This piece is written by Rebecca of Sex and Politics and Screeds and Attitude, Cedric of Cedric's Big Mix, Kat of Kat's Korner, Betty of Thomas Friedman is a Great Man, Mike of Mikey Likes It!, Elaine of Like Maria Said Paz, Ruth of Ruth's Report, Marcia of SICKOFITRADLZ, Stan of Oh Boy It Never Ends, Ann of Ann's Mega Dub, Isaiah of The World Today Just Nuts and Wally of The Daily Jot.
Unless otherwise noted, we picked all highlights.
"Ed Snowden -- a tough topic for a superficial US p..." and
"How chasing Ed Snowden harmed Dems 2016 chances" -- two most requested highlights by readers of this site.
"Kat's Korner: Maps is so much better when he's original" -- Kat reviews a new release (due out this coming Tuesday).
"Isaiah's The World Today Just Nuts "Pants On The Ground" -- Isaiah on Barack's secret spying.
"EZ Tuna Lasanga in the Kitchen" -- Trina provides a simple and quick recipe and notes the reality regarding jobs.
"Why can't the filthy government just leave him alone?," "Ed Snowden""Support for Snowden, not Barack," "Ed Snowden,"
"Ed Snowden," "Give me a damn break," "The spying could kill a trade deal," "Barack censors the Guardian" and
"Ed Snowden, Third" and
"He just gets more embarrassing" &
"THIS JUST IN! THE INTERNATIONAL JOKE!"
-- Ann, Elaine, Mike, Trina, Kat and Cedric and Wally cover Snowden and Barack's spying.
"Amelia" -- Ruth looks to history.
"Justin The Exploiter" -- Kat looks at more recent history musically.
"White House Down," "Who was that stranger?," "And God Created Woman (1988)," "Farewell, My Lovely," "White House Down," "The Heat" and
"Who Is Harry Kellerman and Why Is He Saying Those Terrible Things About Me?" -- Marcia, Stan and Mike go to the movies.
"666 Park Avenue,"
"Mistresses" and
"Under The Dome -- problems with the show emerge" -- Betty, Ruth and Marcia cover TV.
"Pluto and Mars" and "Radio signals from where?" -- Betty looks to space.
"Cookie blocker" and "dementia in old age" and "npr tries to sell nuclear energy again"-- Ann and Rebecca go to tech and other science.
"Barack, Corporate, Tauzin and Baucus" -- Elaine fills in for Isaiah and dips into his archive.
"Until it's done to us, we just don't register" -- Elaine offers an analysis.
"Idiot of the week" -- Mike picks the week's biggest disappointment.
"What's under that bad wig?" and "THIS JUST IN! HE CAN'T ACT HIS AGE!"
-- looks who's come to praise the War Hawk and Peeping Tom Barack.
Sunday, July 07, 2013
Sunday, June 30, 2013
Truest statement of the week
The
President and his family are spending a week in sub-Saharan Africa,
with Senegal, Tanzania and South Africa on the itinerary. The focus of
the trip, if you believe the White House,
is trade, an arena in which the United States has been eclipsed by
China since 2009. China, by some measurements, now does nearly twice as
much business with Africa as the U.S., and the gap is growing. It is now
commonly accepted that the Chinese offer far better terms of trade
and investment than the Americans, that they create more jobs for
Africans, and their investments leave behind infrastructure that can
enrich their African trading partners in the long haul.
No
one expects Obama to offer anything on this trip that will reverse
America’s declining share of the African market. That’s because the U.S.
is not in the business of fair and mutually beneficial trade – it’s
about the business of imperialism, which is another matter, entirely.
The Americans ensure their access to African natural resources through
the barrel of a gun.
So,
while the Chinese and Indians and Brazilians and other economic
powerhouses play by the rules of give and take, the U.S. tightens its
military grip on the continent through its ever-expanding military command, AFRICOM.
-- Glen Ford, "The Obamas Do America" (Black Agenda Report).
Truest statement of the week II
As violence continues to rage across “liberated” Iraq under America’s
puppet “Prime Minister” Nuri al-Maliki, a fair amount of it at his
instigation as his troops round up and shoot demonstrators (President
Jalal Talabani, who had a heart attack early in the year has vanished
without trace, Vice President Tarik al-Hashimi has fled to Turkey in
fear of his life) one incident arguably of note, has gone unnoticed in
the Western media.
On Friday June 21st the Ba’ath Party, in a statement, said that “Party Members” had killed one of Saddam Hussein’s executioners alleging it was the balaclava masked man who placed the noose around his neck and led him to the trap door, in a videoed and multi-mobile recorded death and aftermath of further horror, ushering in the US-UK’s “New Iraq.”
-- Felicity Arbuthnot (Dissident Voice and Global Research).
On Friday June 21st the Ba’ath Party, in a statement, said that “Party Members” had killed one of Saddam Hussein’s executioners alleging it was the balaclava masked man who placed the noose around his neck and led him to the trap door, in a videoed and multi-mobile recorded death and aftermath of further horror, ushering in the US-UK’s “New Iraq.”
-- Felicity Arbuthnot (Dissident Voice and Global Research).
A note to our readers
Hey --
Another Sunday.
First up, we thank all who participated this edition which includes Dallas and the following:
The Third Estate Sunday Review's Jim, Dona, Ty, Jess and Ava,
Rebecca of Sex and Politics and Screeds and Attitude,
Betty of Thomas Friedman Is a Great Man,
C.I. of The Common Ills and The Third Estate Sunday Review,
Kat of Kat's Korner (of The Common Ills),
Mike of Mikey Likes It!,
Elaine of Like Maria Said Paz),
Cedric of Cedric's Big Mix,
Ruth of Ruth's Report,
Wally of The Daily Jot,
Trina of Trina's Kitchen,
Marcia of SICKOFITRDLZ,
Stan of Oh Boy It Never Ends,
Isaiah of The World Today Just Nuts,
and Ann of Ann's Mega Dub.
Second up, we never had a true note last week.
If you missed Mike's "A new week," he explained that it hit the wall. And then some.
Were we a band making an album, the easiest way to explain last week was Ava and C.I. walked out. Elaine and Mike moved to Hawaii and that was among the things people were dealing with and I made the mistake of saying/demanding Ava and C.I. write an article about that. I was told exactly where to go, told they had written their media piece and were not going to be emotionally exploited, and that they were done with the edition.
That left holes. The editorial that we asked for suggestions on? It'll go with our summer read edition which we had planned for this week but then realized we needed to do a real edition this week instead -- "real" as in usual, not meant as an insult to fiction or short stories.
So that's what we did.
And what did we come up with?
Mike and the gang wrote this and we thank them for it.
As for the band? We're back in the studio, for now.
Peace.
-- Jim, Dona, Ty, Jess, Ava and C.I.
