National Review Online: Serious Business

Attention: Hey everyone whose movie viewing habits are determined solely by arbitrarily-placed partisan values, your day has come! The writers of National Review Online have taken it upon themselves to count down the 25 Most Conservative Movies over the course of this week. Unfortunately for them the entire list has already been leaked, but their loss is the Train’s gain- I almost certainly wouldn’t have bothered to sit around and wait all week while they slowly reveal all of their choices.

So, one might ask, what made the list? Before seeing it myself I assumed it would be full of movies like The Birth of a Nation, or a filmed reading of Mein Kampf, but it turns out the “made in the last 25 years” stipulation rules both of them out. The actual list is perhaps even funnier, because most of the movies really shouldn’t be on it. Oh sure, I’ll allow the handful of war movies because of the state of arousal they induce among the military fetishists on the Right, but past that? Let’s see a few:

#20: Gattaca (1997)
I guess this here because it has a lot of science in it, and the science involved is sometimes bad, and liberals are often fond of science? I’m hoping when NRO catches up and posts the explanation they’ll have something about how global warming and climatology are basically the same as scary future eugenics.

#12: The Dark Knight (2008)
Is this the same Dark Knight where the warrantless wiretapping machine is unequivocally declared evil, where the character executing criminals without trials does so because he’s insane, and where abandoning your values to stay safe is wrong? They must have switched reels when I watched it, because with all of that going on I’d be hard-pressed to agree that this is an even slightly conservative movie.

#11: Lord of the Rings (2001, 2002, 2003)
Hahahahaha okay. With the single largest message of the trilogy being sharply environmentalist (maybe the NRO slept through the scenes with trees literally getting up and destroying factories?) because of Tolkien’s horror at the ravages of industry on the British countryside, I’m having trouble figuring this one out. I guess they saw people fighting, and didn’t realize that LOTR is pro-war the same way Catch-22 is pro-war (hint to conservatives: it is not).

#10: Ghostbusters (1984)
You see, the ghosts in the movie are metaphors for liberals, and Bill Murray is actually a conservative, and ectoplasm is created by raising tax rates, and…

#8: Juno (2007)
Apparently the one scene in which she decides not to have an abortion outweighs the premarital teenaged unprotected sex, strong language, and likely illegal relationship that the potential adoptive father pursues? Is that all it takes to become one of the MOST CONSERVATIVE MOVIES, just not having an abortion? Apparently it is.

#6: Groundhog Day (1993)
I have a theory for this one: this list was supposed to be The Bill Murry-est Movies of the Last 25 Years, and the other 23 Murry-less films are actually the mistakes here. Otherwise their justification will have to be something about how he improves himself and becomes a good person, and this will have to have some sort of hidden Christian undertones? Seems to me that the movie would work with Hindu or Buddhist thought far more easily, what with the character escaping from an endless cycle of reincarnation by means of achieving enlightenment (such enlightenment as a Hollywood character finds, anyway), but I suppose the NRO knows best.

#5: 300 (2007)
Here we see the return of eugenics, which were last depicted as an evil liberal obsession in Gattaca, but now they’re practiced by the good guys who throw babies off cliffs! You can tell they’re good guys because they talk about democracy a lot (they don’t practice it quite as much, but is that ever really a concern for conservatives?), and they kill stacks of proto-Persians. Also, anyone who opposes the war has been purchased by the enemy. 300 is a great action movie, but anyone who finds deep political meaning in it should be thrown off a cliff for the safety of our nation.

#4: Forrest Gump (1994)
Forrest Gump has an IQ of 75, and goes through life never understanding anything that happens around him. Please write your own joke here about how easily the cast and crew of the NRO can relate to him.

Well, the NRO sure can pick ‘em. Some of the rest are also fairly suspect- for example, I haven’t seen Team America: World Police, but I have a hard time believing there isn’t a pretty good case against its inclusion. I’m tempted to email them with some suggestions: the anti-science film Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed featuring Ben Stein should legitimately qualify, as should the Ann Coulter-infused FahrenHYPE 9/11 and the award-winning Nailin’ Palin. No one wants to watch any of those, though, so I guess in the end I can see why they had to just make up a bunch of crap to fill out the list. You win this time, NRO.

Christian Gomez, Second Coming

Steve Goff's Soccer Insider blog, is reporting that D.C. United has completed a deal for playmaker Christian Gomez. As longtime DC United loyalists know, Gomez was our former league MVP in 2006, and led the team to their fourth league championship in 2004, and two Supporter's Shields in 2006 and 2007.

DC traded Gomez at the beginning of last season after an ugly contract renegotiation, that ended with DC signing Marcello Gallardo to replace Gomez for $1.87 million dollars. Now, with Gallardo on his way back to River Plate to finish his career in his native Argentina, DC has reacquired Gomez (while sticking Colorado with a portion of the bill) with the hope that he can regain his form in the #10 playmaker role.

