Things That Don't Suck: King of California

So, at the end of my last post... earlier today, I promised my next post would be apolitical, and here goes. Last night I saw a pretty enjoyable movie, King of California. Evan Rachel Wood (open question: who names their daughter Evan?) plays Miranda, the 17 year-old daughter of an eccentric man who we see picking up her father, Charlie (Michael Douglas), from a mental institution in the first few scenes of the film.

Over an hour and a half we follow them on a treasure hunt filled with some goofy incidents, recollections of Miranda's youth, and exploration of a dysfunctional but interesting relationship between father and daughter. The journey is inspired and guided by readings Charlie found while he was in the loony bin. Wood plays an over-mature young woman pretty well, we meet her first at her job behind the counter at McDonalds. Her scrappy story of surviving while her father was locked away sets the stage for the distance she displays throughout the movie. Still, she can't resist following and eventually helping her hapless and goofy father, Charlie as he embarks on a garbled adventure.

I wouldn't say Douglas is brilliant, but his character sure is fun. The movie overall was enjoyable if not groundbreaking. It was relatively simple, smart but not preachy and inhabited by characters that were interesting enough to draw you in, accessible and fairly believable.

Some might guess I was drawn to the movie by its bright yellow box, given that a) I like bright colors b) I loved Little Miss Sunshine which also comes in a bright yellow box and c) I'm much like a moth... unable to resist visual stimuli. Even if these people are right, I enjoyed hanging out last night with the King of California and I recommend checking it out.

Zinger VS Burns

Last night I watched a good bit of SNL's the Best of Alec Baldwin, whose presence has been amazing on 30 Rock, no matter what you may think of his voicemail messages and other nasty habits. Some fine laughs were had over the absurdity of the Zinger v.s. Burns skit featuring Seth Meyers and Baldwin. Today, I caught a couple stories out there that struck me as little blogosphere zingers on Camp Clinton... both interesting in their own way.

First, I saw a piece from Andrew Sullivan over at the Atlantic, describing a poll that shows New Jersey democrats, who voted for Hillary by a 10% majority are now demonstrating some buyer's remorse. I think polls like this one are really interesting, especially given how much recent political conversation has been focused on who is electable in the fall.

Then, this afternoon, a piece floated out across the AP wires about how fake Hillary's stop by a gas station was. Wonkette had a nice tongue-in-cheek (surprise there) piece on how hilarious it is for the AP to stress the fakeness of one photo op, when all the campaigns are pretty much daily engaging in little choreographed exhibitions... anyway, whether it's fair or not, I thought the piece was pretty interesting, if only for the fact that they give you a nice portrait of the staging that goes into a "casual visit to a NC gas station."

Is anyone surprised when politicians are playing fake-it-till-ya-make-it? It's old news that a large chunk of America's best informed citizens (or at least best informed young people) tune in more reliably to the fake news than almost any other news source. Still, if the scheduled conversation between BillO and Hillary tonight is any indication, I don't see the Democratic discussion in the next few days veering back towards the land of the sensible. I bet we'll be hearing more about useless "tax vacations" and crazy preachers. YAY!

Does all that sound... jaded? Be not jaded! Laugh at this (Hillary trying to figure out a coffee machine):



Ok... not sure that last one was entirely fair... but it is funny. Promise to you: my next post will be about something entirely apolitical.

Karl Rove: forgetful or worse?

So I came across an editorial on the WSJ today. It's written by Karl Rove and talks about what a swell guy McCain is and how Americans need to know this. It's mostly fluff, but it got me all riled up. I'd like to explain why. Consider this passage:

For example, in 1991 Cindy McCain was visiting Mother Teresa's orphanage in Bangladesh when a dying infant was thrust into her hands. The orphanage could not provide the medical care needed to save her life, so Mrs. McCain brought the child home to America with her. She was met at the airport by her husband, who asked what all this was about.

Mrs. McCain replied that the child desperately needed surgery and years of rehabilitation. "I hope she can stay with us," she told her husband. Mr. McCain agreed. Today that child is their teenage daughter Bridget.

It is a nice story isn't it? all warm and fuzzy. But shamefully, Mr. Rove leaves out a crucial part of the story, one that took place in the 2000 South Carolina primary. McCain was locked in a tight battle with Rove's former boss, the then-Governor of Texas, George W. Bush. During that primary, Bush supporters spread rumours that McCain had an illegitimate child with a black prostitute. He even had the nerve to appear in PUBLIC with this child. The proof was his daughter, Bridget. Photos of the two of them together were circulated. the rumours were considered very damaging and probably were part of the reason McCain lost.

Now, I'm not saying Rove had anything to do with this. really: I'm not. But he must have known. How could he not bring this up? Isn't it relevant to what he's talking about? For this failure alone, the editorial is deeply flawed at best and at worst is...something I'd rather not say.