Another Sunday.
First up, we thank all who participated this edition which includes Dallas and the following:
The Third Estate Sunday Review's Jim, Dona, Ty, Jess and Ava,
Rebecca of Sex and Politics and Screeds and Attitude,
Betty of Thomas Friedman Is a Great Man,
C.I. of The Common Ills and The Third Estate Sunday Review,
Kat of Kat's Korner (of The Common Ills),
Mike of Mikey Likes It!,
Elaine of Like Maria Said Paz),
Cedric of Cedric's Big Mix,
Ruth of Ruth's Report,
Wally of The Daily Jot,
Trina of Trina's Kitchen,
Marcia of SICKOFITRDLZ,
Stan of Oh Boy It Never Ends,
Isaiah of The World Today Just Nuts,
and Ann of Ann's Mega Dub.
Second up, we never had a true note last week.
If you missed Mike's "A new week," he explained that it hit the wall. And then some.
Were we a band making an album, the easiest way to explain last week was Ava and C.I. walked out. Elaine and Mike moved to Hawaii and that was among the things people were dealing with and I made the mistake of saying/demanding Ava and C.I. write an article about that. I was told exactly where to go, told they had written their media piece and were not going to be emotionally exploited, and that they were done with the edition.
That left holes. The editorial that we asked for suggestions on? It'll go with our summer read edition which we had planned for this week but then realized we needed to do a real edition this week instead -- "real" as in usual, not meant as an insult to fiction or short stories.
So that's what we did.
And what did we come up with?
A veteran of truests.
And we believe a newcomer for the honor.
Iraq. If we'd told you that after 'withdrawal' troops would go back into Iraq and no one would care, if we'd told you that in 2006, would you have believed us?
Ava and C.I. explore FAIR. Had they more time, they would have noted the new FAIR TV -- a less than five minute segment that they note Peter Hart excells at but one that requires more charisma than the other CounterSpin hosts can pull off.
Reader Gilda e-mailed to ask what topics hadn't we roundtabled on? That got us to thinking and is why we did this roundtable.
We just haven't been interested in comics of late and this article goes to why.
This is a piece on movie trailers which used to seem like such a treat but have become an endurance test.
The return of our popular feature.
Iraq piece.
C.I. brought this up and we all said, "Truest!" But C.I. said, "It was June 20th." We still wanted to use it.
Joan Wile's inviting you.
Repost from Workers World.
This speech incorporates biography (Kerry's own life) and acknowledges that those 'serving' are not just the military. We really enjoyed this speech.
Mike and the gang wrote this and we thank them for it.
As for the band? We're back in the studio, for now.
Peace.
-- Jim, Dona, Ty, Jess, Ava and C.I.
Editorial: The important words
Last week, some words were spoken that should have made headlines in the US press.
We have a mil-to-mil relationship with the Lebanese armed forces now. I've had since I -- since I commanded CENTCOM, actually, about four or five years ago. And we've made a recommendation that as we look at the challenges faced by the Lebanese armed forces, the Iraqi security forces with a re-emerging al-Qaeda in Iraq, and the Jordanians, that we would work with them to help them build additional capability. But this -- when you say would we send the United States Army or the United States military into Lebanon, I'm talking about teams of trainers, and I'm talking about accelerating foreign military sales for equipment for them. This is -- this is about building their capability, not ours.
Those are the words of General Martin Dempsey, Chair of the Joint-Chiefs, and he made that statement in public, at a Defense Department press conference. You can read the remarks in the DoD transcript,.
You'll have trouble reading them in a piece written by your favorite newspaper. You'll have trouble reading them in The Nation. You won't hear the information from Democracy Now! or pretty much anyone.
CounterSpin could argue that they don't cover news, they critique the way news is conveyed.
Fair enough, but in Wednesday's snapshot, the AP was criticized for the way it badly reported the news of Dempsey's remarks.
So, yes, they could have covered it.
Anyone could have. Everyone should have.
Barack Obama secretly sent another unit of Special Ops into Iraq last fall.
When they got the new treaty they needed at the end of 2012, they were open about it. From the April 30th snapshot:
December 6, 2012, the Memorandum of Understanding For Defense Cooperation Between the Ministry of Defense of the Republic of Iraq and the Department Defense of the United States of America was signed. We covered it in the December 10th and December 11th snapshots -- lots of luck finding coverage elsewhere including in media outlets -- apparently there was some unstated agreement that everyone would look the other way. It was similar to the silence that greeted Tim Arango's September 25th New York Times report which noted, "Iraq and the United States are negotiating an agreement that could result in the return of small units of American soldiers to Iraq on training missions. At the request of the Iraqi government, according to [US] General [Robert L.] Caslen, a unit of Army Special Operations soldiers was recently deployed to Iraq to advise on counterterrorism and help with intelligence."
None of that was hidden and probably the administration realized at that point that there was no need to hide it. Talk about it openly because the US media just didn't care to report on Iraq anymore.
Nothing censors better than journalistic apathy.
Which is why most Americans don't know that the administration is now talking openly about the US troops they plan to send back into Iraq.
------------------------------
Illustration is Isaiah's The World Today Just Nuts "The Plan For Day 101."
Media: Time to put a watchdog down?
FAIR. What an interesting term for a watchdog. Of course, when FAIR uses "fair," they're not referring to the definition of fair, they're hyping Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting. FAIR is a website, it's a 12 page or so bi-monthly 'magazine' (if you find In Style too dense, academic and intimidating, pick up Extra!) and it's a weekly half-hour radio program entitled CounterSpin.
In the Bully Boy Bush years, FAIR -- in all its splendors -- served a purpose. That doesn't mean it was perfect. In October 2006, for example, as FAIR was celebrating its 20th anniversary, this site was pointing out that instead of just pointing fingers at NPR and PBS for their lack of equality when it came to the gender make up of the guests, maybe CounterSpin could also attempt to book an equal number of male and female guests. The response to that article from FAIR may have been the first realization that those who dish it out can't take it.
FAIR served a purpose under Bully Boy Bush largely because it called out power. It cut corners sometimes and was on shaky ground -- and non-existent ground -- from time to time, but you could -- and we did -- forgive it a lot because it held power accountable.
For example, the fawning over Bush? Like at the January 2005 inauguration? There was FAIR calling that nonsense out, there was CounterSpin holding up to ridicule these adults writing pieces in newspapers that read like clippings from 16 and Tiger Beat.
More than a fact checking, what FAIR best offered was a sense of perspective.
In 2007, FAIR still served a purpose. Largely that was due to Peter Hart who was apparently the last major voice of the organization (Hart, Janine Jackson and Steve Rendall co-host CounterSpin and write for Extra! and the online site) with ethics. Hart wrote the hardest hitting piece on Barack Obama from FAIR -- the hardest to this day. By 2008, FAIR was determined to impact the Democractic Party primary -- and, no, that's really not a watchdog function.
