If I had to point people to one reason why old videogames are awesome, it would probably be this :

In short, I was underwhelmed. I’ve been weary about the premise of the movie since I first heard about it. Why bother making a pseudo-sequel to a 25 year old movie? I’d have preferred an updated origin story, but with all of the ideas for a new Superman movie that have been floating around over the years (black suit, killed by Doomsday, Nicholas Cage) this is probably the best idea that could escape from the soulless studio executive pit. Despite my reservations, I think the premise did hold a lot of promise. As explained in a recent Entertainment Weekly article on the film :

But beyond comic-book high jinks, Singer and the scribes decided they would emphasize the Man of Steel’s alienation, the Superman-Lois-Richard love triangle, and the tacit mystery surrounding the paternity of Lois’ son. And it would all pivot on the vaguely self-aware where did Superman go? conceit, which not only devastates Lois but spurs her to write an article called ”Why the World Doesn’t Need Superman.” ”The idea,” says Dougherty, ”was to address the perceived irrelevancy of Superman by making a movie about the theme of his irrelevancy.”

Sounds good. Having Superman disappear for five years and return to a world that no longer needs him is a pretty good starting point. People are so used to the dark, edgy surperhero tale, that an old-fashioned (in a good way) hero like Superman would seem a little outdated. There’s two problems with that notion.

First of all, the original Superman movies came out in the 70’s, hardly the “good ol days”. If one wants to presume that the public just wouldn’t accept a good-natured escapist fantasy like the original Superman films, it’s a bit facetious to pretend that those same issues wouldn’t have come up when the originals came out. As Pauline Kael wrote when she trashed the original movie :

The story has been updated from the thirties to the seventies, but not modernized, not rethought—just plunked down in the seventies. In the era of Al Pacino, Dustin Hoffman, and Woody Allen—a time when people acknowledge the humor and good sense in cowardice—might not the girl reporter (Margot Kidder) find herself drawn to Clark Kent’s unsureness and feel some conflict in her swooning response to Superman? (She might even prefer Clark Kent.) And, in an era in which urban corruption and decay are deep and widespread, Superman’s confident identification with the forces of law and order, and his thinking that he’s cleaning up Metropolis (New York City) when he claps some burglars and thieves in jail, might be treated with a little irony. (It would be more fun to see him putting out a fire while kids threw stones at him, or arresting a mugger and being surrounded by an angry, booing crowd, or tackling the garbage problem.) The Superman who announces “I’m here to fight for truth, justice, and the American way” needs a little ribbing. But the film doesn’t bring any ambiguity into this portrait of an outsize F.B.I. man from space.

But the bigger problem is the fact that Superman Returns never bothered to seriously “address the perceived irrelevancy of Superman”. Superman’s been gone for five years and when he gets back, it’s the same old Metropolis. His first act of heroism was to rescue an airliner and land it in a baseball stadium full of people who love him. If you’re going to make a movie about Superman being irrelevant, maybe you should have more people dislike him than just his arch-enemy and the girlfriend he abandoned without a word.

Okay, fine, I’m being nitpicky at this point, but let me tell you what I really hoped to see.

In the original comics, Superman came to Earth as a baby and was adopted by the Kent family. Once he became a young adult, both of his adopted parents died and he moved to Metropolis to become Superman. At that point, Clark Kent, the identity he had lived with his entire life, became little more than a disguise for the “real” guy, Superman. In the 80’s, John Byrne reinvented the character by making Clark Kent the focus and Superman the persona he assumes when wearing the tights. To emphasise his Clark Kent roots even more, Byrne kept the Kents alive and highlighted Clark’s frequent trips back home to see the folks.

To me, that change defined everything that’s great about Superman. Not only did Superman now have a family to which he could talk to about his superheroics or his relationship with Lois (like any proud mother, Mrs. Kent even kept a scrapbook of Superman’s exploits), but it was the Kent family that made Superman who he is. Superman isn’t a defender of “truth, justice, and the American way” because he’s got a bunch of superpowers. He does what he does because he had a ma and pa that raised him to be someone who would pledge his life to helping other people.

