Remember the secret hold?

The hold placed on the Obama legislation? Muckraker has it down to just six potential candidates:

They are: Sens. Robert Byrd (D-WV), Mike Crapo (R-ID), Judd Gregg (R-NH), Orrin Hatch (R-UT), Ted Stevens (R-AK), and Robert Bennett (R-UT).

And here is a list of their responses from all other Senators. While I'd love for another reason to hate Ted Stevens (and it would be the most fitting irony since the bill would be creating an internet search database -- and we know Stevens completely understands the internet...), I just feel hating him for Net Neutrality defemation is enough. Crapo is interesting in that he refused to answer (and is the only one), and would be in line for character: if you're going to make it "secret," of course you're not going to respond. Call me crazy, but when I first saw this, I thought it was Hatch right away.

But now I'm not so sure. Stevens is stupid enough to only continue his folly with any internet involvement; Crapo's refusal to answer is an implication, though not much.

Fuck it, let's go with Stevens. Old coot is bat-shit insane with regards to the internet. Maybe he figured out what it was, and decided that this bill would help the government, and only expose more of his bat-shit insanity to more people.

EDIT (4:25 am): Sheesh, I find more evidence that I might be guessing right, but it took maybe 10 seconds more than after I posted this reply. From Redstate:

The Coburn-Obama legislation has a "secret hold" on it. The legislation, also known as the "Federal Funding, Accountability, & Transparency Act", would create an online, searchable database of federal earmarks. The database would list which member of congress obtained the earmark, how much the earmark is for, what the purpose is for, which local contractors are involved, etc.

Someone has a hold on the legislation. Last week, I called every senator's office, except five -- those five are co-sponsors of the legislation. I've been told that the hold was placed by a Republican. Of all the senators I called, only one would not give me a definitive "no." Senator Stevens's office said he does not comment on holds and, in any event, they did not know if he had a hold. They also told me they had gotten "lots" of calls. That last bit is interesting because a friend also called the office the day before I called -- he called in the afternoon and I called the next morning. He was told the office had gotten no calls on the legislation and the office was not aware of the legislation. That does not add up.

We know Senator Stevens has a grudge to settle with Senator Coburn over the bridge to nowhere. Is Senator Stevens responsible for this hold? Bloggers want to know.

So, now there seems to be three factors going for Stevens:

1. He hates the internet in principle, since he wants to fuck it over so bad by being against Net Neutrality.
2. He also would not give a definitive "no." Not quite as damning as refusing to answer, but it seems to be the same just with different words I feel ("I don't talk about holds, blah blah blah.")
3. Personal vandetta over the bridge to nowhere, which is the king of all idiotic pork projects.

So, with that, I point directly to Stevens as the culprit, and my hatred of the man only intensifies.

EDIT #2 (4:41 am): The knife twists a little deeper, in that I surely didn't do enough research in this matter before posting it. More from Muckraker:

But did he really do it? Well, he had a motive: As the paper and others have noted, Stevens and Coburn have clashed before -- in particular over Stevens' now-legendary "bridge to nowhere." Coburn attempted (and failed) to block the $233 million boondoggle. And revenge certainly fits the senior Alaskan's m.o. "Stevens can play rough," the Seattle Times noted in June. "Despite denials from his staff, he retaliates - and doesn't mind waiting years to do so."

Stevens' office has so far refused to comment on the hold. Ninety-five other senators have confirmed they were not responsible.

Stevens is as vindictive as I thought he might be. Interesting. Muckraker also links to an article from 11 days ago saying specifically this:

One of the senators most criticized for his personal projects, Sen. Ted Stevens, R-Alaska, has a hold of his own on Coburn's bill to make public the spending patterns of the government. Called the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act, the legislation calls for the creation of a database open to the public where citizens can track government spending.

"He's the only senator blocking it," Coburn said of Stevens.

Unless something major happens for another person who so far hasn't denied using the hold, or Stevens confesses, there's no other real potential to come close for being the one who put the hold on the bill. I hate to claim it's getting to the point of being obvious, since much of this is quite speculative (though very much strongly implied), but I mean come on!

Look!

Bush likes the word eclectic, too! He just cannot pronounce it. If only I believed him about reading many good books, and not some cliff notes versions, half-way through. I just can't trust the man's reading list is true, when he's said before that he didn't really enjoy reading, or words to the effect, and that he cannot seem to grasp the common sense to see evolution as true. Boy, those comments about Intelligent Design really have set the bar low for whatever trust I would ever give to this guy, in anything.

Weekend Links

Politics:

Developments on Iran:

MOSCOW, Aug. 25 — Russia’s defense minister said Friday that it was premature to consider punitive actions against Iran despite its refusal so far to suspend its efforts to enrich uranium as the United Nations Security Council has demanded.

Although Russia agreed to the Security Council’s resolution on July 31, Defense Minister Sergei B. Ivanov’s remarks made it clear that Russia would not support taking the next step that the United States and Britain have called for: imposing sanctions against Iran or its leaders over its nuclear programs. The Council set Aug. 31 as the deadline for Iran to respond to its demand.

Russia has repeatedly expressed opposition to punitive steps, even as President Vladimir V. Putin and others have called on Iran to cooperate with international inspectors and suspend its enrichment activity.

But on Friday Mr. Ivanov went further, saying the issue was not “so urgent” that the Security Council should consider sanctions and expressing doubt that they would work in any case.

Nothing truly shocking in this development. Though I think this might be silly:

But Russia’s opposition to sanctions appears to extend beyond purely commercial interests. Officials have indicated that they fear that sanctions would lead to a new American-led military conflict in the region, as happened in Iraq.

Voicing a similar fear, the French foreign minister, Philippe Douste-Blazy, said in Paris that Iran’s response was “not satisfactory” but warned that it would be worse “to lend fire to a confrontation between Iran on one side — the Muslim world with Iran — and the West.”

To me, it seems that if sanctions are given, the U.S. doesn't do any other action in the region. Without the sanctions, it can give an excuse to this craze administration of "We tried diplomacy, but it didn't work." Like I said before, I still very much do not know what to make of this situation. No nukes to Iran as of now, and no war with Iran, but sometimes I want this to get done and across to others, but also feel I'm just being so damn impatient here as well.

This is something new to me, but I'm told that only shows how inexperienced I am with politics, which I readily accept. I believe I've discussed the legislation about making the government a lot more transparent (if not, this will show light on that as well). Well, it's now on hold. But it's on secret hold:

WASHINGTON — In an ironic twist, legislation that would open up the murky world of government contracting to public scrutiny has been derailed by a secret parliamentary maneuver.

