Why I won't be seeing Elysium

Here's the trailer for the new sci-fi movie out this summer, Elysium.  Following the video, are the reasons I won't be seeing it and some other thoughts on Hollywood moviemaking.

The movie clearly contains an Occupy Wall Street type message.  It's socialism dressed up as science fiction, meant to inspire young skulls full of mush (not originally a Rush Limbaugh quote) into thinking about the world in progressive terms. 

 

That aside, it stars Matt Damon who regularly trashes conservatives in a way that I'm sure he thinks is intellectual but is just half a step smarter than most characters played by the equally liberal Woody Harrelson. Damon alone is enough reason to skip this film.

 

I also suspect that the movie, even on a sci-fi level is going to disappoint.  There is no Matrix moment to be seen in the preview.  And I don't think the movie will be any different.  Not to mention, a simplistic plot really doesn't stir the imagination, which is a big thing for me.  Having seen a lot of films during my lifetime, I can't watch a movie without some unexpected plot twists and far too many of the Hollywood fare these days are formulaic.

 

So, not seeing it. I'll be watching Breaking Bad's last episodes instead.

Sore winners, 'sorer' losers

Remember back in 2008 and early 2009 when the Obama euphoria hadn't cooled? Progressives and liberals were all giddy with hope and change. As were those only slightly engaged in politics and were caught up in the hype.  They won, they believed the world was their (free) oyster.

That euphoria, that tingle down the leg, didn't really last very long. Sure, the left was still in love with Obama but you could see mean-spiritedness creeping back in to the way they interacted with their political opponents. They won, but they were angry - perhaps because they had been forced to endure 8 years of Bush, or maybe they are just angry people. You could see it in the "I won" comment from the president when he wanted them to sit in the back seat and shut-up. Republicans were along for the recovery ride and had no say. You could see the utter lack of attempts at bi-partisanship from the president and Democrats in Congress and the Senate on every issue from 209 through 2010. Afterwards you could see they engaged the GOP in Congress only because they were forced to do so. And when they did it, they did it with shrill ads about Paul Ryan pushing grandma off the cliff.

Obama: Politics before leadership (part 5)

Politics before leadership yet again. In one video, with a Tea Party versus Occupy Wall Street lead-in, there are a series of Obama hypocrisies laid out in a few short minutes. All because he wants to be re-elected more than he wants to lead (at least that is, until after he's re-elected).

What do all of these have in common?

What do all of these have in common?

Nazi Germany.

Soviet Russia.

Communist China.

Mussolini's Italy.

Ancient Rome.

Napoleonic France.

Imperial Japan under Hirohito.

OWS.

The numbers: OWS vs. Tea Party

It's hard to get any sort of accurate sizing of Occupy Wall Street or the Tea Party protests of yesteryear.  In the past others and I had posted about the underestimation of the Tea Party rally sizes, and many have pointed out the disproportionate coverage estimates of OWS crowds.  They are in no way equal in size to the Tea Party rallies, but that is just too difficult to prove, especially given the slant of coverage facing both protest movements.  Which leads to my main point.  With the favorable coverage of OWS versus the unfair treatment of Tea Party rallies and Tea Partiers in general, it's not surprising that OWS is winning the numbers war, where numbers can actually be measured.

Palin explains OWS hypocrisy

Yesterday I caught a little bit of flack for saying Sarah Palin is still not running for president (in 2012). I think the overall point may have been missed by some people.  I think Palin would make a great president but I have two problems with 2012 for her.  (1) She missed her window of opportunity and (2) if she gets a political executive role (e.g. a governorship) she's better positioned for the next time around be that 2016 or 2020.

That doesn't mean I don't like her or wouldn't support her bid.  I would, but only under the right circumstances.  Nevertheless, to counterweight the negative impression some had, let me provide a pro-Palin note today.   She is so bang-on correct in this AP piece, it deserves recognition;

LAKE BUENA VISTA, Fla. (AP) — Sarah Palin told Republican donors Thursday that Occupy Wall Street protesters want the same thing as the "fat cats" they're upset with — a government bailout.

Palin criticized the protesters as believing they're entitled to other people's productivity and money and said they've drawn the wrong conclusions. Instead, the former Alaska governor said people should look to the tea party.

"They say 'Wall Street fat cats got a bailout so now I want one too.' And the correct answer is no one is entitled to a bailout," Palin told the crowd of about 1,000 at the Republican Party of Florida dinner. "The American dream, our foundation, is about work ethic and empowerment, not entitlement."

 You can't be more correct than that.

Buried lead in the Occupy Oakland chaos story

Oakland.

The Occupy Oakland portion of Occupy Wall Street turned violent yesterday.  Rightly, that was headline 1A:

OAKLAND, Calif. (AP) - A day of demonstrations in Oakland that began as a significant step toward expanding the political and economic influence of the Occupy Wall Street movement, ended with police in riot gear arresting dozens of protesters who had marched through downtown to break into a vacant building, shattering windows, spraying graffiti and setting fires along the way.

Quick Two Word Opinions

Here's a few more quick hit opinions on recent news items that I haven't had a chance to expound more thought on.

Gaddafi has been killed in Libya, ending his malfeasance forever - About time.

Greece is on the verge of collapse and the EU is at odds about bailing them out again - About time.

Joe Biden wants to run for president in 2016 - Great idea.

U.S. troops will be out of Iraq by year end - election bait.

#OWS Occupt Wall Street continues - Really? Yawn.

The Washington Post did a hit piece on Marco Rubio about his parents - no accountability.

Herman Cain leads the Nevada straw poll - Raising Cain.  (I had to say it somewhere).

The Evils of Representation Without Taxation

James Joyner at Outside The Beltway has an interesting but ultimately I think misguided post about the supposedly 'heartless' response of conservative bloggers to the Occupy Wall Street effort.  Why misguided?  Firstly, it assumes that everyone behind the OWS effort is pure and there is no progressivist agenda behind the movement at some level.  Setting that aside, the blame for people not paying taxes is the conservatives' push for lower taxes.

Quoting Suzy Khimm, WaPo WonkBlog, he points out;

Part of the reason that over 40 percent of Americans don’t pay taxes is because of the continual push to lower them — a cause that conservatives have championed. For example, while the Bush-era tax cuts benefited the wealthy, they also lowered taxes at every income level, making it “relatively easy for families of four making $50,000 to eliminate their income tax liability,” as the Associated Press notes. Ronald Reagan’s tax cuts, similarly, took many lower-income Americans off of the tax rolls, an accomplishment about which the Gipper was quite proud.

Who is involved in the OWS movement?

Do these people speak for you?

The Occupy Wall street effort is garnering a lot of support from the usual suspects and a few who are a complete surprise.  But the movement is claiming it speaks for 99% of the country and there really isn't that sort of mass behind it in real numbers.  Regardless of who is behind it or who is involved, the real question goes deeper than the names and the message, it's the claims that they speak for all of us that need to be addressed.

But first - who supports this? George Soros of course is involved. He's heavily involved, though his spokespeople claim ignorance and he claims nothing.  And then there's the usual cadre of celebrities - everyone is familiar with Roseanne Barr's foolish comments.  No one would be surprised to hear that Susan Sarandon, Michael Moore, Kanye West and Alec Baldwin are involved and/or supportive.  That's not really news.