But each week, the website and especially the radio show, was all about real racism and sometimes what FAIR saw as racism (or pretended they saw it as racism). So every week was about poor Barack and rally around him. And sexism was ignored. Sexism was all over the media and CounterSpin ignored it. Week after week. Month after month.
January, February, March and April, they were silent. Out of fear that noting the sexism could galvanize support for Hillary. Then, in their final weekly episode for May, they finally 'discovered' sexism. As we noted in real time, it took a 'political analysis discussion' on CNN in which a male talking head called Hillary a "bitch," for CounterSpin to note sexism. And they gave it a whopping sentence! Before rushing off to racism. They couldn't even spare the time to tell you the name of the pundit who called her a "bitch" on air or the program he was on. To them, that was 'fair,' over 20 episodes noting racism and 'racism' at length and one of the over 20 noting sexism in one sentence.
And that's why we were done with FAIR.
It had little to offer in 2008 and, when the inauguration of Barack Obama took place in January 2009, the decrying of this ceremony and the press salivating over it was gone. FAIR was no longer a check on power. As it took its tired act into the Champagne Room, we bid them adieu and remained in the reality based world.
Strangers With Candy (directed by Paul Dinello, screenplay by Stephen Colbert, Paul Dinello and Amy Sedaris) kicks off with Jerri Blank released from prison and headed home wondering, "Can we change?"
We like to think so.
So after Peter Hart had written a series of strong pieces in the last months, we were willing to take another look and see if FAIR had rediscovered its purpose?
On the last episode of CounterSpin, we'll give Janine Jackson credit for disclosing before starting an interview. Yes, that is a basic but we're not being snarky. In the last years, such disclosures have failed to take place on various programs. So we'll give Janine credit for doing what she did -- which is something everyone should be doing, though few do. After her interview with Kimberle Crenshaw, Peter Hart followed it with an interview that echoed the former glory of FAIR as he and Tyson Slocum addressed administration claims versus realities.
And its those moments that argue in FAIR's favor.
But those weren't the only moments, sadly.
Each episode of CounterSpin starts with a snarky put down of recent press. Peter Hart handled his section rather well. Steve Rendall was less fortunate.
Steve Rendall: Not long ago, a massive scandal dominated newspapers and cable news. The IRS was denying and or delaying tax exempt status to right-wing leaning tea party groups. The question was just how Nixonian the Obama administration had become? But then the story changed. There's still plenty of evidence of inappropriate testing or targeting of political groups seeking non-profit status but according to the latest from the IRS the tests were not just applied to conservative groups. As The New York Times reported on June 25th, the IRS was also scrutinizing groups with names including words like "progressive" and "occupy." And groups dealing in issues like medical marijuana and The Times noted that "occupy territory advocacy seems subject to the most scrutiny of all." In an understatement, The Times remarked, "The new IRS documents raise questions about how the controversy has been portrayed." Yeah, a little bit. This is a far cry of the partisan portrayal of the scandal as the government harassing political opponents. Never mind that there was no evidence of a White House role in the policy, conservative pundits went to town. In The Wall Street Journal, Peggy Noonan wrote that the policy's "purpose obviously was to overwhelm and intimidate to kill the opposition, question by question, and audit by audit. It is not even remotely possible that all of this an accident, a mistake." Bill O'Reilly suggested a conspiracy by citing non-existent White House visits by the IRS chief. When the story broke it was treated as part of the White House scandal trifecta and now, well, it's barely a story at all.
It seemed to last forever and to fail FAIR repeatedly.
Not long ago, a massive scandal dominated newspapers and cable news. The IRS was denying and or delaying tax exempt status to right-wing leaning tea party groups.
Was that the scandal?
See, we didn't follow the reporting that closely because we were busy doing our own reporting. We were attending the Congressional hearings and we were writing about the Inspector General report.
What was FAIR doing?
The question was just how Nixonian the Obama administration had become?
Not from the IRS scandal. The question was because you had three scandals brewing -- Benghazi, the IRS and the assault on the press.
But then the story changed. There's still plenty of evidence of inappropriate testing or targeting of political groups seeking non-profit status but according to the latest from the IRS the tests were not just applied to conservative groups.
Now we're the ones confused, not Steve Rendall.
As The New York Times reported on June 25th, the IRS was also scrutinizing groups with names including words like "progressive" and "occupy." And groups dealing in issues like medical marijuana and The Times noted that "occupy territory advocacy seems subject to the most scrutiny of all."
Wait, this is news to him? That the left was also targeted? Where has Rendall been?
For example, the May 17th House Ways and Means Committee hearing led to the following community reporting: "Iraq snapshot," "IRS: 'Not corrupt, just incompetent'," "Guacamole and the IRS (Ava)," Wally in "Big lie revealed at House Ways and Means hearing," Kat in "The other Steve Miller appears before Congress," Marcia in "No accountability for the IRS scandal" and "Report on Congress."
The guacamole and the IRS report on that hearing, for example, opens with:
Today was the hearing about the targeting of groups by the IRS. Danny DumbF**K Schechter is an idiot because he doesn't realize that this is political groups -- including Democratic organizations -- and churches and book clubs (and they were asked "what was in the books that they read" -- US House Rep Pat Tiberi) and volunteer organizations.
How did you miss that if you followed the hearing?
And that's over a month before Rendall's blessed New York Times article.
In an understatement, The Times remarked, "The new IRS documents raise questions about how the controversy has been portrayed." Yeah, a little bit.
Oh, that's Rendall's point. The reporting was wrong. Reporters -- filing on cable and in newspapers -- failed to address what the hearings were revealing. Okay . . .
This is a far cry of the partisan portrayal of the scandal as the government harassing political opponents.
Wait a second. Is this no longer FAIR? What's this partisan nonsense? Are they criticizing reporters or not?
Never mind that there was no evidence of a White House role in the policy, conservative pundits went to town.
Pundits went to town did they? Wow, that's a shocker. Imagine that, pundits -- aka gas bags -- went to town. Who could have guessed?
In The Wall Street Journal, Peggy Noonan wrote that the policy's "purpose obviously was to overwhelm and intimidate to kill the opposition, question by question, and audit by audit. It is not even remotely possible that all of this an accident, a mistake." Bill O'Reilly suggested a conspiracy by citing non-existent White House visits by the IRS chief.
We never covered the White House 'visits' because we were aware from the start that the documents in question weren't sign-in records. But we weren't surprised others didn't grasp that. We ignored it as nonsense when it was being trumpeted as news and we ignored it as nonsense after.
We think Peter Hart explained it best, June 6th. And we think that said it all so why, over 20 days later, is Rendall badly restating it?