An unidentified senator placed a "secret hold" on legislation introduced by Sens. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., and Barack Obama, D-Ill., that would create a searchable database of government contracts, grants, insurance, loans and financial assistance, worth $2.5 trillion last year. The database would bring transparency to federal spending and be as simple to use as conducting a Google search.

The measure had been unanimously passed in a voice vote last month by the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee. It was on the fast track for floor action before Congress recessed Aug. 4 when someone put a hold on the measure.

Now the bill is in political limbo. Under Senate rules, unless the senator who placed the hold decides to lift it, the bill will not be brought up for a vote.

"It really is outrageous to do this in the dead of night as Congress is recessing," said Gary Bass, executive director of OMB Watch, a budget watchdog group based in Washington. "The public has a right to know how the government spends money."

The secret hold has prompted conservative and liberal government watchdog groups to band together to "smoke out" the senator responsible.

Now, I'm told it's nothing new, but it's always been severely looked down upon. I know Clinton put a hold on the approval of some Bush appointees due to the Plan B delays, but there in lies the difference -- Clinton put the hold on. It wasn't in secret. We have no idea yet who did this. Clinton would be the one bearing the political loss or gain from doing this. That it was in secret just shows the person isn't capable of doing that, especially in an election year, and just wants to play with an obviously very much supported bill.

Great news I feel. Republicans are less seen as "friendly to religion" than before:

A new poll shows that fewer Americans view the Republican Party as “friendly to religion” than a year ago, with the decline particularly steep among Catholics and white evangelical Protestants — constituencies at the core of the Republicans’ conservative Christian voting bloc.

The survey found that the proportion of Americans who say the Republican Party is friendly to religion fell 8 percentage points in the last year, to 47 percent from 55 percent. Among Catholics and white evangelical Protestants, the decline was 14 percentage points.

The Democratic Party suffers from the perception of an even more drastic religion deficit, but that is not new. Just 26 percent of poll respondents said the Democratic Party was friendly to religion, down from 29 percent last year.

Well, it might be better in an election year if this transfered to Democrats, but on a principle note, I don't give a shit that it didn't. I don't think any part of religion should play a factor in politics, especially with the obvious bastardization-love-fucking between evangelicals and Republicans. I mean I almost feel sorry for this group, as well. Think about it. They may have ridiculous feelings on issues ("Burn them faggots!"; "Burn Harry Potter!"; "Don't burn the flag!"; "All life, even semen 2 seconds after evacuation, is sacred!") but that's the saddness: they honestly feel if they back these corrupt motherfuckers, that they will get passed. They've had at least four years, and really a total of 12, of the best chances they could ever dream of having to get their utter nonsense passed -- and it's failed. Bush gave them somewhat what they wanted on stem cells, but even that just shows that Congress supports it but the President doesn't. It must be saddening to them, I'm sure.

But Religion fizzling to an even less of a position in politics? That's cause for celebration. Sad or not, I say "It's about fucking time." I empathize with them, but I am still happy as hell they're losing hope it seems.

Taking a similar turn to the masterbation-thon that was in England, in Vermont, teenagers demand their rights. Their rights to be nude!

BRATTLEBORO, Vermont (Reuters) - Some have appeared naked in a downtown parking lot. Others rode their bicycles or simply strolled the streets in the nude.

Teenagers in the quaint Vermont town of Brattleboro are raising eyebrows this summer with brazen displays of nudity.

So far they haven't been arrested or ticketed: public nudity isn't illegal in the town of 13,000 people, unless it's done to arouse sexual gratification.

Vermont has a live-and-let-live tradition, allowing skinny-dipping and nude sunbathing. Brattleboro, the first permanent English settlement in the state in 1724, is home to a community of writers, artists and musicians as well as transplanted entrepreneurs from Boston and New York.

When the weather grew hot this year, a couple of dozen teens took to holding hula hoop contests, riding bikes and parading past the shops wearing only their birthday suits.

Nobody, including the police, seemed to take offense until one local, Theresa Toney, went before the town government in August to complain about a group of youngsters naked in a parking lot.

"The parking lot is not a strip club," she said. "What about children seeing this?"

Town officials asked their attorney to draft an ordinance to ban such displays for the Select Board to vote on in September. When the teens heard about it, some staged a nude sit-in.

In case you're wondering, Vermont is the most liberal state in the U.S. They have very relaxed laws on pot, their govenor is a communist I believe, and not to mention this. It's also funny of which state is the most Republican: New Hampshire. Two political extremes split by mountains, a river, and a lake.

This next generation of kids in school is going to be the largest, and most diverse in U.S. history. A very good development, but also carries some serious problems.

There is more worry about insider trading becoming standardized in the series of mergers over the past year:

The boom in corporate mergers is creating concern that illicit trading ahead of deal announcements is becoming a systemic problem.

It is against the law to trade on inside information about an imminent merger, of course.

But an analysis of the nation’s biggest mergers over the last 12 months indicates that the securities of 41 percent of the companies receiving buyout bids exhibited abnormal and suspicious trading in the days and weeks before those deals became public. For those who bought shares during these periods of unusual trading, quick gains of as much as 40 percent were possible.

The study, conducted for The New York Times by Measuredmarkets Inc., an analytical research firm in Toronto, scrutinized mergers with a value of $1 billion or more that were announced in the 12-month period that ended in early July. The firm analyzed the price, the total number of shares traded and the number of individual trades in each stock during the weeks leading up to the announcement and looked for large deviations from trading patterns going back as far as four years.

Although any number of factors can lead to spikes in trading, deviations of the kind observed by Measuredmarkets are among the data used by regulators to spot insider trading. Of the 90 big mergers in the period, shares of 37 target companies exhibited abnormal trading in the days and weeks before the deals were disclosed.

...

The analysis by The New York Times found that, in a handful of the mergers, significant progress toward a deal was being made on the days unusual trading occurred. For example, the day that four bidders were putting together buyout offers for Amegy Bancorp, a Houston bank company, trading in its stock quadrupled.

I really don't know much about the Enron scandal (was uncaring at that age), but I believe this is exactly what was happening, along with hiding the failings of the company. Scary to think this is becoming widespread, in a world that is already so blood thirsty for money and individually self-absorbed.

