kimmy

I just watched Juno as well, and thought I'd reply to some of what August wrote here... I'm not sure in what circles Juno was rejected in... it was a major commercial success by any yardstick, and an overwhelming critical success as well. Agreed, though, that the teenage angst/coming of age type movie has long centered on male protagonists, with occasional exceptions. I also found Juno (the character) to have the ring of truth. In particular I thought the portrayal of her evolving feelings toward her condition, and towards Mark Loring, and towards Bleeker seemed very natural. The script did not hit the viewer over the head with anything, it just unfolded in a way that made sense. The scene in which she lashes out at Bleeker was especially good, I thought... it took all of the conflicting feelings she's going through, and the feelings toward Paulie that she doesn't even acknowledge yet, and let it out in one hurtful outburst. Even though it makes sense it is still jarring to watch, because this anger is to that point not something we've seen from her. And rather than creating some sort of plot contrivance to set up this release of emotion, the script just has her just walk up to him and pick a fight, and more stuff spills out of her than she knew she had bottled up. Which, in my experience, is how this stuff really happens: sometimes you just go pick a fight because you're mad and you feel like maybe verbally beating up somebody else will make you feel better. I'm not really sure. I think that everything she does in the movie is driven by emotion rather than rationality or a questioning of convention. I don't think there's any moment in the movie where you can say she's acting with her head rather than her heart. I think, probably, that this is the essence of what made the movie such a success. A likeable actress with a very good script. -k

I'd say that's not so much "paraphrasing" as building a straw-man, Bubbles. Fey's portrayal of Palin was played up and promoted like none other in history. NBC clearly exploited Palin as a means of increasing ratings for 2 of its programs. Towards the end of October, NBC was putting Fey-as-Palin on TV as much as they were putting any of the real politicians on TV, in an effort to raise Fey's profile and boost ratings for SNL and 30 Rock. On the other hand, how many people can name the actors who portrayed any of the other candidates in any of the parodies? Coverage of Caroline Kennedy has been nowhere near as ubiquitous or as vicious as coverage of Sarah Palin. I think you'd be foolish to argue otherwise. What "slimy insinuations"? I've seen nothing insinuated at all. I've read that Shady has come up with some sort of work of fiction involving the sexual exploits of the president's daughters in 10 years time, but if you think that's an "insinuation" I'd suggest you should buy a dictionary. If Shady actually posts this alleged work of fiction he mentioned, I'll be the first to hit the "Report Post" button. -k

I think that we are all in complete agreement on this much. Until our legal system has good, reliable telepathy in its investigative arsenal, punishing people for what they're thinking, or even presuming to know what they're thinking, is an impossibility. Personally, I am extremely worried by the idea that people should be punished for what they think rather than what they do. As I spend about half of my waking hours thinking about punching people in the face, I would probably be locked up for life. Luckily for everyone, I actually punch very few faces... I save it up and pummel my heavy bag when I get home. And regarding the case in the original post... I don't think it's clear at all that possessing a "Lisa Simpson" porn video can reasonably be interpreted as an expression of desire to have sex with an actual human 8-year-old. And this is an extremely worrying concept. To jail people on the grounds that they seem more likely to commit some form of violence would have nightmarish implications. You could say, for example, that the prevalence of clinical depression in murder-suicide slayings might justify arbitrarily imprisoning someone who is being treated for depression. -k