That’s why, to me, the most crucial line in the original isn’t any of the pseudo-Shakespearean mumbo-jumbo from Marlon Brando, but this lesson from Glenn Ford after he catches a young Clark Kent showing off to a bunch of people from his school :

Pa Kent: I know. You can do all these amazing things, and sometimes you think that you will burst wide open unless you can tell someone about it, don’t you?… There’s one thing I know for sure, son. And that is, you are here for a reason. I don’t know what it is, exactly, but I do know this much: it’s not to score touchdowns.

That’s the spark that motivated Clark Kent to become Superman. It wasn’t just that he had a bunch of cool powers and nothing better to do, but that he’s devoted to helping other people. Superman is often derided as a “big blue boy scout”, but I think of him as more of a Jimmy Stewart-type. An idealist who will do everything he can to save people and privately kicking himself with the knowledge that even a Superman can’t stop all the injustice in the world. In short, I want a Superman movie to be as inspiring as it is visually exciting.

By the way, to prove my Super-geek credentials, check out this prototype Superman blog I designed a long time ago and never did anything with.

Oh my god. The flag burning amendment was defeated in the Senate by one damn vote?? What the hell is wrong with these people? And why can’t they be bothered to spend as much energy defending the constitution? Two-thirds of the Senate (minus one) should be ashamed of themselves.

Dan Froomkin’s got a great list of questions for the President about his unprecedented use of signing statements.(via Atrios)

Q. What exactly do White House lawyers mean by “unitary executive”?

Q. What does it mean when the president says things like “the executive branch shall construe section so-and-so in a manner consistent with the constitutional authority of the President”? Should that be construed as notice that he plans to ignore it? Likewise when he says a provision will be construed in a manner “consistent with my constitutional authority in the area of foreign affairs” or “consistent with my constitutional duty as Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces”?
. . .
Q. Why is it wrong for the judiciary to redefine the law but right for the President? Or: why is “activist judge” bad but “signing statement” good? Or: how is it a problem if the judicial branch takes power from the legislative, but not a problem if the executive branch takes power from the legislative? (Jonathan Krueger, Pleasanton, Calif.)

Q. Are there any statutes currently on the books whose express provisions the Administration is violating, or declining to enforce, in reliance on “signing statements” or the “inherent powers” of the presidency, whether as commander in chief or otherwise? If so, do the American people have a right to know what are they? Does Congress? Will you provide us a list? (Vince Canzoneri, Boston)

Q. Why make a big show of trying to get lawmakers to reach compromises with the White House on legislation (see John McCain’s anti-torture legislation) if he’s then going to append a signing statement proclaiming that there’s no need for him to observe the very law he just signed? Why bother going through the motions at all? (Lou Morin, Freeport, Maine)

He’s got some questions for the President’s well-trained accomplices in the Senate as well,

Q. Are committee staff in a position to actually monitor these statements and track what is and isn’t happening as a result of these statements?

Q. For members whose bills have passed both Houses, been signed by the president, then been qualified with a signing statement: As part of your oversight plan, have you identified any mechanism for following up on presidential declarations about your statutes? How can you be sure your statutes are being followed?

These questions won’t get close to being answered unless the President and his Administration are at the very least put under oath in a public hearing and that’s unlikely to happen without a subpoena or some other legal means to compel testimony. With a GOP Senate (especially two-faced leaders like Specter and Roberts), the only real hope is for a change in leadership. Let’s keep our fingers crossed too, because if George Bush finishes his presidency without getting smacked down for his egregious abuses of power, our country is gonna get stuck with a precedent that could permanently destroy the already strained separation of powers.

We all knew Larry the Cable Guy’s act was played up, but…wow. This must be Lawrence the Casual Friday Man.