Science + Technology:

Remember the great big drama over Pluto being demoted? Yeah, it's a sad thing. But what does it effect? School children. It doesn't explain our Universe any better. What does? How about Dark Matter being real? Yeah, it has a bit more practical impact for us. But is it played more in media? Not a chance. Just like with that damn girl's killer being the center of the media circus, it's Pluto that's the attention, not Dark Matter. It's shocking to know that, just like our electromagnetic spectrum being mostly invisible (only the small percent being visible light), that about 95% of our entire UNIVERSE is invisible. 25% of that invisible Universe is Dark Matter. It's a bit more important that fucking Pluto, isn't it? Sean at Cosmic Variance does a fantastic job explaining how we know what we know about this.

I had this yesterday when it seemed more likely to be a ill-timed terrible thing, but the projected track of our first Huricane of the year: Ernesto. The bitter irony being if it would ever occur that around the time of the Katrina aniversary another storm hit the city or near it. Though, now, that seems highly unlikely. More on Ernesto.

Ha! Look at what can be done today. I was completely unaware of the popularity of this video. Must see it (and it is great). But I will say I always thought the guitar was a simple instrument. I never thought anyone can just pick it up and play, but always thought it was quite simple. I know from my own complete inability to play an instrument that all are much harder than they seem, especially if you're just listening to a song.

Jamie has told me bluntly when we get married that she will take my name for a very simple reason: she hates her last name.

Edward Scissorhands

I recently watched Edward Scissorhands not too long ago, and it's still playing on my mind. It's one of those movies for actors and directors. For me, it wouldn't matter if Tim Burton or Johnny Depp made any other movies. This is all they need to do. Like with Edward Norton or Brad Pitt in Fight Club, it sets a precedent for those certain actors, as well as directors (though David Fincher's goes back to Seven for me), where no matter what else they do in their career, you're still standing in awe of what they've done. They're still going to be terrific because they such great work here.

The movie overall is a modern fairytale. Like many, it has a simple beginning, that is a wondering explanation about a common event: Where does snow come from? Fables in all forms just stretch what really could have happened into impossible lengths. Of course snow doesn't come from blocks of ice being cut. Of course a man cannot ever have scissorhands. Of course there would never be a mountain just sitting there in the middle of the suburbs, as if no one knew it was there. Of course the 50's, 60's, 70's, 80's -- whenever -- were never that atrociously colored....

The plot is very straightforward. Told in the perspective of the narrator, Kim, her mother Peg, the town Avon lady, isn't doing so great of sales so she decides to go to one house she's never been to: the mansion on top of a mountain at the end of the suburbs. There she meets Edward, who is "not finished" according to him because his inventor sadly died of either a heart attack or stroke or some other natural cause. Peg takes Edward home, and introduces him to everyone and the community, and to Kim with whom he instantly falls in love with. Things go well for a while, but soon the community at large grows fearful of Edward, and Jim, Kim's boyfriend, sets Edward up and repeatedly does things that are bad for Edward as seen by others, even though through it all he's really doing things for very pure reasons. Eventually, Edward returns to the mansion, Kim follows him to say goodbye, and Jim appears to try to shoot Edward but he ends up killing Jim. Kim leaves and says that Edward is dead to the rest of the community, and the story ends in a bittersweet way with Kim as an old woman telling her granddaughter about Edward and we see him alone in the mansion still in love with the Kim he remembers.

To begin, I didn't ever even realize that the relationship had such a sickening name similarity: Kim and Jim. How sweet, if only Jim wasn't an asshole. But that's just a tidbit.

Aside from being a new modern fairytale, set right in the heart of an extremely stereotypical suburb, it's also touches on themes most commonly from Frankenstein. With the final confrontation at the inventor's mansion an allusion to the conflict at the windmill, that there is an inventor (though here he loves his invention rather than being indifferent or hating it) of Edward, the naivete, and most strikingly the mob mentality of the suburb community. Edward is also seen by some as grotesque due to his scaring and just general appearance, which is also similar to the Frankenstein monster.

But Edward is not a monster. While there are similarities, Edward is nearly an inversion of the monster in Frankenstein. He continually acts just like that of a child for pure motives even if other see them as quite terrible. He jimmies open locks not to steal the thing inside, but to help others who have lost their keys. He's exceedingly pure in his pursuit of Kim, where he'll do anything for her even going into a house he knows to be Jim's even though Jim lied to him -- just because Kim asked him to do it.

Going more metaphorically, what Edward goes through can largely be seen as a typical teenage situation. His strange clothes, his even stranger hair, the scars all evoke the troubled teen years. It goes even further with the sexual confusion with Joyce (in a very funny scene), to the frustration of not being able to truly express his feelings to Kim seen in his scissorhands and not being able to hold her. Frustration also comes out in the anger toward what trouble Jim has caused for Edward and then his destruction of the family bathroom, and finally when he has harmed Kim's hand and Jim tells him to leave the demon hedge he makes in front of the religious fundamentalist's house. There are also what could be considered his ungangly movements, like when he hits his head against the car window both from ignorance and overexcitement. Finally, and throughout all of these, is the desire for him to change. The community tries to accept Edward, but ultimately fails. Through not being able to open his own store because he "might as well not even exist," to the religious fundamentalist calling him a perversion, to multiple people remarking they "know a doctor who might be able to help" Edward.

One of the ways this totaled angst is given is in the relationship between Kim and Edward obviously. In almost every scene they share, there are other people around, interrupting, or soon coming to interrupt them. There really are only two true exceptions to this that show the great contrast overtime. The first is when Kim comes home after the camping trip and goes into her room and is startled to death by Edward since she didn't know he was there. She's completely freaked out by him (and Edward by her, too, by the way he destroys her water bed). The only other scene where this happens is after Edward has initially hurt Kim and fled, but then returns to the house. Kim's there again and it's the great scene where she says for Edward to hold her, but that he can't due to his scissors, but she embraces him anyway. The contrast is 100%, from fear to comfort and love. However, even this scene could be argued to be interrupted as well: it stops when they hear Jim and his friend driving drunk down the road and fearing for Kevin, Kim's brother, crossing the street.

There are other scenes that come very close to being like these two, but ultimately are interrupted, and by the same person: Jim. The first is Edward explaining why he did break into Jim's house after he has been caught and released. He tells Kim it's because she asked him to, and we see how much this hurts her, and then Jim comes over yelling for Kim. She goes outside and tells him it's over and to leave her alone, while Edward gets very angry at Jim and, again, destroys the bathroom.