Here's the breakdown of the trade:
DC UNITED GETS:
-An International Roster Spot
-Rights to 23 yr old Goalie Mike Graczyk
-Christian Gomez, whose $400,000 contract will be in part covered by Colorado

COLORADO RAPIDS GET:
-Honduran LB/LM Ivan Guererro
-A Designated Player slot (originally Colorado's, part of Gomez deal last year)
-2010 second round draft pick

What do you think? This is a difficult trade to weigh. Last season we acquired Ivan Guererro from San Jose, and fit him into our system as an industrious winger, willing to grind out games from 18 to 18, a la Ben Olsen. I truly believed him to be an essential part of the new team at the end of last season, but since then the team has signed 2 additional left backs and a left midfielder. His spot was never guaranteed.

With Gomez returning, I do wonder if United is suffering from sports nostalgia, seeking some old glory. Recall that last year, Gomez ended the season without stepping on the field for the last month of games. Can he still be that MVP that Gallardo failed to be? I really need to think about this more, but my initial reaction is that the trade will work out in DC's favor because of Gomez's familiarity with United's system, and the international roster acquisition which will let us upgrade if we need to.

My biggest gripe is that all our attacking players are in the mid 30's.....

I'll have more and a team preview posted as the season gets closer, until then, enjoy this Gomez Goal compilation from 2006-2007:





UPDATE:The team website now has the report up.

Heckuva job, Ben!

A very special combination of corny and stupid:

"We trimmed the fat, fried the bacon and milked the sacred cows," Nelson said as debate began.

Thanks Ben! A since you refuse to speak like an adult about the cuts you've made, lets see what we've won:

-Elimination of $25 billion in flexible funding for state governments.

-Cut $7.5 billion in funding for “state incentive grants” to help states make progress toward NCLB goals.

-Eliminated $19.5 billion in construction aid for schools and colleges.

-Reduced new aid for the Head Start early childhood program by $1 billion

Great, and that's just the start. And regardless of the merits or the programs, and jobs that they create (according to Ben Nelson and Susan Collins schools build themselves, therefore not creating jobs in the process), economically the cuts could actually have a very significant impact.

Paul Krugman:

I’m still working on the numbers, but I’ve gotten a fair number of requests for comment on the Senate version of the stimulus.

The short answer: to appease the centrists, a plan that was already too small and too focused on ineffective tax cuts has been made significantly smaller, and even more focused on tax cuts.

According to the CBO’s estimates, we’re facing an output shortfall of almost 14% of GDP over the next two years, or around $2 trillion. Others, such as Goldman Sachs, are even more pessimistic. So the original $800 billion plan was too small, especially because a substantial share consisted of tax cuts that probably would have added little to demand. The plan should have been at least 50% larger.

Now the centrists have shaved off $86 billion in spending — much of it among the most effective and most needed parts of the plan. In particular, aid to state governments, which are in desperate straits, is both fast — because it prevents spending cuts rather than having to start up new projects — and effective, because it would in fact be spent; plus state and local governments are cutting back on essentials, so the social value of this spending would be high. But in the name of mighty centrism, $40 billion of that aid has been cut out.

My first cut says that the changes to the Senate bill will ensure that we have at least 600,000 fewer Americans employed over the next two years.

The real question now is whether Obama will be able to come back for more once it’s clear that the plan is way inadequate. My guess is no. This is really, really bad.

Well, that's a cheery outlook. The bill desperately needs to pass, even in this exceedingly crappier form. This is pretty damn depressing mostly because of what it could have been. The stimulus bill was an opportunity you get maybe 2-3 times a generation, where all the factors political and otherwise align to make it possible.

Instead another type of alignment between crappy advisers and terrible political strategy took place, leaving us with the icing on the cake of Susan Collins and Ben Nelson bragging about how they "cut the pork" out of the bill.

Going forward it all comes down to what lessons the Administration takes from this fight.

Less of the "thanking Susan Collins and Arlen Spector for their patriotism" Obama and more of the fired up and kicking ass Obama would be nice.

Stimulus Bill or REPARATIONS BILL?

So stupid it hurts:

Stimulus Bill or Reparations Bill?

I think that President Obama set the bar ridiculously low when he said that 75 percent of the stimulus should kick in within by the end of 2010, but the House bill did not even get over that bar. Why is the stimulus bill so filled with non-stimulus while it omits real stimulus measures, such as cutting payroll taxes?

I think the answer is that it is a reparations bill, not a stimulus bill. People who pay income taxes tend to vote Republican. People who live off taxes tend to vote Democratic. To the Democrats, the Bush tax cuts were a heinous evil, comparable to Germany's violation of Belgian neutrality in World War I. Now, they are demanding reparations, with hundreds of billions of dollars to be paid into teachers unions and other members of the coalition that won the election.