But you also specifically dumb down your speech while making hundreds of purposefully grammatical errors. How do I know this? It’s on page 17 of your book wherein you describe how you would “Larry” up your commentaries for radio. What does it mean to “Larry” something up? Take a wild guess. The reason you feel the need to “Larry” something up? Because you are not that dumb. I mean you, Dan Whitney, the guy who’s name the bank account is under. You were born and raised in Nebraska (hardly The South), went to private school and moved to Florida when you were 16. This is when you developed your accent?! Not exactly the developmental years are they? At age 16 that’s the kind of thing you have to make a concerted effort to adopt. Did you hire a voice coach? Or were you like one of those people who go to England for a week and come back sounding like an extra from “Lock Stock and Two Smoking Barrels”? As you said yourself in an interview once, “I can pop in and out of it pretty much whenever I want”. In your book on page 89 you say in reference to the “gee-shucks” millionaire comment, “…see, to his (David’s) mind, bein’ well paid means I’m no longer real and I can’t be a country boy anymore. It’s just an act.” Hey, it’s always been an act! That’s my fucking point! You admit it yourself so cut the indignation shit. And I am in no way deriding your work ethic. You clearly have more fart jokes than most and for that I applaud you.
. . .
And if you really, truly want to respect your fans, lower your ticket price as well as the price of your ubiquitous merchandise. I’m sure all those hard-working Americans could use the extra money now that the budgets are being cut drastically from Transportation, Education, Health and Human Services, HUD, Dept of the Interior, EPA, Farm Service Agency, FEMA, Agricultural, FDA, VA, FDA, FHA, National Center for Environmental Health, and numerous other departments and agencies that they might directly rely on for help. All so that we can pay off this massive tax cut during “war” time that we’re all getting (them not so much though).

“I don’t care who you are, that’s funny.”

A couple of points I’d like to throw into the mix in regards to the continung war between TNR (and now Daivd Brooks) and the lefty blogosphere. For one, most liberal bloggers aren’t defending Markos. They’re defending themselves. After all, it’s Zengerle who wrote things like this :

So far, Kos’s friends in the fiercely independent liberal blogosphere seem to have displayed a sheep-like obedience to his dictat.
. . .
Following up on this, why did so many of the people on the “Townhouse” e-mail list follow Kos’s orders to stay silent about the Armstrong story and the Kosola allegations? Part of it, I’m sure, has to do with their political allegiances to Kos. But let’s not underestimate their financial allegiances.

It’s not just Markos and Jerome Armstrong beign dragged through the mud, it’s every liberal blogger (especially those in the Advertising Liberally network). As one of the many, many unnamed bloggers whose integrity is being questioned by this yellow journalism, let me just say that Jason Zengerle is an asshole.Every liberal blogger has been besmirched by these unsupported insinuations and we’ve got every right to be pissed. And if that makes me just another lowbrow, potty-mouthed blogger, so be it. I’d rather be an immature fool than an immoral elitist.

Secondly, Zengerle’s ever-growing mountain of unsupported attacks and obvious attempts to discredit Kos have made him the Ken Star of the blogosphere. Take a look at this capper on the end of Zengerle’s attempt to downplay the fact that he published a fake email :

…because the mistake that resulted from this failure has allowed Greenwald and others to try to use this minor error to distract people from much larger issues. Those issues are: Armstrong’s troubles with the SEC; Armstrong’s relationship with Moulitsas and Moulitsas’s pattern of supporting politicians who hire Armstrong as a consultant; Moulitsas’s attempts to silence liberal bloggers from commenting on these matters; the seeming acquiescence of so many of these liberal bloggers (including Greenwald) to Moulitsas’s demands; and now, strangely, stuff like this.

The “this” in question is a link to a weird astrology blog that Jerome Armstrong ran. Why is it relevant to the issues at hand? It isn’t. Just like a semen-stained dress is irrelevant when you’re investigating a failed land deal. The whole point of this little crusade wasn’t to actually build a case against Jerome and Kos, but to keep throwing allegations at them until something sticks. It’s the standard “there’s so much out there, something’s gotta be true” trick that’s been used against John Kerry, Al Gore, John McCain, and Bill Clinton.