The other scene is my favorite of the film, and one of my favorites of all time as well. Kim is helping her mother decorate the tree, but she looks up and sees snow coming from outside. She goes out to see what's going on -- since it's never snowed there before, remember -- and sees Edward carving a giant ice angel: the "flakes" are the debris of the carving. She's so entranced by this that she begins to dance under the snow that Edward is making in a very, very, beautiful scene. Edward begins to step down as he's finishing, and Jim yells at him and ultimately causes Edward to swing away a little bit and ends up cutting Kim's hand. It's a very visual and well done scene, with the terrific score by Danny Elfman.

One scene that really caps off in a nutshell the way Edward is takes place near the end of the film. The community is against him, he's hurt Kim, and is still running from everyone. Now, he's sitting on the sidewalk curb thinking about what has happened and what he is to do. From a backyard, a dog comes running up to him. Even with all the bad things that have been happening to him, Edward still does the nice thing: he cuts the dogs hair that is covering his eyes. It's also a parallel to Edward's own situation: the dog is no longer "blind" to the world, and neither is Edward blind to what people might think of him. He already knows he cannot stay here anymore.

Overall, the movie is fantastic. If only it was this movie by Tim Burton, and if only it was the ice sculpting scene, this would be a movie to remember forever. But there is much more to this. There's humor, there's a real message, and many other scenes as emotionally and visually powerful as that one. Again, it has to be given to Danny Elfman here -- this is undoubtedly my favorite score he's done, both again in the ice scene, as well as the ending. Terrific use of music.

This movie, again, is really the standing point I use to compare any other Johnny Depp movie. Everywhere in the film, he's amazing. It's even more so, since he only speaks 169 words. That's it. In a movie that is 105 minutes. Less than 2 words a minute! The rest is just his presence and expression as Edward in the movie. Much like his role in Pirates of the Caribbean, you just simply do not see Johnny Depp here. All you see is Edward. He's that engrossed into the character and has it down perfectly. That even Tom Cruise was considered for this film is laughable. There's no one else; there's only Johnny Depp who could play this role.

The rest of the cast is good, but there's not too much to be said with them because Depp is so much the part here. Winona Ryder is good here, but she isn't given much to be outstanding with. Her scene with the ice sculpture is again great, but it's not so much great because she did an amazing job in the scene -- it's an amazing scene overall, not just because of her. Dianne Wiest is very good here, but she somewhat pains me to watch because she does remind me of my own mother (in a silly way). Anthony Micheal Hall I'm sorry to say isn't the best asshole actor. It's good that he wasn't typecast as a continual nerd, but he could've done better here. His part was sufficient enough to make everyone hate him, though. Alan Arkin has great moments as the father, especially the lemonade scene. And last but not at all least is Vincent Price. If anyone comes close to rivaling Depp's performance here, it is him. He's only in three scenes, but he completely just is the inventor. Only downside is that you're always aware that it is Vincent Price, but that's nothing really here. That's part of the reason he's so great here -- it's just something you think is natural. "Of course Vincent Price would play the inventor. Who else would?" And that's what the film leaves you with. A feeling of "If it wasn't done exactly this way, how else could it be done?" The only answer: badly.

Links today (yesterday, sadly)

Politics:

Iran refused to stop it's uranium enrichment.

In its response, Iran offered "serious talks" over its nuclear activities but did not raise the issue of suspending enrichment by Aug. 31, the deadline established by the United Nations Security Council, Western diplomats said.

"What they have not done is address the key point, whether or not they are going to suspend," said one senior European official involved in the Iran negotiations. Following traditional protocol, the official and other diplomats spoke only on condition of anonymity.

As European and American diplomats analyzed the 21-page counterproposal on Tuesday, it increasingly appeared that Iran's efforts to push past the Aug. 31 deadline would be considered unacceptable and that they would be likely to lead to calls for imposing sanctions. The United States, Britain, France and Germany plan to meet Wednesday in New York to discuss the proposal and their response.

It wasn't terribly surprising I feel, but what comes next is what is unknown.

John R. Bolton, the United States representative to the United Nations, said Tuesday that Washington was prepared to move rapidly on a new Council resolution calling for economic sanctions.

But the meeting will not include two key Council members, Russia and China, which have been reluctant to punish Tehran harshly. The challenge facing the United States will be to maintain a unified front against Iran while putting together a package of sanctions that have some bite.

It was not immediately clear how Beijing or Moscow would react to the proposal. Western diplomats have said that the two governments will seize on any indication that Iran is willing to discuss suspension in future negotiations as a reason to water down any sanctions.

I just hope nothing rash comes from this. Ironically, one of the biggest sanctions to use against Iran? Gasoline imports. They can't refine all the oil they have to meet demand, so they still import gasoline. Around 40%.

From an analysis of what might occur, one problem might be in this because France has only sent 200 troops to the Lebanon peacekeeping force. I'm glad to hear it was increased to 2,000, but I wonder if the damage was done.

Only Republicans could be voicing that spies aren't saying things aren't worse than they already seem.

Some policy makers have accused intelligence agencies of playing down Iran's role in Hezbollah's recent attacks against Israel and overestimating the time it would take for Iran to build a nuclear weapon.

The complaints, expressed privately in recent weeks, surfaced in a Congressional report about Iran released Wednesday. They echo the tensions that divided the administration and the Central Intelligence Agency during the prelude to the war in Iraq.

The criticisms reflect the views of some officials inside the White House and the Pentagon who advocated going to war with Iraq and now are pressing for confronting Iran directly over its nuclear program and ties to terrorism, say officials with knowledge of the debate.

...

The new report, from the House Intelligence Committee, led by Representative Peter Hoekstra, Republican of Michigan, portrayed Iran as a growing threat and criticized American spy agencies for cautious assessments about Iran�s weapons programs. "Intelligence community managers and analysts must provide their best analytical judgments about Iranian W.M.D. programs and not shy away from provocative conclusions or bury disagreements in consensus assessments," the report said, using the abbreviation for weapons of mass destruction like nuclear arms.

Which is not good with this moronic administration hellbent on reaching the Rapture. You had your chance to hit Iran if you wanted to (and the time was wrong anyway, since there was a considered reformer in office). Now is not it. "Provocative conclusions?" There is nothing to conclude. They don't have a bomb now, and their capabilities for making one are at closest time at least five if not more years away. Like Iraq will not be settled by this administration, neither will Iran.

More American's realize what has been told to them repeatedly, but amazingly not by Republicans (or Lieberman):

WASHINGTON, Aug. 22 - Americans increasingly see the war in Iraq as distinct from the fight against terrorism, and nearly half believe President Bush has focused too much on Iraq to the exclusion of other threats, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News poll.