Most of the bill makes no sense from a stimulus perspective. But all of it makes sense from a reparations perspective.

I got the link from atrios, and tapped, to a libertarian economic blog that is funnily enough, written by my former AP Stats teacher, Arnold Kling. In addition straight from talk radio right wing bullshitting: "hundreds of billions into teachers unions and others" (must have missed that part of the bill), I'm still wondering what "it makes sense from a reparations perspective" even means.

And while tapped was mostly critical of him for cherry picking statistics to match his point, the idea of bringing the ever so slightly charged word "reparations" into his post is pretty absurd.

So after the increased traffic from atrios, he posts this update that can go straight into the "who could have ever imagined" file:

[UPDATE: comments have been turned off. Apparently, some other blogger decided that my reference to "reparations" was a reference to reparations from slavery and hence a reference to the color of President Obama's skin. That had not occurred to me. I really was thinking about the Treaty of Versailles. But the comments were getting ugly.]

Yeah, cause when most people think of reparations in this country, they think of the Treaty of Versailles.

This is as good of a time as any to start a new (or semi-stolen from atrios) game. Is the person genuinely that stupid, or are they lying?

Which is it Train of Thought readers:

Stupid or lying?

Train of Thought Field Trip: Free Republic Does China!

After seeing freepers brutally fail to figure out any subject for themselves over the last few weeks, I started to wonder if they have any opinions beyond “poor people=bad,” “Muslims=bad,” and “black people=bad.” Trying to determine if they can be distinguished from white supremacist hangout Stormfront in any way, I used the Free Republic search tool to find out what they think of China- and wouldn’t you know it, “Chinese people=bad” is an ongoing theme here too! Let’s see what they have to say:

First, Mimirs Well describes a post-collapse China so nonsensical that I have literally no idea where to start- is it even possible to poke holes in something that is itself composed entirely of holes?

The total collapse of China is fast coming. Expect to
see an economically well-off South China with a
dominant Cantonese speaking populace and a North
China where the Mandarins will ride their bicycles.

On that subject, one could take predictions of imminent Chinese collapse and create a timeline that, Friedman Unit-style, stretches back unbroken for decades. I’m sure we’ll see the validity of such predictions within the next six months. Chuck_the_tv_out comes up next, and clearly couldn’t decide between racism and irony:

do the chinese have no concept of individuality? they
seem so ready to accept whatever bullcrap their
media forcefeeds them.

Little from column A, little from column B, great solution. Uglybiker has a burning question:

I wonder if they’ll be donning mao suits next.

I suspect they just might, given that they predate Mao by decades and are still worn by some to this day? Next time I see someone wearing one I’ll be sure to punch them in the face and ask them what it’s like to be a mindless chink drone, though. Marie2 posts this little tidbit that I find, to quote MST3K, absolutely fascinating:

Interestingly, India is also poised to take over China’s
place as most populous nation, if it hasn’t already.

Yes, intriguing. Given that the Chinese 2007 census puts their population 200 million people higher than the Indian 2008 census I wouldn’t call it true, but for an incorrect statement it really does make you think! Salvation has found the way to save the PRC, though:

Things might change for them if they would obey
God’s laws and not kill their babies or not contracept.

That was taken from a thread about a severe drought in northern China, so I’m not sure how having more mouths to feed would help them. If I had to guess I’d say Salvation is far more comfortable with people dying of starvation than using contraception, which actually would be completely consistent with Republican positions. In a thread about a Briton throwing his shoes at Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao, Tex Pete becomes distressed by the lack of anti-Muslim posting, and rushes in to fill the void:

He probably is a muzzie, IMO.

Whew, almost managed to make it through an entire thread without something like that. MAD-AS-HELL finishes us out with cutting edge comedy that barely beats Rosie “Ching Chong” O’Donnell’s work:

Liots! Liots! Liots in the street! Just out of curiosity,
instead of throwing stones do they throw rice and
chopsticks at the man?

Hey why don't you come on over here and find out! Hint: This morning I saw about two dozen men with wooden clubs facing down ten policemen (though that’s a story for another day).

Wow, that sure was informative. If anyone has a topic they’d like to get Free Republic’s opinion on, suggest it in the comments and (depending on how uproariously stupid they are about it) I’ll don my protective goggles and go dumpster diving for hidden freeper treasure.

NCAA football to get one more Black coach... at some unknown point in time

In the past few weeks, all the talk surrounding coaches at the University of Maryland involved whether or not Gary Williams would lose his job as the men's basketball coach (oh wait, apparently the answer is no).