If that's not what you were suggesting, why did you mention "going after Obama's wife as being too this or too that" in response to the complaint about media treatment of Palin's children? Oh, I know they did an impression of him, I just don't recall it being particularly memorable, or particularly biting. This was the famous one... http://www.alternet.org/blogs/election08/77752/ ...and while the faraway stare you mention was certainly amusing, there's no insight or criticism or commentary about Obama himself in any of this. Campbell Brown, on the other hand, was probably gnashing her teeth when she saw it... He was teflon. She wrote Mean Girls several years ago, which was fairly successful. Since then, "30 Rock" has been her only major project (aside from the guest appearances on SNL), and 30 Rock struggled badly for most of its run. Before Palin, "30 Rock" averaged 6.4 million viewers and ranked #94 in viewership among network programs. Since Palin, "30 Rock" has averaged 8.6 million viewers and ranks #44. How much more graphic could that be? Fey is certainly a bright, funny, talented lady. And now, for the first time in her career, she's also a star. Journalists need the kind of moments that people remember them for. Anderson Cooper scorching the ears off the Louisiana senator a few years ago. Wolf Blitzer broadcasting from Baghdad with rockets and bombs exploding in the distance. That sort of thing. Couric and her employer have certainly tried to portray her interview with Palin as one of these sorts of career-defining moments. Perhaps this is a regional thing. I don't watch SNL. Where I live, I receive my American TV from Washington state, and Caroline Kennedy isn't even a blip on the coverage. Perhaps folk in the east are much more aware of the campaign for Hilary's senate seat. And from what you're saying, perhaps Kennedy is not receiving the kid-gloves treatment as Palin speculated she might. I think it's obvious that Kennedy has not been the subject of the sort of media feeding frenzy that Palin was. While there were undoubtedly some unkind cracks about Chelsea's appearance when she was young, I think you'll find that she didn't have a hard time with the press until her father's 2nd term and later. Well, that's the million dollar question, isn't it. My guess would be that it's about 50% justifying/defending herself, 50% attempting to leverage this past experience into better or at least different coverage in her future political endeavors whatever those might be, and 50% being actually upset at the hatchet job that was done on her and her family. There gets to a point where it comes off as being about as sincere as the "lipstick on a pig" controversy. -k

If you two sincerely feel that Shady has posted offensive material, then click the "Report Post" button and let Charles decide what to do with it. Otherwise, spare us your caterwauling. -k

The bulldozers used in that sort of situation are armored in anticipation of sniper-fire, and have extremely poor visibility. That Rachel Corrie chose to lie down in front of such a thing makes her a deserving Darwin Award recipient. -k

Unacceptable, Dobbins! As you'll recall, Michelle Obama introduced herself into her husband's political career while he was battling Hilary Clinton, as a means of providing a "strong female voice" to counter Clinton's appeal with female voters, and she remained part of the campaign. It's ludicrous to suggest that she should have been off limits when she was involved in the campaign to this degree. Bristol Palin, on the other hand... Doubtful, as nobody had heard of her prior to her selection. I can't recall the Obama impression. American Woman remarked a number of times during the campaign on Obama's apparent imperviousness to parody. Is Palin wrong in anything she says? She says she was under a microscope, and she was. She asks whether Caroline Kennedy is receiving a comparable level of scrutiny, and I think it's fair to say she isn't. She says that the manner in which the media focuses attention on some and ignores others seems arbitrary, and it is. She says Fey and Couric exploited her, and obviously capitalizing on Palin has been a boost to the careers of both women in a way that's probably unequalled at least during my lifetime. I can't think of a satirist who has ever benefited from a political candidate in the way that Fey benefited from Palin, and probably no news figure during my lifetime has benefited from a politician to the degree that Couric benefited from Palin. As for running in 2012, that's not going to happen. She'll never recover from 2008. Sure. Palin was out of her league. But again, if Couric wasn't out to put some notches on a belt that's desperately lacking notches, why did she get Sam Nunn to coach her for the interview? That doesn't exactly smack of unbiased journalism. Really? I haven't heard of any of them. Where would I find them if I wanted to see them? I certainly haven't heard whatever network they're on promoting them in the way that NBC promoted Fey's performances. They could be as brilliant as anything, but they'll never attain the level of consciousness that Fey-as-Palin did, because put bluntly nobody cares about Caroline Kennedy. It's not something I'd have written. However, I'm sure that Shady's intent was not to "target children" but rather to illustrate what he feels is a double standard regarding the treatment of Palin and her family. The Obama girls are lucky. Their age should shield them from the sort of attention that the Bush girls, or Bristol Palin, or Chelsea Clinton have had to deal with. The word "unfair" is meaningless in this context. "Fair" is a completely irrelevant concept when it comes to politics. It's fair for Fey to revive her career at Palin's expense, and it's fair for Couric to try to establish a reputation at Palin's expense, and it's fair for Obama's supporters to try to deflect criticisms with charges of racism, and it's fair for Palin to cry victim for the way the media treated her. Everything is fair. The only relevant question is whether people buy in or not. I can only assume that's a joke, since pornographers are in the business of making money, and a Joe Biden themed porno would be in the same category as dealcoholized beer, restored Ford Pintos, and NDP memberships... impossible to give away, let alone sell. -k