More to the point, what is this mixing of apples and oranges?
Is the topic that the press got it wrong in reporting or is the topic two right-wing gas bags FAIR hates?
When the story broke it was treated as part of the White House scandal trifecta and now, well, it's barely a story at all.
And what's Rendall's point?
In all that time, he never had one. He was over here and over there. And at the end what is he trying to say? Is that last sentence a criticism of the news cycle or what?
Clearly, the spying scandal overtook every other scandal. Not because of the revelations NSA whistle-blower Ed Snowden. That would be great if we could explore those revelations. In fact, the failure of the press to explore those revelations is the sort of topic CounterSpin should be exploring. As Barack and others in the administration began making (baseless) threats, the spying story -- or the pursuit -- became everything. Barack's ridiculous threats and words were the white Bronco in this 'chase' story. When CounterSpin's ready to tackle that, it'll be ready to yet again provide a public service but, until then, it's just spinning its wheels.
In the Bully Boy Bush years, FAIR -- in all its splendors -- served a purpose. That doesn't mean it was perfect. In October 2006, for example, as FAIR was celebrating its 20th anniversary, this site was pointing out that instead of just pointing fingers at NPR and PBS for their lack of equality when it came to the gender make up of the guests, maybe CounterSpin could also attempt to book an equal number of male and female guests. The response to that article from FAIR may have been the first realization that those who dish it out can't take it.
FAIR served a purpose under Bully Boy Bush largely because it called out power. It cut corners sometimes and was on shaky ground -- and non-existent ground -- from time to time, but you could -- and we did -- forgive it a lot because it held power accountable.
For example, the fawning over Bush? Like at the January 2005 inauguration? There was FAIR calling that nonsense out, there was CounterSpin holding up to ridicule these adults writing pieces in newspapers that read like clippings from 16 and Tiger Beat.
More than a fact checking, what FAIR best offered was a sense of perspective.
In 2007, FAIR still served a purpose. Largely that was due to Peter Hart who was apparently the last major voice of the organization (Hart, Janine Jackson and Steve Rendall co-host CounterSpin and write for Extra! and the online site) with ethics. Hart wrote the hardest hitting piece on Barack Obama from FAIR -- the hardest to this day. By 2008, FAIR was determined to impact the Democractic Party primary -- and, no, that's really not a watchdog function.
But each week, the website and especially the radio show, was all about real racism and sometimes what FAIR saw as racism (or pretended they saw it as racism). So every week was about poor Barack and rally around him. And sexism was ignored. Sexism was all over the media and CounterSpin ignored it. Week after week. Month after month.
January, February, March and April, they were silent. Out of fear that noting the sexism could galvanize support for Hillary. Then, in their final weekly episode for May, they finally 'discovered' sexism. As we noted in real time, it took a 'political analysis discussion' on CNN in which a male talking head called Hillary a "bitch," for CounterSpin to note sexism. And they gave it a whopping sentence! Before rushing off to racism. They couldn't even spare the time to tell you the name of the pundit who called her a "bitch" on air or the program he was on. To them, that was 'fair,' over 20 episodes noting racism and 'racism' at length and one of the over 20 noting sexism in one sentence.
And that's why we were done with FAIR.
It had little to offer in 2008 and, when the inauguration of Barack Obama took place in January 2009, the decrying of this ceremony and the press salivating over it was gone. FAIR was no longer a check on power. As it took its tired act into the Champagne Room, we bid them adieu and remained in the reality based world.
Strangers With Candy (directed by Paul Dinello, screenplay by Stephen Colbert, Paul Dinello and Amy Sedaris) kicks off with Jerri Blank released from prison and headed home wondering, "Can we change?"
We like to think so.
So after Peter Hart had written a series of strong pieces in the last months, we were willing to take another look and see if FAIR had rediscovered its purpose?
On the last episode of CounterSpin, we'll give Janine Jackson credit for disclosing before starting an interview. Yes, that is a basic but we're not being snarky. In the last years, such disclosures have failed to take place on various programs. So we'll give Janine credit for doing what she did -- which is something everyone should be doing, though few do. After her interview with Kimberle Crenshaw, Peter Hart followed it with an interview that echoed the former glory of FAIR as he and Tyson Slocum addressed administration claims versus realities.
And its those moments that argue in FAIR's favor.
But those weren't the only moments, sadly.
Each episode of CounterSpin starts with a snarky put down of recent press. Peter Hart handled his section rather well. Steve Rendall was less fortunate.
Steve Rendall: Not long ago, a massive scandal dominated newspapers and cable news. The IRS was denying and or delaying tax exempt status to right-wing leaning tea party groups. The question was just how Nixonian the Obama administration had become? But then the story changed. There's still plenty of evidence of inappropriate testing or targeting of political groups seeking non-profit status but according to the latest from the IRS the tests were not just applied to conservative groups. As The New York Times reported on June 25th, the IRS was also scrutinizing groups with names including words like "progressive" and "occupy." And groups dealing in issues like medical marijuana and The Times noted that "occupy territory advocacy seems subject to the most scrutiny of all." In an understatement, The Times remarked, "The new IRS documents raise questions about how the controversy has been portrayed." Yeah, a little bit. This is a far cry of the partisan portrayal of the scandal as the government harassing political opponents. Never mind that there was no evidence of a White House role in the policy, conservative pundits went to town. In The Wall Street Journal, Peggy Noonan wrote that the policy's "purpose obviously was to overwhelm and intimidate to kill the opposition, question by question, and audit by audit. It is not even remotely possible that all of this an accident, a mistake." Bill O'Reilly suggested a conspiracy by citing non-existent White House visits by the IRS chief. When the story broke it was treated as part of the White House scandal trifecta and now, well, it's barely a story at all.
It seemed to last forever and to fail FAIR repeatedly.
Not long ago, a massive scandal dominated newspapers and cable news. The IRS was denying and or delaying tax exempt status to right-wing leaning tea party groups.
Was that the scandal?
See, we didn't follow the reporting that closely because we were busy doing our own reporting. We were attending the Congressional hearings and we were writing about the Inspector General report.
What was FAIR doing?
The question was just how Nixonian the Obama administration had become?
Not from the IRS scandal. The question was because you had three scandals brewing -- Benghazi, the IRS and the assault on the press.
But then the story changed. There's still plenty of evidence of inappropriate testing or targeting of political groups seeking non-profit status but according to the latest from the IRS the tests were not just applied to conservative groups.
Now we're the ones confused, not Steve Rendall.
As The New York Times reported on June 25th, the IRS was also scrutinizing groups with names including words like "progressive" and "occupy." And groups dealing in issues like medical marijuana and The Times noted that "occupy territory advocacy seems subject to the most scrutiny of all."
Wait, this is news to him? That the left was also targeted? Where has Rendall been?