The poll found that 51 percent of those surveyed saw no link between the war in Iraq and the broader antiterror effort, a jump of 10 percentage points since June. That increase comes despite the regular insistence of Mr. Bush and Congressional Republicans that the two are intertwined and should be seen as complementary elements of a strategy to prevent domestic terrorism.

...

Public sentiment about the war remains negative, threatening to erode a Republican advantage on national security. Fifty-three percent said going to war was a mistake, up from 48 percent in July; 62 percent said events were going "somewhat or very badly" in the effort to bring order and stability to Iraq.

But I guess it's just another example of that out of touch fringe-majority. Must be. Must also be that thing of the President's own admittance that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 -- and his balled faced lie that "no one has implied that it did" when in fact that was the main reason listed for the approval of authority to Congress.

Science + Technology:

It's offical. Pluto is no longer a planet. There are only eight planets in the solar system. Pluto is a dwarf planet.

Wireless networks and automated telescopes and amazing connection speeds are helping to solve our Universe by helping find extrasolar planets, supernovae, and measuring our Universe. 100 MB image downloaded in 30 seconds. Damn is that fast.

Life may have come to Earth far earlier than previously thought, due to the Earth being "oxygenated" far earlier than thought. Up to 400 million years earlier. Because of this, life may have risen far earlier on alien worlds.

Ok. We offically have to stop fucking over polar bears. Not only are they being hunted, not only is their habitat shrinking, not only are they drowning in their habitat -- their genitals are also shrinking due to pollutants. To top it off, they have some of the lowest reproductive rates of land mammals. I say we've found someone who is treated worse than most gay men in society. As well, a lot of other animals might be effected as well due to this development.

Showing once again that humans are not amazingly unique (though here it's not like it was tenaciously held or anything) even single cell amoebas cling to their family members in tough times. They are the simplest creatures known, as well. They'll also die for their families. So, altruism is a natural occurance; not simply relegated to Bill and Melinda Gates.

A substance that has a viscosity ("runniness") of 1 drop every decade, and one of the longest running experiments in the world (it is the longest running lab experiment, however). It isn't expected to be finished for at least another 100 years or so.

You know, I hated Survivor on general principle before, and just felt it was the dumbest thing in the world to have "reality TV" when it first came out. Why do people want to see other people be idiots when usually the viewers as just as big of idiots as anyone? It's the relaxing thing with television and films usually -- it's an escape. If I watch any reality TV show, I'll get depressed with the fate of humanity by thinking there could be anymore people like these nonsensical dipshits, let alone there being multiple people that would fit. But, all that aside, at least the first Survivor wasn't racist. Best move I've heard for reality TV. Maybe it will piss people off enough to shut it all down.

Mark Burnett, the series producer, said in a telephone interview yesterday that the decision to organize the teams by race was made in group discussions with CBS executives and was in no way intended to promote racial divisiveness.

"In America today," Mr. Burnett said, "I really don't believe there are many people who hate each other because of their race. But even though people may work together, they do tend in their private lives to divide along social and ethnic lines."

Look at that sweet hypocracy. "We didn't mean to come off as racists, but we're just admitting that other people are racists, and so we followed suit." Great rationalizing. And there aren't many people that hate others because of their race? Well, maybe not "hate" especially, but racial division isn't about hatred alone. Just thinking that you're better, more capable, more enjoyful, more whatever with one race versus another is a racial divide. If you feel safer with white people rather than with black people, that's a racial divide. Let alone the flagrant examples we've seen in just the last few days of politicans, the ones that make our laws and those who one would think would be held to higher standards, being openly racist toward others. Maybe it's only a fringe that truly "hate" other races; but there sure is tension between racial divides, and you're just forwarding that. So, good work Survivor! Propigating unintentional racism! Woot woot!

And, sorry, I missed the day by an hour and a half. Shit.

Stem Cell Development

Biggest news I feel today is the development announced regarding stem cells, so big in fact I'm posting it separate. I've been quite vocal with my hatred of what this administration has done in the name of "morals" regarding this issue, and that the first presidential veto was over this hypocritical issue would be the largest offense I feel of this administration if not for blatantly unconstitutional spying on US citizens and a misguided war that continues to cost us American lives, money, international prestige, and who knows what else. As well, there probably is much more that I don't know about or enough about or just can't think of right now to fling at the administration. Oh well. They went for broke, and they sure got there fast. The veto is a drop in the bucket in perspective.

That is why I feel it's of vital importance. It's a drop that doesn't need to be there (much like so many others, yes). But this has a very clear turning point to it:

Biologists have developed a technique for establishing colonies of human embryonic stem cells from an early human embryo without destroying it. This method, if confirmed in other laboratories, would seem to remove the principal objection to the research.

It could also redirect and intensify the emotional political debate over current limits on federal financing for research on human embryonic stem cells, which give rise to the cells and tissues of the body and which scientists and patient advocate groups see as a potential source for treatments for diseases like Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s and diabetes.

But the new method, reported yesterday by researchers at Advanced Cell Technology on the Web site of the journal Nature, had little immediate effect on longstanding objections of the White House and some Congressional leaders yesterday. It also brought objections from critics who warned of possible risk to the embryo and the in vitro fertilization procedure itself, in which embryos are generated from a couple’s egg and sperm.

The new technique would be performed on a two-day-old embryo, after the fertilized egg has divided into eight cells, known as blastomeres. In fertility clinics, where the embryo is available outside the woman in the normal course of in vitro fertilization, one of these blastomeres can be removed for diagnostic tests, like for Down syndrome.

The embryo, now with seven cells, can be implanted in the woman if no defect is found. Many such embryos have grown into apparently healthy babies over the 10 years or so the diagnostic tests have been used.

Up to now, human embryonic stem cells have been derived at a later stage of development, when the embryo consists of about 150 cells. Both this stage, called the blastocyst, and the earlier eight-cell stage, occur before the embryo implants in the wall of the womb. Harvesting the blastocyst-stage cells kills the embryo, a principal objection of those who oppose the research.

“There is no rational reason left to oppose this research,” Dr. Robert Lanza, vice president of Advanced Cell Technology and leader of the research team, said in an interview.