She's right, of course. Both Couric and Fey surfed the wave of Palin's short-lived fame to great benefit for their own careers. Fey's impression was, of course, a smash hit. It was well done (contrast the Canadian version in which Katie Holmes portrayed Palin on Air Farce, leaving the viewer to the inescapable conclusion that Holmes is even dumber than Palin.) NBC realized they had a smash hit on their hands, putting Fey-as-Palin on TV and in advertising as often as possible. Fey's impression provided a big ratings boost for Saturday Night Live, and more importantly for Fey, it also put her in the spotlight and revived interest in Fey's modestly-viewed TV show "30 Rock". You can't fault an entertainer for seizing the moment, and Fey seized the moment in a way the entertainment industry hasn't seen in years. As for Couric, she knew going into the Palin interview that it was her opportunity to change the lingering perception that she's "that nice lady from the morning coffee show". Really taking Palin down would boost her reputation as a serious journalist, and the fact that she studied for the interview with members of Obama's team illustrates what her intentions were going in. Of course Kennedy has gotten an easy ride. Caroline Kennedy has gotten an easy ride because, quite simply, nobody cares. What could be less interesting than another Kennedy running for office? The only way she could become a Palin-sized target would be if she achieved a Palin-sized piece of the public mind-share, and that's simply not going to happen. The only thing that might give her the same level of fame that made Palin such a target would be if she did something Kennedy-style, like driving her car into a pond, skiing into a tree, or crashing her plane. Pretty obviously he is referencing the Palin-themed porno that seemed to tickle many a funny-bone a few months back. -k

I don't recall wrists being cut, but the Liberal government of the day was roundly criticized, as it was widely perceived that the snub was intended as a reply to a less-than-friendly attitude towards the US in the Liberal caucus. -k

That explains a lot. I am not referring to his political affiliation, but rather his political aspirations. It didn't seem to make much sense for a union leader to involve his union in something like this. However, if the guy has political aspirations, then perhaps he sees something like this as a springboard. I had a professor with an Arab-sounding name. It didn't occur to me to ask what his political views on the middle east were. As he was a math professor, it didn't seem particularly relevant. He was quite good at instructing mathematics. -k

Speaking only for myself, I can tell you that I have plenty of tolerance for people with an independent streak, but very little tolerance for people who have both an independent streak and a burning desire to punch me in the nose. This is the distinction the Israelis face in regard to Hamas. That's not a fiction created by western media. You can find any number of statements from Hamas representatives themselves to that effect. Even their new fuzzy-wuzzy philosophy toward Israel, the one that famously retracts calls for Israel's annihilation, still calls for attacks on Israelis. -k

So... Harper's primary motivation in determining policy is to ... obtain awards from Jewish organizations? Was that also what motivated Paul Martin and Jean Chretien? These awards... they are, what... a medallion? A placard? Highly valuable? If giving out awards is such a powerful means of influencing the actions of our leaders, I will have to head down to the trophies and engraving shop and obtain some awards to give out as well. -k {I just might get my wind-powered scooter innovation subsidy yet!}

I might not have got all the names right... There should be no need for anyone to retain legal counsel. -k

An analyst I heard on the radio a couple of days ago said that the review process has shown itself to be extremely respectful of the fact that the soldiers are in combat and are defending their lives. He pointed out that reviews in the shootings of civilians and non-combatants have repeatedly determined that the soldiers acted properly, based on the view that the soldier's need to defend himself from danger or presumed danger is paramount. What he was explaining is that the track record shows that the people who review this sort of thing have shown themselves to be very understanding of the situation that soldiers face in combat situations, and his conclusion was that for charges to be laid in this particular instance, the circumstances must have been extraordinary. He found it baffling, however, that this has all happened now, when the operation in which the incident occured was months ago. -k

What has Peter Jennings got to do with this? Was he also a plumber posing as a journalist or something? -k

Hardly justice then. In the case of the trials for Jane Creba's murder, Riverwind appears to have it right: Though J.S.R., who cannot be named due to his age at the time of the 2005 shootout that saw 15-year-old Creba killed and a number of others injured, did not fire the fatal bullet, the jury found that he participated in the exchange of gunfire that led to her death. They decided therefore that he was guilty in her murder. http://www.citynews.ca/news/news_29881.aspx No has implied nor said the are innocent. But the problem lies in that the police are not sure who had a gun nor who fired one, and that is the crux of the crowns problem. ...and I think in the Courtepatte murder, it's about the same. It really doesn't matter which of the five who presided over her slaying was using the sledgehammer, which one was using the wrench, which one was using the knives, or which ultimately finished her off. And Laboucan's defense does not appear to be trying to make that claim. His defense seems to be that he was not a participant in her slaying because he was too shocked to act, a claim disputed by his co-convictees. I am unable to determine what legal error the judge actually made. Was the mistake in not trusting Laboucan's version of events, or was the mistake in writing down that he did not trust Laboucan's version of events? Clearly, given conflicting testimony, the judge had to come to a decision as to which was the more likely version of events... I can't understand the rationale for overturning the decision based on him deciding that Laboucan's version of events was not believable. -k