It’ll probably work this time too. The reason the trick works especially well in this case is that loud protests must mean that they’ve hit a nerve, right? There’s no way somebody would get this mad unless TNR is on to something. At least that’s how they’ll spin it. If the blogosphere rallies around Kos, it proves that we’re the well-trained poodles that TNR insists we are. And if we don’t comment on it, it’s becase Kos has issued “marching orders” (their words) to ignore the story and hope it goes away.

We’re all getting Swift-Boated now.

Rush Limbaugh is, well, he’ll gladly pay you tuesday for an erection today:

Rush Limbaugh was detained for about 3 1/2 hours at Palm Beach International Airport after authorities said they found a bottle of Viagra in his possession without a prescription.

The 55-year-old radio commentator’s luggage was examined by U.S. Customs and Border Protection after his private plane landed at the airport around 2 p.m. from the Dominican Republic, said Paul Miller, spokesman for the Palm Beach County Sheriff’s Office.

Customs officials found in Limbaugh’s luggage a prescription bottle labeled as Viagra, a prescription drug that treats erectile disfunction, Miller said.

“The problem was that on the bottle itself was not his name, but the name of two Florida doctors,” Miller said.

So there’s a joke here. I won’t say it though. Far be it from me to fluff a topic like this for rock hard evidence of in-and-out tourism on the part of His Drugginess that could result in hard time. Because I wouldn’t ever rise to such bait. Instead, I’ll be the bigger man. I won’t, for example, comment on the fact that Rush is apparently flip-flopping on the whole drug thing. Or that he’s trying to stuff the press with evidence of his virility.

I certainly won’t say that his dick is the apparent genital equivalent to the portrait of Dorian Gray.

Because I’m mature.

Hi everyone, Ross A. Lincoln here. Greg has decided to be nice enough to let me return and hijack his site occasionally, so, as you can see, here I am, as it were. So to speak. Or something.

For those of you who don’t recall, or have no money-funding idea who I am, here’s a previous post of mine that I’m somewhat proud of. Also, here’s something that garnered a surprising amount of attention, considering its profanity and lack of cohesive organization.

Anyway, why am I here now? I’m glad I asked that question. Last Saturday night, I emerged from my habitual documentary asceticism and finally, at long last, saw An Inconvenient Truth. Finer critical minds than mine have already discussed and promoted the film at length and I am, I’m sad to say, rather late enough seeing it that my telling you you should do so will be a redundant gesture. By which I mean to say that you’ve probably already seen it, a long time before I did and therefore, you’re probably thinking to yourself that I am a serious poseur.

However, if you must know what I think, it’s this: An inconvenient Truth is a damnedly important movie, concise and gripping, fact-filled enough to satisfy nerds like me but brisk enough not to bore everyone else, and most importantly, it makes an immensely compelling argument. Al Gore is impassioned and persuasive and, surprisingly to people who failed to watch Futurama, funny. Basically, this film is the Al Gore I wish we’d seen during the entire 2000 campaign, instead of just the last two months. I think he could have won had he been like this the whole time.

Naturally, had he been like this, he would have never selected that moralizing sycophant from Connecticut to be his running mate, but I digress.

As I was saying. Seeing an inconvenient truth only made the contrast between Al, and the feces flinging simpleton the Supreme Court selected for us, all the sadder. But, truth be told, I don’t know if AIT will convince the rapture believers and their allies, the corporate prostitutes global warming “skeptics,” who are unlikely to believe any evidence short of Dallas, Texas submerged under ocean water, without first attributing it to either the return of Jesus, or natural variations in massively destructive human-killing environmental norms. However, I suspect anyone who isn’t reflexively inclined to ignore the message because Al Gore, who is a NERDY NERD WHO NERD and who is also a BIG FAT LIAR WHO IS CRAZY and who HAS A BEARD and has CONSULTANTS DRESS HIS BECAUSE HE IS A FAG AND A NERD, is the messenger will probably, hopefully, find it convincing or at least, compelling enough to learn more.