The administration's pitiful excuse for vetoing funding of research is completely eliminated. There is absolutely no real ground left for them to hold, as moronic their hold was before. But no, it's not good enough:

But Emily Lawrimore, a White House spokeswoman, suggested that the new procedure would not satisfy the objections of Mr. Bush, who vetoed legislation in July that would have expanded federally financed embryonic stem cell research. Though Ms. Lawrimore called it encouraging that scientists were moving away from destroying embryos, she said: “Any use of human embryos for research purposes raises serious ethical questions. This technique does not resolve those concerns.”

These people have done nothing but completely ignore the distinct divisions between reproduction that have so pointedly been asserted by science. This is not an embryo! This is one cell being taken from eight cells. It's not an arm being forcibly removed from a full grown adult. Again, their stance is patently illogical. If they don't want to use this method, they need to ban this test for Down Syndrome. I'd like to see their rationalization for that, though I'd like to think it can't get much worse for people to be oblivious to potential cancer cures being denied because of religious fuckheads, but I'm continually surprised.

There is only one true recourse for this administration logically. They are completely against the idea of in-vitro fertilization. But that of course is not politically viable. It'd be fucking suicide for this already castrated administration of anemic poll numbers. They'd be stuck sounding like this moron:

Richard Doerflinger, deputy director for pro-life activities at the conference of bishops, said the church opposed in vitro fertilization because of the high death rate of embryos in clinics and because divorcing procreation from the act of love made the embryo seem “more a product of manufacture than a gift.”

Asked if he meant that the parents of a child conceived through in vitro fertilization would love it less, Mr. Doerflinger said he was referring to the clinic staff. “The technician does not love this child, has no personal connection with the child, and with every I.V.F. procedure he or she may get more and more used to the idea of the child as manufacture,” he said.

1. To begin, even with men and women fucking their brains out, a percentage of fertilized eggs die (I forget the percentage, but memory serves me to say around 50%). The woman isn't committing any "sin" or murder or any such nonsense -- her body simply didn't catch the egg so to speak. It's simply biology.

2. Fucking a woman and having an orgasm is love, according to a Catholic bishop? Well, what the hell is with the wedding vows then? There is no true "love" with sex. Sex is natural. Sex can be as loveless as anything -- look at the 60s generation. Look to prostitutes and tell me where the "love" is there.

3. The technician doesn't love the child? The parents do when they're fucking their brains out? They don't give a shit about the baby 9 times out of 10. They want pleasure, first and foremost. Romanticizing an act doesn't make any more shrouded in reverency. To put it also, go back to the prostitute example. Go to any rape example. The woman gets pregnant. Does the father love the baby, because he spent his seed in her vagina rather than in a cup and it was implanted into an egg manually?

These objections are the most inane nonsense. That is why the administration is tirelessly trying to come off in a position of some "moderation" when it's nothing but extremity. Their only position falls back to being against in-vitro -- being the guy above. Their position beforehand wasn't much better, but this is just stupid as fuck.

(Not to mention, again, that all the administrations prior reasonings are still full of complete shit and evading one very simple fact: the cells in question will be discarded anyway.) More on this from LiveScience, and the LA Times.

Wrapping up the science related politics, there no longer is an evolution biology major for federal grants.

Evolutionary biology has vanished from the list of acceptable fields of study for recipients of a federal education grant for low-income college students.

The omission is inadvertent, said Katherine McLane, a spokeswoman for the Department of Education, which administers the grants. “There is no explanation for it being left off the list,” Ms. McLane said. “It has always been an eligible major.”

Another spokeswoman, Samara Yudof, said evolutionary biology would be restored to the list, but as of last night it was still missing.

While I'm sure they are genuine with their reasoning, I can't let anything slide with science and this administration. Given light that Bush himself is doubtful of evolution's overwhelming acceptance, I feel justified in giving them every degree of scorn imaginable for this. That, and if I was ever going to pursue a field other than film, I'd most definitely be science orientated, and evolutionary biology sure sounds appealing. But then again so does genetics, virology, heck the plethora of biotechnology fields -- and that's just in biology and not listing all the ones!

Holy!

To get those that hate bugs to hate global warming, I give this:

That nest was about the size of a tire in the rear floor seven weeks ago, but quickly spread to fill the entire vehicle, the property owner, Harry Coker, said. Four satellite nests around it have gotten into the eaves of the barn, about 300 yards from his home.

"I'm kind of afraid for the grandkids. I had to sneak down there at dark and get my tractor out of the barn," Coker said. "It's been a disruption."

Auburn University entomologists, who say they've never seen the nests so large, have been fielding calls about the huge nests from property owners from Dothan up to Sylacauga and over into west-central Alabama's Black Belt.

At one site in Barbour County, the nest was as large as a Volkswagen Beetle, said Andy McLean, an Orkin pesticide service manager in Dothan who helped remove it from an abandoned barn about a month ago...

...In previous years, a yellow jacket nest was no larger than a basketball, Ray said. It would contain about 3,000 workers and one queen. These gigantic nests may have as many as 100,000 workers and multiple queens.

Here's the image:

Now, just maybe you're wondering what's behind this. I said it's global warming, but that's not directly what was said to be the case (or even definitive):

Specialists say it could be the result of a mild winter and drought conditions, or multiple queens forcing worker yellow jackets to enlarge their quarters so the queens will be in separate areas... Without a cold winter to kill them this year, the yellow jackets continued feeding in January and February -- and layering their nests.

But what is the obvious answer, here? Hmm, like with all the other creatures that change when the seasons begin to shift as we've seen with global warming, so would yellow jackets.

Little Miss Sunshine

Today was hilarity day. I saw Snakes on a Plane, as I already documented, as well as seeing Little Miss Sunshine. I was really looking forward to seeing this film since just from the trailer it looked like an interesting story, as well as having very interesting characters. I also really wanted to see if Steve Carell could pull off a more serious role, a la Jim Carrey in Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind. I was actually very impressed by him in The 40-Year Old Virgin, aside from finding him funny as hell. Along with Carell I was interested in seeing what Alan Arkin, Greg Kinnear, and Toni Collette would pull out of this. I had recognized Paul Dano but didn't know what to expect from him since I'd only seen him in The Girl Next Door, and his brief roll in Taking Lives.

Needless to say, I was greatly impressed by everyone. The directors and writer do a great job of briefly introducing us to each character in very broad strokes very very quickly by many standards. Yet, even in this brief and broad introduction, they remain the same characters as they do throughout the film.

