I HEART JUNO

Believe it or not, I do have other interests besides politics; one being movies. So, here's my attempt at a movie review for the little gem of a film called Juno. It's seriously the best movie I've seen in some time ... and yes, even better than (favorite to with the Oscar) No Country for Old Men.

QUICK PLOT SUMMARY
Ellen Page plays Juno, a smart-mouthed teen who finds out that one dumb chair related move with boyfriend Paulie Bleeker (Michael Cera) leaves her with child. After an uncomfortable trip to the local planned parenthood center, Juno decides to give the baby up for adoption. Jason Bateman and Jennifer Garner play Mark and Vanessa Loring, the couple Juno chooses to be the adoptive parents. And speaking of parents, Juno's are played with class and style by Spider-Man's J. K. Simmons and West Wing's Allison Janney.

MY REVIEW
It's a rare treat when one has the opportunity to witness the birth of a superstar. But that is indeed how I felt watching Ellen Page command the screen during her remarkable performance in Juno. I can think of only a handful of actors who can be at the same time charming, soulful, witty, sad, and uplifting in a single role. Yet, Page pulls it off with an ease that makes one slightly jealous. This movie is chalk full of seasoned thespians, but she takes a back seat to none.

Sometimes one great performance is all you need carry a film, but luckily for us, everyone is at the top of their game here. Jason Bateman and Jennifer Garner play the seemingly perfect couple that hopes to adopt young Juno's baby. They are in fact so sugary nice, you expect to see them in a picture frame sitting on a shelf at Sears. As the film progresses, however, you begin to feel that something is not quite right with either of them. And it is a tribute to their performances that a simple look or a couple of words can reveal so much. Garner may be the most surprising of the two given the Alias-esq roles for which she's so well known. Who would have thought you could so easily fall for her as an uptight yuppie?

J. K. Simmons and Allison Janey also deserve a shout out as Juno's father and stepmother respectively. Earlier in the movie, you really want to dislike these two. He is ex-military; she reminds you of some strange librarian you might have seen in junior high. But like Bateman and Garner, there is much more to them than meets the eye, and peeling back the layers of their personalities is a fun ride.

Finally, I can't forget Michael Cera, who perfectly melds his Arrested Development innocence with adult complexity as he dances through the land mine of impregnating his 16-year-old girlfriend.

The beautiful script by former stripper Diablo Cody is the glue that binds all this brilliance together. Her characters are so smart and funny, you kind of wish their words were your own. And don't for a minute think you know where the movie is going. Because just when you want it to go one way, you're pulled in a different direction. All the directions, though, are ones you will desire to follow.

MY RATING
5 Stars (Out of 5)

THE MEDIA AND IRAQ

From Studio Briefing ...

Media Accused of Uncritical Coverage of Iraq War Buildup
A study conducted jointly by the Center for Public Integrity and the Fund for Independence in Journalism has concluded that the news media gave "deferential and uncritical" coverage to hundreds of false administration statements about the national security threat from Iraq following the 9/11 attacks that "effectively galvanized public opinion and, in the process, led the nation to war under decidedly false pretenses." The study, posted Tuesday on the CPI's website and reported later by Editor and Publisher, tallied 935 false statements by Bush administration officials, including President Bush, Vice President Cheney, Secretary of State Powell, National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz and White House spokesmen Ari Fleischer and Scott McClellan. "The cumulative effect of these false statements -- amplified by thousands of news stories and broadcasts -- was massive, with the media coverage creating an almost impenetrable din for several critical months in the run-up to war," the study concluded.

Still think the media leans left?

BARACK IS DA BAMA

I have a problem. For the first time in my voting history, I can't say that I have a slam dunk choice for the Democratic presidential nominee. And to make my dilemma worse, it looks like my vote will actually matter this time around. Because you see, those pesky New Hampshanuts didn't obey the polls and vote for Obama like everyone said they should. Well, Hillary's rally at UCSB on Friday reminded me that Super Tuesday is just around the corner, and it's clear that no more speeches or debates are going to help me. Nope, I have to stop sitting on the fence and make a decision. So, here goes ... Trekking Left officially endorses ... Barack Obama!

