I'm starting to think Barack is becoming overexposed - pun intended. Here
--speaktruthtopower--
Monday, January 8, 2007
Saturday, December 16, 2006
Tuesday, December 12, 2006
The Good Shepherd
Just saw The Good Shepherd. I would definitely recommend it. I did have issues with it - it's a complicated story, made more so by De Niro's (who directed) decision to jump around chronologically, the pacing was too slow at times, certain characters' motivations were murky to begin with and could have been better explained and Matt Damon remained unrealistically boyish looking while everyone around him aged.
Overall, however, De Niro managed to make a story about the sometimes mundane background work of the spy world which can then unpredictably, but inevitably explode in brutality, a gripping one. It also had some great performances - John Turturro, William Hurt, Billy Crudup and a new (to me) actress, Tammy Blanchard, I thought were particularly good. And, it is an age-old, but still fascinating and very chilling portrayal of how seemingly decent people can start off on the path of right and honor and morality, and be slowly and inexorably turned or turn themselves, into monstrous people capable of doing monstrous things.
--speaktruthtopower--
Overall, however, De Niro managed to make a story about the sometimes mundane background work of the spy world which can then unpredictably, but inevitably explode in brutality, a gripping one. It also had some great performances - John Turturro, William Hurt, Billy Crudup and a new (to me) actress, Tammy Blanchard, I thought were particularly good. And, it is an age-old, but still fascinating and very chilling portrayal of how seemingly decent people can start off on the path of right and honor and morality, and be slowly and inexorably turned or turn themselves, into monstrous people capable of doing monstrous things.
--speaktruthtopower--
Sunday, December 10, 2006
Interracial Hollywood
So - is it just me, but is Hollywood starting to bust out the interracial relationships lately? And, I know it's not just on Grey's Anatomy. Although, speaking of which - not only has Sandra Oh had a relatively high profile relationship with Alexander Payne (caucasian), but Justin Chambers (caucasian) who plays the self-centered playboy intern Alex Karev on the show, is married to a sister with whom he has 5 kids and Ellen Pompeo (the character Meredith and caucasian) is engaged to an African-American man. Not to mention that the show is probably one of the most integrated on tv these days - coincidence?
Halle Barry also is famously now dating (but apparently with no intention of marrying) a gorgeous white guy. Rosario Dawson just broke up with one. Eva Longoria with Tony Parker. Even, Brad Pitt is now in a relationship with a "mixed race" woman - as I just saw Angelina Jolie refer to herself in talking about why it wasn't controversial for her to play a bi-racial woman in her new movie about Marianne Pearl. (To be fair, she seems to have the right to say that as her mother is part Native American.)
And, all with nary a comment from celebrity watchers. Really nothing more than an observation of how times have changed since Joyce DeWitt and Levar Burton went out back in the day and caused quite the stir! (Am I the only one who remembers this . . .?)
--speaktruthtopower--
Halle Barry also is famously now dating (but apparently with no intention of marrying) a gorgeous white guy. Rosario Dawson just broke up with one. Eva Longoria with Tony Parker. Even, Brad Pitt is now in a relationship with a "mixed race" woman - as I just saw Angelina Jolie refer to herself in talking about why it wasn't controversial for her to play a bi-racial woman in her new movie about Marianne Pearl. (To be fair, she seems to have the right to say that as her mother is part Native American.)
And, all with nary a comment from celebrity watchers. Really nothing more than an observation of how times have changed since Joyce DeWitt and Levar Burton went out back in the day and caused quite the stir! (Am I the only one who remembers this . . .?)
--speaktruthtopower--
Press the Meat
So, watching the dvr of Meet the Press from this morning. Aaaaaaaahhhhh! Ken Adelman - he of the "Iraq will be a cakewalk" delphic wisdom is now trying to revise his pre-invasion pronouncements to: "When I said cakewalk, I only meant that the invasion and overthrow of Hussein would be a cakewalk, not the whole aftermath, which of course has been handled incompentently, which wasn't my fault. I would have handled it differently."
A) what kind of moron thinks that the invasion and aftermath could be handled as 2 completely separate activities and B) why does such a person who has been shown to have a supremely deficient lack of judgment keep getting prime t.v. time to pontificate on how a monumental mess he helped create should now be "dealt with?"
Rhetorical questions, I know, but still . . .
--speaktruthtopower--
A) what kind of moron thinks that the invasion and aftermath could be handled as 2 completely separate activities and B) why does such a person who has been shown to have a supremely deficient lack of judgment keep getting prime t.v. time to pontificate on how a monumental mess he helped create should now be "dealt with?"
Rhetorical questions, I know, but still . . .
--speaktruthtopower--
Can't Hillary Win?
Ok - first post - taking a deep breath and diving in!
RBW: Your comments/questions are interesting. With regard to some people (women and men alike) thinking Hillary can't win, I think much of this may be due to an estimation as to what the American voting public really will do when in the voting booth. Yes, she is polarizing, but so are most of the people who look likely to run. She has positions that many people disagree with among the Democratic base, but so do all of the other likely candidates. My own opinion, is that, regardless of whether people personally support her candidacy or not, they do not trust that the American people will - at the end of the day - vote for a woman for president in significant enough numbers. I'm cynical so I tend to be of that opinion myself. This is also why I tend to believe that Obama can't win. Of course, I'd love to be proved wrong, but I rarely lose money betting on my own cynicism.