Of the cast, I'd have to say I was actually most impressed by Paul Dano as the role of Dwayne, an angst felt teenager who's taken a vow of silence until he gets into flight school and hates everyone. Any character that takes a vow a silence is simply a character that is meant to give the biggest revelation when they finally do speak (and they always do). While the movie isn't exempt from this rule and works under that constraint, he plays the role in very strong presence. It's hard to play a role where you don't speak or speak very little and have a large presence. It's even harder still when you're not the main character (like Johnny Depp in Edward Scissorhands -- he has great presence in that film as well, but he gets a helping hand from being the lead role; though I do not think he needs it, he does get it).

Steve Carell was great as the survivor of an attempted suicide homosexual who has lost his job, house, lover, and is slowly losing prestige in the world. Though I felt his role could've been expanded a little bit. Mostly, I felt everyone's role could've been a bit expanded. It's only a hour and 41 minute long movie; I'd want to see more of these characters. But Carell does have a lot of time on screen -- you just wish for a bit more. Just a bit. He's doing so great, give him more time to shine!

Greg Kinnear was also great as the dad who is a motivational speaker, who just can't seem to motivate anyone or get a book deal on his "nine steps" he talks about, and divides the world into winners and losers. Like his book deal, it seems with his steps he stopped just short -- why have nine instead of ten? He's a complex character who you just want to smack a lot of the time. He's either trying buck everyone's spirit up since it's his job and doesn't want to be associated with losers or he's quite cruelly trying to wake his daughter up to the view of the world. And then he'll also go into stages of sheltering everyone from the real world as well.

Toni Collette is overall a good supporting role, but I think she is the only one that truly doesn't get her "moment." Every other character has a time to really shine in their best light, or two characters doing it together. She really doesn't; for better or worse, she shines through the entire film without defining a specific moment to be "her's."

Alan Arkin I'm sad to say gets the short end. He's great as the spewing, somewhat-hating, vile, and drug-addicted grandfather who at the same time shows great care with his granddaughter in coaching her for her big moment. Of anyone, his time is cut the shortest, but he definitely has a long moment that stands out.

Abigail Breslin (only other film I saw her in was Signs) plays Olive, the kickstart for the majority of the plot when she is made the regional champion of the Little Miss Sunshine pageant (first place being disqualified for "something about diet pills"). As any child can, she plays innocence easily, being a wonderer in a world where the implications of what is truly going on are lost on her. Who else but a child can ask the question at dinner of why a man tried to kill himself? Who else can do a dance imitating a stripper at a beauty pageant for no other reason than she was taught the moves and danced?

The story overall was great, filled with lots of very, very, strange situations that are not too unsettling to become so uncomfortable (a la Welcome to the Dollhouse -- which is filled with such), but not too funny to just become absurd and done just for the humor. It's overall themes of winners and losers and defining beauty are quite strong. It's not a cruel or vicious film to say that we are all losers, but a hopeful film to say that even if we lose the contest we're winners if we tried our best. Not entirely satisfying when said that way, but very satisfying in the film. The pageant itself and beauty it espouses is very disturbing. All the contestants -- except Olive -- are treated and look just like miniature adult dolls, fully complete with fake long hair, vacant eyes, and the permanent smile. It also does a great job of showing just what a sick disgusting thing this is. Degrading little girls by trying to subtlety (though really not that subtlety) turn them into sex symbols, and then making people outraged when they're confronted with a very real and obvious example of what they are actually trying to do.

On strictly the humor aspects, it's almost non-stop. There are a few pauses for the important drama scenes of the film, but even those are bookended with comedy, unless they include comedy throughout. There are several scenes where everyone in the audience (and it was packed; we were the first people in the theatre, and when we left there was hardly an empty seat) was laughing out loud, and the end is so damn hilarious that I was quite literally on the verge of standing up and applauding at the end of it, even though it wasn't the end of the movie. It's intensely funny, and I didn't hear a single bad remark from anyone in the audience about initial reactions. It is definitely a crowd pleaser.

A downside I can think of is that the direction isn't remarkable. It's more than standard, and has a few very lovely shots, but overall it's not a master work of direction, and doesn't try to be. Really the only other one I can think of is what the film will inevitably be compared with: Napoleon Dynamite. Yes, it's a strange family quirky comedy, set in a western state. You want to do comparisons to Napoleon Dynamite? Fine. Take that film, add in a quality story, great acting, actual comedy, and make it entertaining and you get Little Miss Sunshine. Take all the excess shit that is Dynamite, toss it out the window, and add in everything else truly good, and you get Little Miss Sunshine. It is no comparison at all.

Snakes on a Plane

Yes, I saw Snakes on a Plane. Yes, I will tell many people that in the sarcastic way as a badge of honor. I saw Snakes on a Plane. In the theatre. On the Ultrascreen. On its opening week.

And it was terrible. Utterly, completely, totally terrible.

That is it's greatness. You literally cannot sit through this movie without laughing your ass off. The entire time I kept trying to think of alternate titles for this movie, or maybe a subtitle. The end result:

Snakes on a Plane: How Tazers, Tray Tables, and Travel Bags Saved the World.

From the opening scenes of the most outrageous plot setup, to the end frames that jump from the saved plane that has just landed to the beaches of Hawaii without paying any attention to the plot they established in the beginning all one can think of is: Why on Earth am I seeing this film? I'll admit, I was curious about this film. It is going down as a great cult film, just like many other seemingly terrible movies have in the past: Mad Max, Big Trouble in Little China, Pulp Fiction (ok, that was a good movie with a cult following). But once the trailers started to roll I got lost in those because I guess I unconsciously knew I was in for pain. Once they ended, I was flooded with dread. "The best part of this movie is now over. What have I done?" And then the laughter started.

The plot? Well, it doesn't matter; the point is that there are snakes on a plane -- duh. But a man witnesses a big crime lord murder a prosecutor, and then will testify, making him a target. He's flying from Hawaii to California. The only way to kill him, is to unleash snakes on a plane. They've exhausted every other option! Even if the snakes don't kill him, they can cause enough damage to the plane by either attacking the pilots or attacking cables and control circuits. The plane will crash and that's it! Hahahaha!