None of this is new to you, so why bring it up? Because it was a singularly impressive night and I have to share it with you. Impressive How? Well, like so many more elite blog type people in the months prior to its release, I got to see An Inconvenient Truth garnished with a slice of live-and-in-person Al Gore himself. The film is part of AFI’s current film festival line up, and they showed it in Downtown LA, out in the open, in a corporate park which shall remain nameless but happens to be immediately next to MOCA. Al was there to speak, or more accurately, to thank us for showing up and to tactfully not respond to cries from the audience asking him to run for president again. He didn’t actually say much more than banal flattery of the film industry (It was a film festival after all, and not a political event so to speak.) but he sincerely believes in the fight against global warming and that kind of passion, even buried underneath schmoozefest platitudes, is infectious.

So sure, Al was interesting, but he’s been touring in support of the film, so his being there, while cool, was somewhat to be expected.

So if it wasn’t Al, was it the all-too-expected appearance of Los Angeles’ Mayoral Homeboy, Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa? Well, in a word, no. For those of you who don’t know, Mayor Villaraigosa is, to quote Rakim, a smooth operator operating correctly. I’ve never seen, (and I came this close to shaking Bill Clinton’s hand in 1996), anyone as acutely politico-ish as V-Chip. You can almost feel his smarmy Vulcan Mind Meld, sizing you up, determining if not talking to you will adversely affect his career. Like a used car salesman at an Amway convention, seeing V-the Series among other politicians of note is to see an epic battle of wills, a test of who can butter the crowd up for the next election the most, and it’s made all the more hilarious when he’s the only one playing.

Mayor A-V club has to be anywhere a prominent politico shows up so he can bask in reflected, parasitized glory, so it makes sense that he’d be at the showing of An Inconvenient Truth. Fortunately for those of us watching, and for Los Angeles, Mayor V. might emit slick like a short wave, but he does deserve some praise because he has taken steps to bring LA in accord with the Kyoto accords (and to be honest, I believe his pledges to make LA government more ethical.)

So no, the highlight wasn’t the ubiquitous appearance of Mayor V.

The highlight was something magical. Something… amazing. Something… cliffhangery…
(more…)

Heh. Now the Iraqis want us to come up with a timetable for withdrawal. Interesting corner you’ve painted yourself into President Bush. If you go along with the plan, you’re essentially agreeing with the Democrats in regards to withdrawal. If you disagree, then all of your talk about Iraqi sovereignty was bullshit. After all, this is what the White House Spokesman said just one month ago :

Q [D]oes the fact that there is now a unity government change Maliki’s ability to say — to tell us, or ask us to leave?

MR. SNOW: We’ve been very clear, when the Iraqi government — we serve there at the pleasure of the Iraqi government. You know, if he says he doesn’t need us, we’re not going to stick around.

So is Maliki a puppet or does the President agree with the Democrats? I doubt either will go over very well with the base.

Earlier this week, Jason Zengerle over at The New Republic posted an email that Kos wrote to a private email list asking liberal bloggers not to comment on an ongoing SEC investigation of his friend and co-writer Jerome Armstrong. The story has evolved a lot since then, but the gist of it is that TNR has been insinuating that Kos is the fascist leader of the liberal blogosphere. Or something like that. The innuendo from this paragraph alone is enough to make one conclude that this guy probably has an axe to grind :

Why the strange silence in the face of such damning allegations? Well, I think we now know the answer. It’s a deliberate strategy orchestrated by Kos. TNR obtained a missive Kos sent earlier this week to “Townhouse,” a private email list comprising elite liberal bloggers, including Jane Hamsher, Matt Stoller, and Christy Hardin Smith. And what was Kos’s message to this group that secretly plots strategy in the digital equivalent of a smoke-filled backroom?

Since then, TNR writers Michael Crowley, Jon Chait, Martin Peretz, andLee Siegel have all jumped in to either bash Kos or defend TNR. I’d love to get a peek at what’s been getting discussed on their private email list. Or are private communications only considered a “smoke-filled backroom” when it’s somebody you don’t like?