For example, the May 17th House Ways and Means Committee hearing led to the following community reporting: "Iraq snapshot," "IRS: 'Not corrupt, just incompetent'," "Guacamole and the IRS (Ava)," Wally in "Big lie revealed at House Ways and Means hearing," Kat in "The other Steve Miller appears before Congress," Marcia in "No accountability for the IRS scandal" and "Report on Congress."
The guacamole and the IRS report on that hearing, for example, opens with:
Today was the hearing about the targeting of groups by the IRS. Danny DumbF**K Schechter is an idiot because he doesn't realize that this is political groups -- including Democratic organizations -- and churches and book clubs (and they were asked "what was in the books that they read" -- US House Rep Pat Tiberi) and volunteer organizations.
How did you miss that if you followed the hearing?
And that's over a month before Rendall's blessed New York Times article.
In an understatement, The Times remarked, "The new IRS documents raise questions about how the controversy has been portrayed." Yeah, a little bit.
Oh, that's Rendall's point. The reporting was wrong. Reporters -- filing on cable and in newspapers -- failed to address what the hearings were revealing. Okay . . .
This is a far cry of the partisan portrayal of the scandal as the government harassing political opponents.
Wait a second. Is this no longer FAIR? What's this partisan nonsense? Are they criticizing reporters or not?
Never mind that there was no evidence of a White House role in the policy, conservative pundits went to town.
Pundits went to town did they? Wow, that's a shocker. Imagine that, pundits -- aka gas bags -- went to town. Who could have guessed?
In The Wall Street Journal, Peggy Noonan wrote that the policy's "purpose obviously was to overwhelm and intimidate to kill the opposition, question by question, and audit by audit. It is not even remotely possible that all of this an accident, a mistake." Bill O'Reilly suggested a conspiracy by citing non-existent White House visits by the IRS chief.
We never covered the White House 'visits' because we were aware from the start that the documents in question weren't sign-in records. But we weren't surprised others didn't grasp that. We ignored it as nonsense when it was being trumpeted as news and we ignored it as nonsense after.
We think Peter Hart explained it best, June 6th. And we think that said it all so why, over 20 days later, is Rendall badly restating it?
More to the point, what is this mixing of apples and oranges?
Is the topic that the press got it wrong in reporting or is the topic two right-wing gas bags FAIR hates?
When the story broke it was treated as part of the White House scandal trifecta and now, well, it's barely a story at all.
And what's Rendall's point?
In all that time, he never had one. He was over here and over there. And at the end what is he trying to say? Is that last sentence a criticism of the news cycle or what?
Clearly, the spying scandal overtook every other scandal. Not because of the revelations NSA whistle-blower Ed Snowden. That would be great if we could explore those revelations. In fact, the failure of the press to explore those revelations is the sort of topic CounterSpin should be exploring. As Barack and others in the administration began making (baseless) threats, the spying story -- or the pursuit -- became everything. Barack's ridiculous threats and words were the white Bronco in this 'chase' story. When CounterSpin's ready to tackle that, it'll be ready to yet again provide a public service but, until then, it's just spinning its wheels.
Movie roundtable
Jim: It's summer and the summer blockbusters are out. That's our topic for this roundtable. Warning, there will be some spoilers. Our
e-mail address is thirdestatesundayreview@yahoo.com. Participating our roundtable are The Third Estate Sunday Review's Dona, Ty, Jess, Ava, and me, Jim; Rebecca of Sex and Politics and Screeds and Attitude; Betty of Thomas Friedman Is a Great Man; C.I. of The Common Ills and The Third Estate Sunday Review; Kat of Kat's Korner (of The Common Ills); Cedric of Cedric's Big Mix; Mike of Mikey Likes It!; Elaine of Like Maria Said Paz); Ruth of Ruth's Report; Trina of Trina's Kitchen; Wally of The Daily Jot; Marcia of SICKOFITRDLZ; Stan of Oh Boy It Never Ends; Isaiah of The World Today Just Nuts and Ann of Ann's Mega Dub.
Betty's kids did the
illustration. You are reading a rush transcript.
Jim (Con't): Betty, you wrote "Super Bomb: Man of Steel is awful" a little while ago and followed that up Monday with "Browsers and the bomb that is Man of Steel" -- why are you calling the film a bomb?
Betty: Superman Returns was judged a bomb as a result of it not having legs. Man of Steel doesn't have legs either. It had a great opening. But it's already dead and it couldn't even make it with two solid weeks of ticket sales. It'll see a bump for this weekend but it's dead.
Jim: You also loathed the movie.
Betty: I did. It was heartless, it had no point to it and it was charm free. One of the worst movies of the summer.
Jim: Alright. Friday saw two anticipated films open, Channing Tatum and Jamie Foxx starring in the action flick White House Down and Sandra Bullock and Melissa McCarthy starring in the comedy The Heat. Marcia, you saw White House Down, your thoughts?
Marcia: It's a popcorn movie. It will hold your attention. The best stunts and action are in the last forty minutes. The best action may be when there's a long car chase on the White House lawn.
Jim: The premise of the film?
Marcia: Jamie Foxx is the President of the United States. Channing Tatum is security for the Speaker of the House. Channing wants to become part of the Secret Service. He gets an interview via a woman who wants him to go to at least second with her. He also gets a White House pass for his daughter. This is why they're in the White House when it's under attack.
Jim: Cedric, you saw it?
Cedric: Ann and I went to matinees Saturday of both films. We took our son who slept the whole time.
Jim: He's a newborn, not even two months old, just FYI.
Cedric: Right. It's a great action movie. Channing Tatum's great in it.
Jim: I sense a reservation?
Cedric: Jamie Foxx wasn't that good. He lacked magnetism and authority and I think Vanessa Williams came off stronger in Eraser than he does in this film.
Ann: And the child.
Jim: The child?
Ann: Channing Tatum, who is great in it the film, has a daughter. Spoiler alert's already been noted stop reading now. So at one point, Jamie turns himself into the bad guys -- supposedly to save Channing's daughter. But then he's going to let James Woods shoot the daughter and tells the daughter that if he does what Woods wants then millions will die. Then we've got the little girl preparing to be shot in the head and telling Jamie that it's okay. He looks weak. He can't protect a child. And Vanessa Williams was a lot more a part of the action in Eraser. I was expecting Marcia to give a one-sentence review: "White House Down? Try Driving Miss Jamie!"
Marcia: I should have said that. I would have if I'd have thought of it. But, Cedric's point, yeah, Jamie doesn't really have the acting chops for this role.
Cedric: And you can argue that's especially the case when you're up against James Woods. I think he was fantastic in the film. But Channing held his own. And he came off like a man. This is the second film where Jamie Foxx's manhood's been in question. We didn't need to see his junk exhibited for the thrill of vengeful Whites in Django. That film was deeply racist. Here, he was cast in the Bill Pullman role. And that's not a role that provides much to do.
