Voices Of Protest

A few protest rallys were held on both the east and west coasts, commemorating the 2-year anniversary of the start of the Iraq war. Here are some protester thoughts:

"I am a patriot and I want my troops back."

You would think being a patriot means being behind the troops and what they are there for. We take the fight to them, before it gets here.

"I'm here to chastise the government for putting us in the middle of a bloody and disgusting war. Things are looking worse and there's no foreseeable end to this."

At least for the insurgents.

Regarding the police presence at the rallys:
"They don't want to show the size of the opposition. It's a free country if you agree with the government."

Okay. So if you disagree, what exactly do you have to pay? A fine? Please, Mr. Liberal, tell me.

"You've got to devote yourself to the struggle and find people who feel the same way. If I was opposing this alone it would be more disheartening."

But you'd still look as stupid as everyone else.

"If you're not active, and if you don't fight, it makes things much worse."

If you're not active, and don't fight, how the hell are you making things worse?

Hollywood. It Just Doesn't Know How

There are many things I don't like about Hollywood and the entertainment industry. The constant back-slapping, the self-aggrandizement, the sycophants.
That fact that Hollywood considers itself so in the "now" has been burned into our collective psyche's so well that even today's youth forget Hollywood actually put out some good films. Kind of an oxymoron, isn't it? For every Memento, we get a Catwoman, Elektra, and a Fat Albert.

The worst examples are from the film reviewers, and particularly those reviewing Bruce Willis' new film Hostage. Apparently, Willis has a "fading" career and a "flagging" career, according to the New York Times' Stephen Holden and the New York Post's Lou Lumenick, respectively. It's interesting, though, that a multi-million dollar action film can get made with an actor whose career is fading. How can this be possible?

If this film is a major hit (and it doesn't look too good; early returns show only a $10 to $15 million opening), critics will be talking about Bruce Willis' comeback, just like they're doing with Kevin Costner's role in The Upside of Anger.

Comeback from where? Willis and Costner didn't retire from acting. But in the critic's world view, if you hadn't had a hit in more than two years, you have retired, not from acting, but from hit films.

Take a look at Robert De Niro. According to these critics, he's not doing what he used to, which is make good films, and I agree. But, they think the opposite here than they do of Willis and Costner. They think De Niro should go back to the "solid acting" films. But those films, like Taxi Driver, Raging Bull, etc., were not box office hits. So, although the Meet the Parents films are box office hits, De Niro's career is not doing well. The other films, well-made with good acting, weren't commercial hits. You need a damn instruction booklet to keep up with these critics.

No actor's career is ever one long hit streak. When an actor retires, THEN it's over. Like Paul Newman. He recently announced he wants to make one last film, then retire. At 80, he's had a distinguished career. He was a top box-office draw in the early seventies, but after that, he continued to make... good movies. His career didn't "fade" or "flag".

Critics are hired to review films and give their opinions. People can take them at face value, or use them as guidelines. But they need to refrain from voicing their opinion on whether an actor's career is over. It's over when the actor says it is. Or the fat lady sings, whichever comes first.

The Liberal Two-Step

It's always fun watching the left make excuses for their most ridiculous members. In her weekly Newsweek article, Eleanor Clift tries to make some valid arguments against the Republicans and the right:

And this week, (Hillary Clinton) stood shoulder to shoulder with two of the Senate’s most right-wing members, Rick Santorum and Sam Brownback, to introduce a bill to examine the impact of the dreaded evil media on children, the kind of legislation that normally sends shivers down every liberal spine.

Nowhere else in this article does Clift refer to Hillary as a liberal or a left-winger. It's the liberal two-step. Make sure you identify the right, but go out of your way to avoid mentioning the left. And if you do, be sure it makes no sense whatsoever.

Keeping company with Hillary is frustrating for the right because she’s proving to be something different from the caricature they made of her.

If calling someone who curses and yells "fucking jew bastard" a curser and racist, how is that a caricature?

Her recent comments on wanting to find common ground on abortion and her appearance at a press conference with such avatars of the right as Santorum and Brownback show she has absorbed the lesson of the ’04 election more systematically than anyone else.

She hasn't absorbed jack. She's parroting the conservative lines because she knows none of her own lines will make it with voters. Does Clift really believe a few words and appearances with Republicans will erase eight-years of her "It Takes A Village" mentality?

And in regards to Hillary's possible election to the White House in '08:

Imagine Bill Clinton once again rattling around the White House “doing God knows what” in the words of one of the dinner attendees. But Clinton himself has become more of a beloved figure. His role in tsunami relief combined with his illness allows the American people to see him in a different light.

Bill Clinton... beloved figure. I don't know whether to laugh or laugh really hard. So now the ruddy-faced frat boy is a ruddy-faced teddy bear? Give me a break. I think the most shocking thing about Clinton going to the hopsital for heart surgery was the fact that he actually had one. He could bite his trembling lower lip like the best of them, but he never really felt your pain.

Seeing him in a different light is right. We're used to seeing him as a lying, adulterous, "Let's-bomb-a-camel's-ass" criminal.

The question for any woman seeking the presidency in the post-9/11 era is whether she can be a credible commander in chief. Rice has the resume, but can she stare down the North Koreans and the mullahs in Iran? Clinton gets rave reviews from Republicans for her work on the Senate Armed Services Committee. She is confounding them on a daily basis by defying the caricature they created. The lamp-throwing, cursing, calculating Lady Macbeth is gone, if she ever really existed.

So four years away from the Presidency is enough to not only forgive Hillary, but to absolve her from all wrongdoing? If it were just that easy. I only hope it doesn't take that long to show how great a President George W. Bush is.

Oh, wait...