CBC debuted a couple of new shows this week. I missed the debut of "Being Erica", which judging from the previews appears to be a comedy in which a woman's psychiatrist uses hypnosis to allow her to revisit her past and examine why her life is such a trainwreck. It sounds like an idea with plenty of potential, although I was unable to watch on Monday. I did, however, watch the other new entry, "Wild Roses", which aired last night. Call it curiousity, I suppose. I am not generally interested in soap operas in any form, but a CBC soap opera set in Alberta struck my fancy for some reason. I couldn't help but think that CBC executives conceived of a set-in-Calgary drama as some sort of desperate scheme to convince Stephen Harper from cutting their funding. Wild Roses is a prime-time soap-opera which presents the lives of two different but intertwined families. The McRich family are wealthy oilmen. The Hugs family are financially struggling women just trying to keep their ranch. Which is a challenge, because they owe money to the McRiches, and J.R. McRich has coveted their land for many years. Complicating matters is romantic feelings between two generations of McRich men and Hugs women. The Hugs family... Katie Hugs - the devoted daughter, who has struggled to keep Happyland Ranch operating since the death of their father. Lucy Hugs - the free spirit, an aspiring musician who is preparing to take her rock band to Europe. She spends the first half of the show on a drug trip after popping some of Joey's aspirins to cure her hangover. Those weren't aspirins... Charlotte Hugs - the shy teenaged sister. We're reminded several times that Charlotte is adopted, and a native. We probably wouldn't have to be reminded so often that she is a native, except that the producers cast this role with an actress who has medium brown hair, fair skin, and startling blue eyes. Maggie Hugs - the matriarch of the Hugs family; her late husband was given the land on which Happyland Ranch sits as a gift from the father of J.R. McRich. Joey Slackerson - Joey is a member of Lucy's band, and allegedly her boyfriend. The McRich family... J.R. McRich - the sexy, gravelly-voiced patriarch of the McRich family is a wealthy oil baron. He bears a grudge against Maggie's late husband for the gift of the land that he believes should have been his. But his romantic feelings for Maggie Hugs complicate things. Chip McRich - J.R.'s #1 son, a successful Calgary businessman who is trying to swing a huge deal with some perpetually surprised Japanese businessmen. Chip and his brother are close friends of the older Hugs girls. Scooter McRich - J.R.'s "other" son seems to be an irresponsible drunk layabout living off the family money. Loses Chip's Porsche in a poker game. Scooter obviously has strong feelings for Lucy Hugs. Becky McRich - she is "the blonde". She is probably moreso "the blonde" than any character we've seen since Jaime Pressley's performance as "the Nasty Cheerleader" in Not Another Teen Movie. When we first meet her, she is pitching a diva-tantrum as preparations for her engagement party are falling short of her expectations. Later, when the native girl storms out of the party after a guest makes racist comments, Becky defends the racist and complains that the dirty hippy is ruining her party. When J.R. tells her that he is taking back Happyland Ranch from the Hugs family, she is overjoyed and assumes he is giving it to her as a present, and later proclaims that she couldn't care less what the Hugs girls think. And just hours after her engagement party, she sneaks away from her fiance to have sex with a ranch-hand. She swears a lot, and displays a lot more bare skin than viewers are used to seeing on network TV. Overall the character is kind of like Paris Hilton, except more spoiled, more ignorant, and less sensitive. Anyway, it's ... well, it is what it is. It's a soap opera, and the genre demands certain things. Over-the-top characters, contrived situations, romantic triangles and other romantic polygons, less-than-subtle acting, and generally a tolerance for all of this sort of silliness. In its favor, it does have some very attractive scenery, and very attractive people. I don't really pay any attention to this sort of program in most cases, so I can't really say if it's good or not good by the standards of the genre. I think someone with a well developed sense of sarcasm might enjoy the show, perhaps if there were some sort of a drinking-game involved. Personally, I would probably only watch again to find out what ridiculous thing they have Becky McRich doing next... I expect that within a few episodes we'll see her bragging about her new conflict-diamond earrings, demanding that daddy buy her a panda-fur coat, or attempting to purchase homeless-people as servants. Over the years, some of Canada's most successful and memorable programs have been those set outside of "the big city". Perhaps Canadian urban settings just don't stand out sufficiently from their American counterparts and so suffer from the comparison. Or perhaps truly unique settings appeal to people. "The Beachcombers", "North of 60", "Corner Gas", "Trailer Park Boys", and "Little Mosque" all provide viewers with a setting and a premise that they have not seen anywhere else and perhaps not coincidentally have all had tremendous success. With "Wild Roses", CBC gives viewers a setting they've seen plenty of times... CBC already had "Heartland" on their schedule, which is practically the same show except intended for a juvenile audience. I would think there are dozens of potentially great settings and premises for Canadian TV programs and see little need for another ranch drama which seems rather recycled. A couple of ideas that I think would be neat would be something set in a diamond-mine boomtown in the far north, or some sort of chronicle of the lives of Maritimers transplanted to Fort McMurray. I have no idea whether there'd be a big audience for such programs, but it would certainly be unique and would portray some aspect of the country that most Canadians aren't familiar with... which it seems to me is closer to the CBC's mandate than another ranch drama. -k