Stan: I want to praise an actor who was really good in it that hasn't been mentioned yet. Lance Reddick was great. I would argue he should get a nomination for Best Supporting Actor.
Mike: I'd agree with that.
Jim: He has a secondary role as a military head.
Stan: Right and for the film to work, there has to be some surprises. He is strong enough in the role to make you wonder if he's in on the terrorist attack. Spoiler: He's not. But he does make you wonder as he knocks heads with everyone and if he wasn't misleading you, you'd figure the movie out immediately.
Mike: I'd agree with that. He brings an intensity to the role. Most of us -- including Stan and me -- know Reddick from his role on Fringe as Broyles.
Betty: And it's a strong cast. Maggie Gyllenhaal is really good in an underwritten role.
Jim: Alright. C.I., I'm going to you for a critical overview?
C.I.: Channing Tatum's natural movie star appeal carries the film. Disclosure, I know Channing. The film is often too precious for words. It starts off slow because they need to give a 'cute' to Jamie Foxx's character. So he's headed home but wants the helicopters to deviate from the route to zip close to landmarks in DC. Is there any point to it? Not at all. They trot it out at the end as well. The president is not the lead character. This is a case of an actor needing a 'moment' in a script. It's wasted and makes the film drag. Channing's wife in the film was miscast and we could have done without her because we've already had enough backstory at this point. You could lop 15 minutes off the start without the film losing anything. When the action does finally get started, it moves along quickly enough. Even so, I would cut the scenes in Paris of panicking First Lady. We don't need them, they slow everything down -- it's just two scenes -- and we've already got dialogue establishing the First Lady is in Paris. We don't need to see her. She's not part of the action at the White House. Jaime Foxx tries too hard to be likeable to the point that he's failed to provide the stature a president is supposed to have. Channing Tatum carries the film on his shoulders. A tighter edit would have made this the action film of the summer. Jaime Foxx emerges from the film having made another questionable decision and even more in need of an audience pleaser that finds him playing a functioning adult. Channing emerges unscathed and earns the credit for the film's success.
Jim: Okay, we're now turning to The Heat. Isaiah, overview?
Isaiah: Sandra Bullock's a special agent with the FBI. There's a drug lord that they have a name for but no idea what he looks like or details on him other than he's in Boston. If she can nail this case, her supervisor's ready to overlook her problems interacting with her peers and give her a promotion she's earned. So off she heads to Boston where she learns that a police officer is working a related case, Melissa McCarthy. While Bullock's character is prim and by the book, McCarthy's is loud and off-the-book. The Heat is in the tradition of 48 Hours and other buddy cop comedies.
Jim: Trina, you found it hilarious?
Trina: I couldn't stop laughing. Melissa and Sandra, as Betty noted in "The Heat," make a great team. Actors are always being teamed up, Midnight Run, for example, found the always hilarious Charles Grodin teamed up with a very disappointing Robert De Niro. It did not work. They did not gell. So the natural way that Sandra and Melissa work together is really something to behold. A great deal of the time, I'm aware, I was howling at reactions from the actresses and not necessarily the lines themselves. But that's because the chemistry really makes this film. It's funny, it's hilarious, but that's largely from the actresses.
Jim: Kat?
Kat: Spoilers are allowed so stop reading. When Melissa blames Sandra for what happens to her brother and ends the partnership and both women are off the case, Sandra's walking through the Boston FBI headquarters where a new team to find the drug lord has been assembled and as she passes she sees that they are making fun of Melissa. She stops and tells them all off. It's funny and it's touching and it's one of the moments that makes the film. You believe it and that goes to Trina's point, they have real chemistry, Sandra and Melissa. You believe that these two different people really do bond.
Jim: Wally, the nature of the humor?
Wally: It's easy to just think it's foul mouthed humor. Melissa's character swears -- like most of us do -- and Sandra doesn't swear until the end of the film. But there are a lot of humor twists and turns and the comedy derives more from human nature than anything else. This probably is the funniest film of 2013 so far. Not just of the summer, but of the year. Like Betty, I'm glad to see Sandra doing a comedy again.
Jim: Betty's "The Heat."
Wally: Right. Like Betty points out there, a lot of actresses win a Best Actress Oscar and you're left wishing they hadn't. They go into this whole First Lady of Film mode that makes you wince whenever you hear the names, for instance, Julia Roberts or Susan Sarandon. So it's great that Sandra's breaking that pattern. I'm sure she'll do many dramas but she's not going to sneer at comedies that make us erupt in laughter.
Jess: And we need comedies. My parents saw the film and they wanted me to make a point when I told them we'd be talking about it here. My mother's a pro bono attorney, my father's an activist who works to overturn the death penalty. They do serious work. If they go to the movies, they're not looking for Merchant Ivory. They're looking to laugh. So, as kids, my sister and I were dragged to every Goldie Hawn and Steve Martin comedy there was, for example. And that's great and I love their movies to this day. But the point is, laughter is important and, like Betty pointed out, a performer in Bullock's league who wins the Academy Award usually turns their back on the fans and does so quickly. My parents loved The Heat.
Jim: Elaine?
Elaine: I agree with Jess' parents 100%. With the stress of working on something you care about, when you go to the movies, you're looking to be entertained. Sandra Bullock and Melissa McCarthy make for a great comedy team and I'll note that one of the things that they excel in is physical comedy. For example, when they're attempting to bug the phone of a drug dealer, they go to a club and it's hilarious watching them attempt to work their way into the dealer's circle and when Sandra says she wants to sit on his lap, you'll be howling. Or when Sandra's stabbed in the leg and trying to breathe through the pain and then Melissa stabs her in the leg, you'll be howling. It's a very funny movie.
Jim: Ava?
Ava: This is a tight film with no extra. Please do not leave when the film is over. There's a great scene coming and I think they waited until after the end for it out of fear that it might make the film too long. This bonus scene revolves around a cat. So be sure to wait for it. Despite the claims of Bridesmaids changing everything, the film changed nothing. Every couple of years, we get a chance to see women team up. That's been true since 9 to 5. Bridesmaids did not lead to a plethora of comedies with women in the lead. In the 80s, Bette Midler began a run of comedies and Goldie Hawn has a filmography of comedies. The Heat has more in common with those, or a Diane Keaton comedy, than it does with Bridesmaids. It's a funny film that had the theater I was in erupting in laughter over and over. As soon as you think the laugh's over, another one hits you. For example, at the morgue, Sandra makes a tongue in cheek pun that gets loud laughter and then Melissa follows with a zinger that extends the laughter. They really are a great team.
Jim: Alright. Now it's not even July, there are other would-be blockbusters in store. Ruth, Dona and Ty are going to talk to us about them. First off, a film comes out this Wednesday. Ruth?