So to take some of the heat off of that situation, I guess U-Md. officials decided now was the best time to name offensive coordinator James Franklin as Ralph Friedgen's successor as head football coach. This is significant for many reasons, none larger than the fact that an abysmally low number of head coaches in NCAA Division I-A (or FBS, as it's now known) are Black. As it stands, seven out of 120 schools had Black head coaches. Of that group, only Randy Shannon at the University of Miami coaches at a BCS conference school (read: a premier football program).

So, in a sense, this is fantastic news. Not only will another Black coach get a job at a decent school, but it's going to be at Maryland. A few minutes up Rhode Island Avenue from here. Sweet.

However, there are also some things about naming a successor this far in advance that cause me some concern, so I'll outline some of the pros and cons.

Pros:

• Aside from the diversity angle which I discussed above, Franklin has plenty of college and NFL coaching experience for a 37 year-old and had coached at Maryland before.
• He was lauded as a top recruiter by rivals.com, as evidenced by the team's success in landing several talented local recruits this season upon Franklin's return.
• Franklin is also said to be very enthusiastic and passionate about coaching and seems to get along well with the current players and administration. Perhaps this offensive mind is the breath of fresh air that is needed in College Park to get the Terps to that next level.

Cons:

• For starters, his offensive mind wasn't enough of a breath of fresh air in his first season as Maryland's offensive coordinator. Maybe this was down to the players learning a new system and once all of his recruits are in to fit with that system, the offense will mesh better. Either way, season one under Franklin was not a good showing.
• My main gripe with this move is that there no timetable of any kind as to when exactly Friedgen will retire. The Fridge gave a three-to-five year window, speaking hypothetically, as a possible time-frame. The Post article said that if Friedgen's contract is extended beyond 2012 (when his current deal expires), Franklin would be free to leave. But with Ralph being 61 and reports of his health being on the decline, I seriously doubt that would happen. Plus, the team's performance as of late hasn't warranted another contract extension for him, so anything short of an appearance in a BCS bowl wouldn't cut it either.

Multiple articles mention that Franklin had received offers to join more NFL coaching staffs (namely, from the Tampa bay Buccaneers) and that Maryland was doing this to get him to stay. If true, then it's going out on quite a limb to hand him the reigns, no matter how far down the road it is. However, as risky as the move is, the school seems justified in wanting to keep him.

Many other Maryland fans (myself included) would have rather seen us go after another former assistant, Mike Locksley, who just became the head coach at the University of New Mexico. Locksley is also an African American and has ties to the Washington D.C. area. While he was the offesnive coordinator at Illinois, he was able to successfully recruit the DMV area, landing Dunbar's Arrellious Benn and Vontae Davis (take my word for it, two future superstars).

The truth may be that Locksley was out of our league. In order to make a play for him, the school would have to dump Friedgen and though the team has been infuriatingly inconsistent, they have stayed afloat and won bowl games in a competitive (if not mediocre) BCS conference.

All in all, kudos to Maryland for thinking progressively and I will sincerely be rooting for this to work when he takes over. For now, let's just focus on not losing to GODDAMN MIDDLE TENNESSEE STATE!!! Sorry, almost lost it there (wouldn't be the first time).

Barack Goes Off

If you check the video, he seems genuinely pissed:

In what was the most pointedly partisan speech of his young presidency, Obama rejected Republican arguments that massive spending in the $819 billion stimulus bill that passed the House should be replaced by a new round of massive tax cuts.

“I welcome this debate, but we are not going to get relief by turning back to the same policies that for the last eight years doubled the national debt and threw our economy into a tailspin,” said President Obama – sounding more like Candidate Obama than at any time since he took the oath of office less than a month ago.

Obama, speaking to about 200 House Democrats at their annual retreat at the Kingsmill Resort and Spa, dismissed Republican attacks against the massive spending in the stimulus.

"What do you think a stimulus is?" Obama asked incredulously. "It’s spending — that's the whole point! Seriously.”

Stabbing hard at Republicans who once aligned themselves with his predecessor, Obama made it clear that the problems he seeks to address with his recovery plan weren’t ones of his making.

“When you start hearing arguments, on the cable chatter, just understand a couple of things,” he said. “No. 1, when they say, ‘Well, why are we spending $800 billion [when] we’ve got this huge deficit?’ – first of all, I found this deficit when I showed up, No. 1.

“I found this national debt, doubled, wrapped in a big bow waiting for me as I stepped into the Oval Office.” After his remarks, Obama, clearly caught up in the moment, made the party get-together feel even more like a campaign rally with his signature call-and-response chant.

“Fired up?” he asked the Democratic lawmakers. “Ready to go!” a group of them shouted back.

It's about damn time. Hopefully this type of talk can fully cut off Ben Nelson's bullshitting at the knees.

More talk of who and what tanked the economy, please.