Want to know why? I'll break it down:

JOHN EDWARDS - I like John; I really do. And I feel a little bad for him. Without even getting into his personal struggles, the guy came so very close to being VP in 2004 and then followed that by campaigning his butt off for longer than anyone else. Plus, he's been the first candidate to come out with many key initiatives (e.g. universal health care coverage). Yet, the man can't seem to get the traction needed to be a serious contender. What's this country coming to when a rich white guy can't catch a break? Seriously, though, if I strongly felt he could bring more to the presidential table than the others, I would vote for him without blinking. But all things being fairly equal, I'm just really liking the idea of a woman or a black person being president. Maybe that shouldn't be a major factor in my decision making process, but I don't care. Now is the time to break some barriers in this country!

HILLARY CLINTON - Hillary is such a complicated figure. I have so many conversations with my friends about her, and it seems that every one's feelings are all over the map. For me, it can mostly be boiled down to two things ... Firstly, I want a candidate who's playing to win, rather than someone who's playing not to lose. I am so done with the middle of the road, say nothing, don't take any chances, court independents, listen to crappy consultants kind of politics that plagues the Democratic party. That was a losing strategy for Gore & Kerry, and it's a loser today. It seems to me that Hillary is totally using that same awful playbook. Secondly, and more importantly, I don't think people on the Left truly understand how deeply the hatred goes for her amongst much of the citizenry. Heck, you don't even have to look past the comments on this blog to feel that. And I can't tell you the number of times I've heard some independent or moderate conservative on the teevee say that they would vote for any Democrat but her. My gut tells me a general election that comes down to a few votes in one state like Florida or Ohio will go to the Republicans if she is the nominee. To be clear: the problem with her electability is not that she's a woman .... it's that she's a Clinton.

BARACK OBAMA - I think the key to winning the next election is to inspire hope and make Americans feel good about being Americans again. We simply can't thrive as a country with another 4 or 8 years constantly feeling as if some boogeyman is going to blow us up. We need a respected, calming figure who can show the world what America is really about. I believe that Barack Obama is that person. Not only is he inspirational, but he's shown an uncanny ability to attract independents, young people, and even some Republicans. Now, I know there is this feeling amongst some that latent racists tendencies will prevent many people from actually voting for a black person. That doesn't seem to be a factor so far with Obama. However, for the sake of argument, let's say that it might play a role in the next election. I say, let those votes go. Who wants'm anyway? Finally, there's the lack of experience thing. All I'll say there is that 5 out of the last 6 times we changed parties in a presidential election, it went for the less experienced candidate. And might I add that George H.W. Bush aggressively played the experience card in the race against Bill Clinton.

I probably shouldn't end without talking a little bit about the leading Republican candidates. Hmmm, okay, McCain is the only one who doesn't give me the heebie jeebies.

Well, maybe the heebies.

THE DEATH OF EXECUTIONS

On Monday, The (less than) Supreme Court will hear arguments regarding the use of lethal injection to carry out the death penalty in Kentucky. If you're interested in the details, let me save you the trouble .... Justices Thomas, Scalia, Roberts, Alito, and probably Kennedy will vote to let them continue this barbaric practice. I say this only because they've continuously shown that, if Bush likes it, they like it. My disdain for the current court, however, is not the issue I wish to discuss. Rather, this case got me thinking about death penalty in general and how its time has passed. As in the case of illegal immigration, people have rather strong feelings about the death penalty. And also like the immigration debate, I'm surprised at the number of those on the left who lean more conservative in this area. For now, though, it seems that the country is crawling to my way of thinking as the number of executions in 2007 dropped to a 13-year low. I'd like to see the number be zero.

It seems to me that the argument against the death penalty can really be broken down into two main categories: logical and emotional. Let's start out with the logical ...

IT DOESN'T PREVENT CRIME - I think the evidence is pretty clear that the death penalty does not act as a deterrent for criminals. If someone is inclined to commit a murder, for example, they don't take a breath first and weigh the pros and cons of committing said crime because the death penalty might be an option.

WE KILL INNOCENT PEOPLE - Even if you're a fan of the death penalty, you can't have a soul and not be troubled by the number of death row inmates being freed as a result of DNA evidence. If one innocent person is executed, that is unacceptable to me. Well, guess what? ... It's a great deal more than one. And just saying it never happens -- as Bush did in the 2000 debates -- does not make it so.