Ruth: The Lone Ranger. This has already been the basis for a film that bombed in 1981 starring Klinton Spilsbury. Westerns haven't done well in recent years and comedy westerns have struggled even more so. This one stars Johnny Depp which should be good except he is playing the sidekick Tonto. Lone Ranger? He is played by Armie Hammer who's never carried a film before and came closest in Mirror Mirror when he was the third lead. The trailer should be making us anticipate the film but instead seems to be breeding, based on online discussions, aversion. There's not one sweeping moment, one great thrill, that the trailer indicates or makes you eager to see. Will it bomb? I have no idea. But I think the idea that it is going to be a big hit or a satisfying film -- I do not see it happening.
Ty: A film that has much more interest is The Girl Most Likely which opens July 19th and finds Kristen Wiig in her first leading role follow up to Bridesmaids. The film has a strong cast which includes Annette Bening, Matt Dillon and Natasha Lyonne.
Dona: The other film that is interesting is The Wolverine. Hugh Jackman back as the lead character is enough to interest most. But the trailer's made it even more buzz worthy noting that Famke Janssen has a brief appearance as Jean Grey. Wolverine's the natural super hero, he doesn't need all the gimmicks so many of the Marvel and DC super heroes do. Like many, this is the film I am longing to see. It comes out July 24th.
Jim: Okay, this is a rush transcript and our look at summer film.
Jim (Con't): Betty, you wrote "Super Bomb: Man of Steel is awful" a little while ago and followed that up Monday with "Browsers and the bomb that is Man of Steel" -- why are you calling the film a bomb?
Betty: Superman Returns was judged a bomb as a result of it not having legs. Man of Steel doesn't have legs either. It had a great opening. But it's already dead and it couldn't even make it with two solid weeks of ticket sales. It'll see a bump for this weekend but it's dead.
Jim: You also loathed the movie.
Betty: I did. It was heartless, it had no point to it and it was charm free. One of the worst movies of the summer.
Jim: Alright. Friday saw two anticipated films open, Channing Tatum and Jamie Foxx starring in the action flick White House Down and Sandra Bullock and Melissa McCarthy starring in the comedy The Heat. Marcia, you saw White House Down, your thoughts?
Marcia: It's a popcorn movie. It will hold your attention. The best stunts and action are in the last forty minutes. The best action may be when there's a long car chase on the White House lawn.
Jim: The premise of the film?
Marcia: Jamie Foxx is the President of the United States. Channing Tatum is security for the Speaker of the House. Channing wants to become part of the Secret Service. He gets an interview via a woman who wants him to go to at least second with her. He also gets a White House pass for his daughter. This is why they're in the White House when it's under attack.
Jim: Cedric, you saw it?
Cedric: Ann and I went to matinees Saturday of both films. We took our son who slept the whole time.
Jim: He's a newborn, not even two months old, just FYI.
Cedric: Right. It's a great action movie. Channing Tatum's great in it.
Jim: I sense a reservation?
Cedric: Jamie Foxx wasn't that good. He lacked magnetism and authority and I think Vanessa Williams came off stronger in Eraser than he does in this film.
Ann: And the child.
Jim: The child?
Ann: Channing Tatum, who is great in it the film, has a daughter. Spoiler alert's already been noted stop reading now. So at one point, Jamie turns himself into the bad guys -- supposedly to save Channing's daughter. But then he's going to let James Woods shoot the daughter and tells the daughter that if he does what Woods wants then millions will die. Then we've got the little girl preparing to be shot in the head and telling Jamie that it's okay. He looks weak. He can't protect a child. And Vanessa Williams was a lot more a part of the action in Eraser. I was expecting Marcia to give a one-sentence review: "White House Down? Try Driving Miss Jamie!"
Marcia: I should have said that. I would have if I'd have thought of it. But, Cedric's point, yeah, Jamie doesn't really have the acting chops for this role.
Cedric: And you can argue that's especially the case when you're up against James Woods. I think he was fantastic in the film. But Channing held his own. And he came off like a man. This is the second film where Jamie Foxx's manhood's been in question. We didn't need to see his junk exhibited for the thrill of vengeful Whites in Django. That film was deeply racist. Here, he was cast in the Bill Pullman role. And that's not a role that provides much to do.
Stan: I want to praise an actor who was really good in it that hasn't been mentioned yet. Lance Reddick was great. I would argue he should get a nomination for Best Supporting Actor.
Mike: I'd agree with that.
Jim: He has a secondary role as a military head.
Stan: Right and for the film to work, there has to be some surprises. He is strong enough in the role to make you wonder if he's in on the terrorist attack. Spoiler: He's not. But he does make you wonder as he knocks heads with everyone and if he wasn't misleading you, you'd figure the movie out immediately.
Mike: I'd agree with that. He brings an intensity to the role. Most of us -- including Stan and me -- know Reddick from his role on Fringe as Broyles.
Betty: And it's a strong cast. Maggie Gyllenhaal is really good in an underwritten role.
Jim: Alright. C.I., I'm going to you for a critical overview?
C.I.: Channing Tatum's natural movie star appeal carries the film. Disclosure, I know Channing. The film is often too precious for words. It starts off slow because they need to give a 'cute' to Jamie Foxx's character. So he's headed home but wants the helicopters to deviate from the route to zip close to landmarks in DC. Is there any point to it? Not at all. They trot it out at the end as well. The president is not the lead character. This is a case of an actor needing a 'moment' in a script. It's wasted and makes the film drag. Channing's wife in the film was miscast and we could have done without her because we've already had enough backstory at this point. You could lop 15 minutes off the start without the film losing anything. When the action does finally get started, it moves along quickly enough. Even so, I would cut the scenes in Paris of panicking First Lady. We don't need them, they slow everything down -- it's just two scenes -- and we've already got dialogue establishing the First Lady is in Paris. We don't need to see her. She's not part of the action at the White House. Jaime Foxx tries too hard to be likeable to the point that he's failed to provide the stature a president is supposed to have. Channing Tatum carries the film on his shoulders. A tighter edit would have made this the action film of the summer. Jaime Foxx emerges from the film having made another questionable decision and even more in need of an audience pleaser that finds him playing a functioning adult. Channing emerges unscathed and earns the credit for the film's success.
Jim: Okay, we're now turning to The Heat. Isaiah, overview?
Isaiah: Sandra Bullock's a special agent with the FBI. There's a drug lord that they have a name for but no idea what he looks like or details on him other than he's in Boston. If she can nail this case, her supervisor's ready to overlook her problems interacting with her peers and give her a promotion she's earned. So off she heads to Boston where she learns that a police officer is working a related case, Melissa McCarthy. While Bullock's character is prim and by the book, McCarthy's is loud and off-the-book. The Heat is in the tradition of 48 Hours and other buddy cop comedies.
