protection amendment…. by something like a 66% to 33% margin. I won’t get into all my philosophies because this is my most passionate social cause but it is just sad to see that the progress that we are making is still in small steps.

I am estatic about the political future of the country. I literally weep everytime I see footage of the hundreds of thousands of people cheering all over the country and world for the victory of Barack Obama. As his acceptance speech suggested, he will listen to all sides, especially when they disagree. I will try to do the same in my political converations to come. We now have a President we can unite behind and I am excited about the possibilities for the new future of this country.

Lack of pizzaz with debates…

I thought this since 2004, and I’m sure you have too: the presidential debates are getting more and more pointless. At this stage in the election, everyone has made up their minds. And if they haven’t, then those independents won’t change if the candidates continue to say and act the way they have explained for the last few months.

What really confuses me is how someone can justify who “wins” or “loses” these things. Both of them remained reserved and never pushed the boundaries. They said or didn’t say the same things they have been saying or not saying. I could have written a script for both of the candidates… I seem to think McCain has performed pretty well in these things (much the same way that if Dubua can deliver a speech without making up a word or two we would say he “won”) but the public continues to think Obama won. I mean, I love that, but I hope that translates into votes in November. I would argue that it didn’t really in 2004 where I thought Kerry seemed to “win” those debates but no one seemed to be affected on election day.

What KILLED me about this debate in particular was Tom Brokaw! He acted more like an angry parent than the moderator of a presidential debate. He tried to control the time but obviously it is not going to work with two gentlemen concerned with getting their ideas across directly to the American public. Just assume they are going to go over time and work with it. He didn’t need need to get cute and call them out for not noticing the warning lights. We’re not watching you Tom, just let them talk.

I hope the final debate is more exciting. Maybe get the candidates to talk about social issues like gay rights and abortion so no matter which side they take it would be fun to watch them try and wiggle around it with political savvy. One of these two men (or their vice presidential candidates) will be the next president of the United States. These are the men that their parties chose. Pay attention in the coming weeks, make an informed decision, and exercise the greatest right afforded to Americans. They might not be the best candidates, but they are the ones running. It’s up to us to choose the best for America right now.

What does America Want in this Election?

I’m starting to realize that the reason I haven’t written a new political post in such a long time is not through lack of topics or shortage of entertainment but I’m simply bored with the process. I think we have come to the point in the election cycle where we are quite literally counting down the days to November 4th. Who really hasn’t made up their minds yet? I really don’t believe there is a such thing as “Independents” that must be won over, at least not this late in the game. You either love Obama’s charisma and new ideas or praise McCain’s patriotism and stand-alone attitude. Nothing new about the nominees will be revealed in the next few weeks; independents: (what ever that means) it’s time to fish or cut bait. You’ve made your decision or if you haven’t than you simply haven’t been paying enough attention and need to stop hiding your ignorance behind the veil of ‘waiting for some unknown event.’

Which brings me to my next point. It’s starting to hit me that the election is not about ideas, it’s not about personalities, it’s not about parties, so I don’t know what it is about. I belive I am safe in saying it is not about ideas because one side (yes, the side I favor) seems to have an open plan of action to get the United States back economically, fiscally, and environmentally; while the other side does not hide the fact that it has agreed with the failed Bush policies 90% of the time–that’s not their attack plan. Obama has a plan while McCain simply wants to scare you out of voting for an “unknown.”

But is the election really about candidates either? If we can remember how close the last two presidential elections were than we certainly see a connection with the tightening in this race. It seems the American people do not care who is running, they remain equally divided. I think both sides would argue the candidates they have put forth this election are dramatically more appealing than their 2004 counterparts. If it is obvious that one person can unite and excite so many (i.e. Regan and Clinton) and one person can destroy an entire country and popularity system (Dubya) than why is 2008 still so close?

Personally, I think it is because it is not about candidates and it is not about current issues. When it comes down to it we don’t care about your Iraq policy or new forms of energy; we really still just care if you are going to tax us or not (note McCain’s new attack ads warning of Obama taxing. Yes, he will tax the top 5 or 10% but lower taxes for everyone else. That’s how Democrats work, not just Obama. Move on dot Org!); are you going to be pro-life or pro-choice; will you support gay rights or conserve Christian moral values? I would aruge that this is what the last election was about and it seems what November 4th is shaping up to be as well.

I guess what I am trying to say is that it is time we look at candidates and their current issues and not the philosophies of their respective parties. Don’t vote for a person because that is who your party nominated, vote because they will be the best woman or man for the job. I hate to say it, but if you don’t think they will be better than I would suggest not voting rather than voting for something you don’t believe in. Ok, time to get biased: McCain may be a Vet but still gets D ratings by veteran advocacy groups. He may be a “maverick” but still agrees with 90% of Bush’s failed policies. He may be more “experienced” but he will still be the oldest President ever to hold the office, if elected. He wants to stay in Iraq at the cost of Billions of American tax dollars and thousands of real American lives.

Obama may be young, he may be inexperienced, but he is smart, he is charismatic, the world loves him, and he has a plan. He is who we need now. Just think about it… Don’t vote for old party ideals (of either side). Vote because you pay attention to world and domestic issues and you seriously know your candidate is better for the next 4 or 8 years.