IT MAKES US LOOK BACKWARDS -- Did you know that over 90 percent of the world's executions are performed in China, Saudi Arabia, the U.S. and Iran? Is this really the type of company we want to keep? Much of the world ended the death penalty a long time ago, and the fact that we still do it hurts our ability to work with more enlightened nations. In a time where rebuilding our reputation is so important, why hold on to this outdated ritual?

IT'S EXPENSIVE - I don't want to get too bogged down with numbers, because I'm sure there are many ways to slice the data. However, by one account, "death penalty cases are estimated to generate roughly $470,000 in additional costs to the prosecution and defense over the cost of trying the same case as an aggravated murder without the death penalty and costs of $47,000 to $70,000 for court personnel." You want to subtract $10,000 here or there, fine. But the question is whether the money we spend is worth any "benefit" we might receive. Clearly, it's not.

I'm sure we will -- and should -- argue over the above list. But let me go to the more emotional and less tangible side of the debate. My gut tells me that the death penalty is something performed by uncivilized peoples, and as Stephen Colbert says: there are more nerves in your gut than in your head. I, of course, can't prove what I am about to say, but I would bet my shrinking paycheck that 100 years from now, President George Bush IV will look back at the death penalty as a horrible embarrassment in America's rich history.

And he will think this while attending his son's gay marriage.

IMMIGRATION AND HYPERPOWERS

A few weeks ago, I made a passionate case in favor of more progressive immigration policy (heck, I used a Boston Legal clip and everything). My argument -- and many like it -- seems to be a loser with the American public. And it depresses me a little to think that this is the one area where many conservatives and liberals appear to be united. I mean, you know it's bad when all the pundits are saying John McCain can't be president because Republicans "will never forgive him" for his position on immigration. It's one thing to say that we strongly disagree with the man, but the phrase "never forgive" makes me a little sad.

Well, not one to go down without a fight, I want to approach this from a different angle ... Last weekend, I was watching C-SPAN, and Amy Chua was talking about her new book "Day of Empire." In said tome, Ms. Chua dissects the six countries throughout history that she believes qualify as "hyperpowers."Simply speaking, they are the only peoples whom, at some point in time, had complete economic and military dominance over the entire "known" world. So, for example, the Aztecs don't count, because they only controlled a certain region. And the Soviet Union doesn't count because, although a super power, they had to share that status with us.

At first glance, this might seem like another boring analysis of history that we've heard a million times before. I mean, who doesn't know that the Romans were a big deal? But, here's the thing ... after all her exhaustive research on this topic, Amy Chua discovered an interesting pattern: The one thing that all these hyperpowers have in common is ... wait for it ... tolerance. That's right, believe it or not, tolerance might be the key to greatness. "How is this so," you might ask? The answer is twofold. Firstly, these countries prospered by taking the best that all the "assimilated" people had to offer and incorporating it into their own society (e.g. science and technology skills). Secondly, once someone was integrated into the society, they actually felt a connection to it. In the case of Rome, for example, people all over the world felt like Romans rather than simply the peons of a conquering force. Now, it is worth mentioning that many of these hyperpowers were certainly not saints when looking through 21st century glasses. The point, however, is that they were relatively tolerant compared to the general standards of the day.

Okay, so here's the converse argument ... All these societies eventually failed when they became more intolerant. At the end of the day, every single one of them decided to close in and become more xenophobic. This, she argues, was their undoing. As you might have already inferred, the U.S. is the current (and potentially last) of these hyperpowers. And in her interview, Ms. Chua expresses concern that we might be sliding as well. Her worry stems from the following three trends:

1) An increasingly pro-Christian stance
2) Anti-gay rights
3) Anti-immigration sentiment

As I watch my country increasingly blame immigration for everything from bad health care to Jamie Lynn Spears, I can't help but think we might be on our way out the door. When we start pre-emptively attacking nations and scapegoating a certain segment of the population for our economic woes, I think we should ask ourselves if this is the country we want to be.

TAKE MY COUNTRY BACK

Let's hope today in Iowa begins the process of us taking our country back.