Jim: Trina, you found it hilarious?
Trina: I couldn't stop laughing. Melissa and Sandra, as Betty noted in "The Heat," make a great team. Actors are always being teamed up, Midnight Run, for example, found the always hilarious Charles Grodin teamed up with a very disappointing Robert De Niro. It did not work. They did not gell. So the natural way that Sandra and Melissa work together is really something to behold. A great deal of the time, I'm aware, I was howling at reactions from the actresses and not necessarily the lines themselves. But that's because the chemistry really makes this film. It's funny, it's hilarious, but that's largely from the actresses.
Jim: Kat?
Kat: Spoilers are allowed so stop reading. When Melissa blames Sandra for what happens to her brother and ends the partnership and both women are off the case, Sandra's walking through the Boston FBI headquarters where a new team to find the drug lord has been assembled and as she passes she sees that they are making fun of Melissa. She stops and tells them all off. It's funny and it's touching and it's one of the moments that makes the film. You believe it and that goes to Trina's point, they have real chemistry, Sandra and Melissa. You believe that these two different people really do bond.
Jim: Wally, the nature of the humor?
Wally: It's easy to just think it's foul mouthed humor. Melissa's character swears -- like most of us do -- and Sandra doesn't swear until the end of the film. But there are a lot of humor twists and turns and the comedy derives more from human nature than anything else. This probably is the funniest film of 2013 so far. Not just of the summer, but of the year. Like Betty, I'm glad to see Sandra doing a comedy again.
Jim: Betty's "The Heat."
Wally: Right. Like Betty points out there, a lot of actresses win a Best Actress Oscar and you're left wishing they hadn't. They go into this whole First Lady of Film mode that makes you wince whenever you hear the names, for instance, Julia Roberts or Susan Sarandon. So it's great that Sandra's breaking that pattern. I'm sure she'll do many dramas but she's not going to sneer at comedies that make us erupt in laughter.
Jess: And we need comedies. My parents saw the film and they wanted me to make a point when I told them we'd be talking about it here. My mother's a pro bono attorney, my father's an activist who works to overturn the death penalty. They do serious work. If they go to the movies, they're not looking for Merchant Ivory. They're looking to laugh. So, as kids, my sister and I were dragged to every Goldie Hawn and Steve Martin comedy there was, for example. And that's great and I love their movies to this day. But the point is, laughter is important and, like Betty pointed out, a performer in Bullock's league who wins the Academy Award usually turns their back on the fans and does so quickly. My parents loved The Heat.
Jim: Elaine?
Elaine: I agree with Jess' parents 100%. With the stress of working on something you care about, when you go to the movies, you're looking to be entertained. Sandra Bullock and Melissa McCarthy make for a great comedy team and I'll note that one of the things that they excel in is physical comedy. For example, when they're attempting to bug the phone of a drug dealer, they go to a club and it's hilarious watching them attempt to work their way into the dealer's circle and when Sandra says she wants to sit on his lap, you'll be howling. Or when Sandra's stabbed in the leg and trying to breathe through the pain and then Melissa stabs her in the leg, you'll be howling. It's a very funny movie.
Jim: Ava?
Ava: This is a tight film with no extra. Please do not leave when the film is over. There's a great scene coming and I think they waited until after the end for it out of fear that it might make the film too long. This bonus scene revolves around a cat. So be sure to wait for it. Despite the claims of Bridesmaids changing everything, the film changed nothing. Every couple of years, we get a chance to see women team up. That's been true since 9 to 5. Bridesmaids did not lead to a plethora of comedies with women in the lead. In the 80s, Bette Midler began a run of comedies and Goldie Hawn has a filmography of comedies. The Heat has more in common with those, or a Diane Keaton comedy, than it does with Bridesmaids. It's a funny film that had the theater I was in erupting in laughter over and over. As soon as you think the laugh's over, another one hits you. For example, at the morgue, Sandra makes a tongue in cheek pun that gets loud laughter and then Melissa follows with a zinger that extends the laughter. They really are a great team.
Jim: Alright. Now it's not even July, there are other would-be blockbusters in store. Ruth, Dona and Ty are going to talk to us about them. First off, a film comes out this Wednesday. Ruth?
Ruth: The Lone Ranger. This has already been the basis for a film that bombed in 1981 starring Klinton Spilsbury. Westerns haven't done well in recent years and comedy westerns have struggled even more so. This one stars Johnny Depp which should be good except he is playing the sidekick Tonto. Lone Ranger? He is played by Armie Hammer who's never carried a film before and came closest in Mirror Mirror when he was the third lead. The trailer should be making us anticipate the film but instead seems to be breeding, based on online discussions, aversion. There's not one sweeping moment, one great thrill, that the trailer indicates or makes you eager to see. Will it bomb? I have no idea. But I think the idea that it is going to be a big hit or a satisfying film -- I do not see it happening.
Ty: A film that has much more interest is The Girl Most Likely which opens July 19th and finds Kristen Wiig in her first leading role follow up to Bridesmaids. The film has a strong cast which includes Annette Bening, Matt Dillon and Natasha Lyonne.
Dona: The other film that is interesting is The Wolverine. Hugh Jackman back as the lead character is enough to interest most. But the trailer's made it even more buzz worthy noting that Famke Janssen has a brief appearance as Jean Grey. Wolverine's the natural super hero, he doesn't need all the gimmicks so many of the Marvel and DC super heroes do. Like many, this is the film I am longing to see. It comes out July 24th.
Jim: Okay, this is a rush transcript and our look at summer film.
When they drain all the life out of comics
Readers like William have been e-mailing in the last months asking about comic features, pointing out we used to report on comics. BDW e-mailed to state they never would have discovered the great Bomb Queen comics without our reporting.
So what gives?
The following gives?
Spock?
Star Trek has always had comics. In fact, after NBC cancelled the live action show, a cartoon version was made which ran on NBC Saturday mornings in 1973 and 1974.
But what's really stood out to us of late about comics is the lack of ideas.
Star Trek, Star Wars, Spike (Buffy The Vampire Slayer), Green Arrow remade as the TV's Arrow, Django Unchained . . .
We're hoping to dig deeper, to smaller titles, shortly. Because the big lines have turned an art from into an assembly line.
So what gives?
The following gives?
Spock?
Star Trek has always had comics. In fact, after NBC cancelled the live action show, a cartoon version was made which ran on NBC Saturday mornings in 1973 and 1974.
But what's really stood out to us of late about comics is the lack of ideas.
Star Trek, Star Wars, Spike (Buffy The Vampire Slayer), Green Arrow remade as the TV's Arrow, Django Unchained . . .
We're hoping to dig deeper, to smaller titles, shortly. Because the big lines have turned an art from into an assembly line.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