I decided, however, after the 2004 elections that I wasn't going to let my support for a candidate be determined by calculations of who is most electable. In 2004, I initially supported Dean because I loved his passion, his grassroots committment and his substantive positions. I became persuaded, however, that the only person who was "electable" was Kerry and we know how that turned out. I think we, as a party during the primaries, try to parse through too much who can win the general election based on stats rather than candidates who have passion, charisma and substantive positions that resonate. So, my decisions in the upcoming cycle will be based solely on who I believe in, rather than who I believe others will vote for. Of course, pragmatism is called for - I won't be voting for the Peace and Freedom Party candidate or Dennis Kucinich, if he runs again. But, I certainly do not plan to be swayed this time by the "he/she can't win" argument.
--speaktruthtopower--
RBW: Your comments/questions are interesting. With regard to some people (women and men alike) thinking Hillary can't win, I think much of this may be due to an estimation as to what the American voting public really will do when in the voting booth. Yes, she is polarizing, but so are most of the people who look likely to run. She has positions that many people disagree with among the Democratic base, but so do all of the other likely candidates. My own opinion, is that, regardless of whether people personally support her candidacy or not, they do not trust that the American people will - at the end of the day - vote for a woman for president in significant enough numbers. I'm cynical so I tend to be of that opinion myself. This is also why I tend to believe that Obama can't win. Of course, I'd love to be proved wrong, but I rarely lose money betting on my own cynicism.
I decided, however, after the 2004 elections that I wasn't going to let my support for a candidate be determined by calculations of who is most electable. In 2004, I initially supported Dean because I loved his passion, his grassroots committment and his substantive positions. I became persuaded, however, that the only person who was "electable" was Kerry and we know how that turned out. I think we, as a party during the primaries, try to parse through too much who can win the general election based on stats rather than candidates who have passion, charisma and substantive positions that resonate. So, my decisions in the upcoming cycle will be based solely on who I believe in, rather than who I believe others will vote for. Of course, pragmatism is called for - I won't be voting for the Peace and Freedom Party candidate or Dennis Kucinich, if he runs again. But, I certainly do not plan to be swayed this time by the "he/she can't win" argument.
--speaktruthtopower--
Jen and Vince and Brad and Angie
My 2 cents on the death of the Jen and Vince affair: Aniston has succeeded, with her obfuscations during the last few months, to actually make people who don't like her or don't care that much start to feel sorry for her. At least I do.
I'm pretty sure her intention was not to make herself an object of pity. But, how can you not pity her - Angie and Brad seem stronger as a couple every day, they look hotter than ever and they could not have a cuter family - not to mention, rich, successful, traveling the world, etc. etc. Whereas Jen seemed rather desperate in the last few weeks in taking to the airwaves and the celebrity weeklies to proclaim that she and Vince were absolutely together, not to mention making a very public trip to London to see him to shore up her talking points - only to turn around almost immediately to say that they had split.
The worst part about it is that everyone now believes that she was the one dumped (given that she was the most proactive in making public comments about their togetherness) when at the beginning of her stint with Vince, everyone thought she was the one trading down. In all of this, I think she's been getting very bad advice from her publicist - Stephen Huvane - who frankly I think she's too personally friendly with and this has clouded his objectivity. Perfect example of this: Huvane recently sent an email to the celeb blogger perezhilton, who famously despises Aniston, to plaintively complain about how mean perez is to Aniston and to "correct" a comment from perez ridiculing Aniston for claiming to still be together with Vince when it was pretty obvious they weren't. Of course perez published the email which shows that not only do Aniston and her publicist read what celeb blogs (and I assume tabloids) are writing about her, but they care about it too! Not a good move. . .
She just seems like she's trying to compete with her ex and it's a contest she can't win, so if I were her, I'd just refuse to comment on my personal life for a while (both publicly and privately - everyone knows where those "a source close to Aniston" quotes come from).
--speaktruthtopower--
I'm pretty sure her intention was not to make herself an object of pity. But, how can you not pity her - Angie and Brad seem stronger as a couple every day, they look hotter than ever and they could not have a cuter family - not to mention, rich, successful, traveling the world, etc. etc. Whereas Jen seemed rather desperate in the last few weeks in taking to the airwaves and the celebrity weeklies to proclaim that she and Vince were absolutely together, not to mention making a very public trip to London to see him to shore up her talking points - only to turn around almost immediately to say that they had split.
The worst part about it is that everyone now believes that she was the one dumped (given that she was the most proactive in making public comments about their togetherness) when at the beginning of her stint with Vince, everyone thought she was the one trading down. In all of this, I think she's been getting very bad advice from her publicist - Stephen Huvane - who frankly I think she's too personally friendly with and this has clouded his objectivity. Perfect example of this: Huvane recently sent an email to the celeb blogger perezhilton, who famously despises Aniston, to plaintively complain about how mean perez is to Aniston and to "correct" a comment from perez ridiculing Aniston for claiming to still be together with Vince when it was pretty obvious they weren't. Of course perez published the email which shows that not only do Aniston and her publicist read what celeb blogs (and I assume tabloids) are writing about her, but they care about it too! Not a good move. . .
She just seems like she's trying to compete with her ex and it's a contest she can't win, so if I were her, I'd just refuse to comment on my personal life for a while (both publicly and privately - everyone knows where those "a source close to Aniston" quotes come from).
--speaktruthtopower--
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)