The bulk of the film is of course seeing extras get killed. At one point a man who has married a woman and both are returning to California after their honeymoon, and of course he hates to fly, remarks "Why are there so few people on this plane?" His wife comforts him: "It's the red eye, hon." Of course it is. There are just enough extras to be killed in the most ridiculous and brutal fashion. Like the other couple that can't keep their hands off each other and need to go to the bathroom both for sex and to smoke a joint. Maybe she wanted her nipples pierced, but surely not by snake fangs. Like another man who uses the bathroom, this time only to relieve himself. He surely wanted to piss on a snake and then next be bitten right in the groin (and not his thigh muscles if that is what you think I mean) and then try to battle and tear the snake off. Like the old heavy-set Hawaiian woman. She surely wanted to be fondled by a snake that travels all the way up her skirt and blouse, only to attack her in her eye. Like another woman who is getting sick by turbulence. She wanted to be attacked down her throat/tongue by a snake that was laying in wait in her barf-bag. Like the asinine older British businessman. He definitely wanted to be crushed by an anaconda's pure strength, before being engulfed by it. And then subsequently the anaconda wanted to be sucked out of the plane when they purposefully decompress it to get rid of all the snakes.

It's too funny at instances to not laugh. Such as the time when Sam Jackson is given a hairspray-lighter-jiffied-together-contraption by a stewardess who just explains "I went through a pyro phase when I was a kid." "You too?" remarks the great Jackson. Can't you feel that connection? That human drama? In fact, you're laughing at so many instances that the movie actually succeeds -- it gets in at least one half-way decent shock because you're spending way too much damn time laughing at all of this. Oh, and the plot? Yeah, the witness lives, but right at the end, when the plane is down and everything is now fine, what do they do? Exactly as I said -- jump to Hawaii, where Sam Jackson is being taught how to surf by the witness. No resolution of this plot at all; no testimony mentioned. What do you expect? Competency? There are snakes on a plane, here! We don't have time to worry about these trivialities of writing!

Funny as hell, pointless as nothing else, and definitely an instance cult icon. If nothing else, it's the people that are already behind this that are making it true. My friend Vinnie was at work when there was a printer jam. Co-workers were milling about trying to fix it. Their manager came over and simply remarked "What, do you have snakes in the printer now?" That's surely an icon of some sort when it changes the language people use.

Thursday Links

Science:

Singapore. What do you go there for? Many things I guess, but among them, stem cell research. In fact you can buy lines from there at $6,000. It's amazing that a place that has bans on gum -- and I would certainly agree with that one since I find it disgusting -- is a leader for stem cell research and production and funding.

Scientists say President Bush’s veto last month of legislation to raise limits on federal financing for stem cell research was the latest in a series of setbacks, which they say are stifling the research environment and eroding the edge in basic medical science that the United States has held since World War II.

Shrinking research grants, a greater corporate emphasis on quick profits and the political firestorm over stem cells have left many American scientists frustrated and discouraged. Waiting in the wings with encouragement and cash is authoritarian Singapore, which has begun to earn a reputation as a haven for biomedical freedom.

The motive is economic. Faced with declining returns in electronics, the industry that vaulted Singapore into the ranks of the world’s richest nations, Singapore in 2000 began an initiative in biotechnology.

...

The centerpiece of Singapore’s biotechnology effort is the Biopolis, a seven-building biomedical hive that opened in late 2003 at a cost of 500 million Singapore dollars. It is outfitted with the latest high-tech equipment and features a bar, a day care center and an underground facility made to house a quarter-million laboratory mice.

Authorities are now building a stem cell bank at Biopolis, which will be able to count on some of the world’s most liberal laws on human embryonic cell usage.

It's just all the more saddening why the U.S. isn't at the forefront of this as it should be. One of the last few things that we have going for us as a country is our technological and scientific might. We're losing both rapidly, in many areas, thanks to this administration and Republican Congress. What's even worse still is that this is an administration that claims it's great for the economy, and is considered an economic administration. What shit. And the final tick for this is that this is all because of a blatantly hypocritical political stance. Value of life -- yeah, sure. Value the cells that will be destroyed anyway. Nice values.

Your brain uses nitric oxide to start up much like a computer does.

As we yawn and open our eyes in the morning, the brain stem sends little puffs of nitric oxide to another part of the brain, the thalamus, which then directs it elsewhere.

Like a computer booting up its operating system before running more complicated programs, the nitric oxide triggers certain functions that set the stage for more complex brain operations, according to a new study.

In these first moments of the day, sensory information floods the system—the bright sunlight coming through the curtains, the time on the screeching alarm clock—and all of it needs to be processed and organized, so the brain can understand its surroundings and begin to perform more complex tasks.

"The thinking part of the brain is applying a sort of stencil to the information coming in and what the nitric oxide is doing is allowing more refinement of that stencil," says Dwayne Godwin, an associate professor at Wake Forest University and lead author of the study, which was funded by the National Eye Institute.

The little two-atom molecule, it seems, is partly responsible for our ability to perceive whatever it is we're sensing.

Interesting development. In case you were wondering, this is also the molecule that Viagra uses to give men hard-ons. Niffy world, science, isn't it?

Unnatural amino acids might be a way to increase the effectiveness of cancer treatments a full 30 times over. Really, they are natural amino acids, just not the standard 20 or so that are commonly used in the body to build proteins.

Check out this image of three Typhoons occuring at once. Quite striking -- and dangerous implications if it every got worse.

To counter the few links, let's showcase some more movie trailers.

It's only a teaser, but The Hoax looks like it could be quite decent, with Richard Gere and Alfred Molina.

Finally, the trailer of The Departed is up. It's the same one I saw with Miami Vice, with the completely attrocious cover of Comfortably Numb near the end. It's the worst thing I can ever think of to have anything that approaches country touch a Pink Floyd song. I was told that this is a special song since it was the one time (or one of the few times) Rodger Water's played the album "The Wall" without the rest of Pink Floyd, and at this specific concert it was at the Berlin Wall. Great anecdote -- completely terrible cover. Oh, yeah, and the movie looks good, too. I also liked the tie in when Nicolson says on the phone that the person has to get "organized" (if you've seen Taxi Driver, you should be able to get this one).

The Amateurs looks like it could be nicely called The Big Labowski II, but even so, it still looks like it could be quite funny.

Pusher Trilogy looks intriguing, though I myself tend to not like foreign films since I hate having to look at subtitles and miss most of appreciating the images. But they sure look interesting.

Well.... Hmm.... It's really difficult to describe how strange Running with Scissors lookst to be, and yet how god damn funny it looks. Has a great cast as well -- Brian Cox, Annette Bening, Alec Baldwin (as well as Gwyneth Paltrow, but she's really hit or miss with me). Will most certainly be looking forward to this one.

And to round out videos, here is a great clip on what exactly this recent ruling on the wiretapping means for Bush and Republicans. It's obvious, Democrats have been saying it for a long time, and all the reasoning is spot on correct.