Month: August 2010

Bravo routinely airs two episodes of “The West Wing” back to back every morning. Curiously, with no explanation, they jumped over an episode this morning. They skipped the one entitled “Faith Based Initiative.” I wonder why. Well, let’s check the episode description:

On the same day that an anti-gay-marriage amendment is attached to the federal budget, an Internet rumor surfaces that C.J. is a lesbian. Josh and Toby attempt to kill the amendment without forcing the President to publicly take a position on this unwinnable issue.

Okay. I find that…interesting.

PAD

I loved “Scott Pilgrim.” I really did. I also find myself wondering if the director was a fan of “Speed Racer” since much of the storytelling and editing was evocative of that film. I predicted after seeing “Speed Racer” that you were going to see a lot of its techniques showing up in future movies, and this might be the first of them.

It’s hard to believe that a film with as much energy, great acting and storytelling is struggling at the box office, but that’s where we are with “Scott Pilgrim vs. the World.” SP received major push at the San Diego Con, making one wonder just how much post-con lift to films a convention presence really translates into. Thus far its major accomplishment is to make “Kick-Úš,” generally considered a disappointment, look like a triumph.

Naturally this will be scrutinized as an indicator of how “comic book” movies do when they don’t feature non-mainstream superheroes. Which is, of course, ridiculous. “Road to Perdition” and “Men in Black” were both “comic book movies.” Audiences just didn’t think of them as such.

Ariel told me something kind of chilling. “Scott Pilgrim’s” target audience is, basically, her peer group, and she said she tried to get up a group to go see it. But she was rebuffed, told by her friends that they didn’t have the money to go to the movies but hey, no problem, they had access to sites on line where they could just watch it for free.

If this is really a prevalent attitude toward movies aimed at that age group, it means that films like “The Expendables” and “Toy Story 3” which skew older (yes, the latter skews older because parents are paying to bring their kids) can still make a mark at the box office but teen movies may be opening with two strikes against them.

In the meantime, let’s hope that “Scott Pilgrim” benefits from the terrific word of mouth it so richly deserves.

PAD

Sarah Palin is demanding more answers from Obama regarding the proposed mosque/recreation facility/laser tag center proposed to be built within a few blocks of Ground Zero. Apparently the new angle for criticism is that the hidden agenda reason why Muslims want to build it there is that it’s a historically-dictated victory monument. As opposed to, say, an endeavor to memorialize the innocent Muslims who also died in the attack, or perhaps an attempt to try and convince a skeptical percentage of Americans that terrorists don’t represent Muslims any more than the KKK represents Christians, both of which make far more sense considering the moderate people who are endeavoring to build it. Or maybe…here’s a nutty notion…there’s Muslims living in the area already and they’d like a convenient place to worship.

With any luck, Obama won’t get into a back and forth with her. But I got nothin’ better to do at the moment, so I’ll take a whack at it:

She demands to know why Obama wasn’t encouraging them to accept Governor Paterson’s offer to “look into trying to provide them with the state property they would need” which would be “at a distance,” according to Paterson.

Well, three reasons. First, Paterson promised them nothing except to “look into” “trying” to provide it. Why trade off a property where they’ve got everything locked up and ready to go for a vague promise from a lame duck and unpopular governor? Second, as was well documented on “The Daily Show,” everywhere from Wisconsin to California, attempts by Muslims to build houses of worship is being met with resistance and protests. It’s no longer about geography; it’s about religious tolerance. And third, Obama’s job is to uphold the Constitution. The Constitution says these people have the right to build a house of worship. Therefore Obama upholds that right. Not only does Obama’s obligation end there, but as has been demonstrated, there’s nowhere else he could suggest they DO build it that wouldn’t garner protests from the locals.

Palin also asked Obama, “Why are they apparently so set on building a mosque steps from what you have described, in agreement with me, as ‘hallowed ground’? I believe these are legitimate questions to ask.”

The answer is: You believe wrong. Those are not legitimate questions for Obama to ask. Government has no business asking them. A president has no business asking them. Palin can ask them if she wants because she is a private citizen, and the same First Amendment that protects a Muslim’s right to worship protects Palin’s right to ask about it. But the foremost upholder of the Constitutionally-dictated hands-off of religion doesn’t get to, and it would be inappropriate if he did. The fact that she is unable to reach this conclusion on her own simply shows, yet again, that she is woefully unqualified for the job she sought in 2008, and if she had taken the oath of office, she would have either been lying or intellectually unequipped to understand what she was promising.

Furthermore, if Sarah Palin were really interested in why they want to build their mosque/community center/dojo in that location, why doesn’t she ask for a sit-down with them? I bet they’d be glad to accommodate her.

So I throw it back to you, ex-governor. Instead of asking Obama these questions, when his only stake in the matter is to do what he promised to do when he took the office, why don’t YOU go ask them face to face? I’ve read a lot of articles in which she’s voiced opposition, but haven’t found any where she’s gone to the source. Doesn’t that seem the simplest solution?

Why don’t you ask them yourself, Sarah?

PAD

Well, at least no one’s talking about amending the Constitution again. In this particular instance, that annoying First Amendment which mentions freedom of religion.

The guy who we watched take an oath to defend it a couple years ago commented on the move to build a mosque in lower Manhattan within distance of Ground Zero. To be specific, President Obama said: “As a citizen, and as president, I believe that Muslims have the same right to practice their religion as anyone else in this country. That includes the right to build a place of worship and a community center on private property in lower Manhattan, in accordance with local laws and ordinances.”

That doesn’t even begin to take into account that the guy spearheading the drive is the exact sort of moderate Muslim who is as disgusted by the actions of terrorists as, well, any moderate Christian would be by the activities of the KKK.

Yet Republican Peter King declared that Obama “is wrong.” I’m fascinated by the notion. What part, exactly, was he wrong about? That he’s a citizen? (Not that again.) That he’s the president? (Well, if he’s not a citizen, then…) Or is King suggesting that Muslims don’t have the right to build a place of worship in accordance with local laws and ordinances?

I mean, if you’re going to object, then be willing to take it all the way. Muslims should be able to block the building of churches in their neighborhoods because they’re still steamed about the Crusades. And Christians should make sure to prevent synagogues going up because, despite Vatican II, they’re still blaming the Jews for the Crucifixion.

This country was founded on a foundation of religious tolerance…or, more correctly, escaping religious intolerance. Do I see the symbolism that some people find upsetting with the idea of a mosque within a few blocks of Ground Zero? Of course. I’m not stupid; I get it. But it’s always easy to support the First Amendment when people aren’t saying or doing something you find upsetting.

If we truly want the U.S. to be a beacon of hope, we can’t snuff out the torch when we find it too hard to keep it lit.

PAD

Yesterday the family took in a Long Island Ducks game, a baseball team in the Atlantic league. There’s a lot to be said for grass roots teams. It costs no more than going to a movie and the ballpark seats a fraction of what you see in a major league stadium. You’re close enough to hear the crack of the bat or the ball thudding into the catcher’s glove. And there’s all sorts of cheesy contests for families to participate in.

But today Ariel and I (along with Glenn) took in a game at CitiField. And it’s undeniable that there’s an energy in such an environment that eclipses small parks. Maybe it’s because the stakes are higher. Maybe it’s because the Mets are still clinging to the slim hopes of a post-season berth, and today’s 4-0 win over the Rockies keeps the team on life support slightly longer. Maybe it’s because our freakin’ closer wound up in jail on assault charges, leaving the rest of us wondering just what the hëll his father-in-law said to him to set him off.

What do you guys think? Major leagues or minor leagues?

PAD