I wonder at what level Punked will feel the cabinete is sufficiently diverse. Is there a quota? Is there some point at which Punked would declare the cabinet to be too diverse? And is "not white" the only criteria that is important in determining whether the cabinet is sufficiently diverse, or should care be made to be sure that every ethnic group has representation in cabinet? -k

I think we all know that the rift between Israel and Hamas goes far beyond Hamas having an "independent streak", kuzadd. -k

I doubt it's his neighbors they're worried about. -k

He owns the house. He's asking that a gate be built to provide security. Considering the extent to which some people hate the man, it's not an unreasonable request. -k

The sensationalized rape and murder of 13 year old Nina Courtepatte is back in the headlines, as one of the gang convicted of the crime has had his conviction overturned. Joseph "Snowball" Laboucan's conviction for 1st degree murder, kidnapping, and sexual assault has been overturned on the grounds that the judge erred in writing in his verdict that Laboucan was not a credible witness. Nina Courtepatte was picked up by a group of 3 young men and 2 young women in spring, 2005, at West Edmonton Mall. She was invited by the group to join them at a "party" they were going to. The "party" turned out to be Courtepatte's rape and murder at a golf-course west of Edmonton. Courtepatte was raped by 2 of the men, choked with a wrench, stabbed with knives, and ultimately bludgeoned to death with a sledgehammer. Those facts are all essentially uncontested. Members of the group have already confessed to all of that. Laboucan himself doesn't argue the basics of the crime. Laboucan's defense was not "they got the wrong guy!" or any such thing. His defense, apparently, was that he didn't realize the "party" was a ruse. He thought they were actually going to a party, he claims. He also claims that once the violence began, he "went into shock" and was unable to stop what was going on. I'm sure we can all relate to the sensation of being momentarily stunned or unable to act by the sight of something shocking. However, for that sensation to last for the duration of 2 rapes, a choking, knifings, and a sledgehammer beating, seems highly dubious. And indeed, Laboucan's cohorts testified that not only was he not in a state of shock, he was a ringleader of the violence. Astoundingly, however, the Alberta Court of Appeal has ruled that the presiding judge acted improperly in writing in his ruling that he did not consider Laboucan's testimony to be credible. Laboucan is also awaiting trial for the murder of an Edmonton prostitute. -k {some days, I really think about buying a blowtorch and pliers.}

In what form is Gaza to exist, according to international law? -k

While I understand the point you're making, I'm not sure it's a direct analogue. BC_Chick has been posting news articles in the other thread from the time of the election to highlight the fact that Hamas had dropped the explicit demand for Israel's destruction from their manifesto. However, her articles also highlight the fact that "armed resistance" (as the euphemism goes) remained a prominent part of Hamas policy. Palestinians knew what they were supporting in Hamas. I can understand the complaint that people have been punished for policies they had no say in, but I think there's potentially an argument that Palestinian voters did have a say, and chose to endorse an organization that intended to put them in harm's way. -k