If Democrats got up and walked out during the President’s state of the union, as William Rivers Pitt suggests, would it really be seen as a "bold maneuver"?  Or would the nation, and the world, see it as pathetic, immature politics?  I would say the latter because that’s what I think.  Granted, I agree with everything Pitt says in this article; however, actions like this only serve to make Democrats look obstructionist.  Is that always a bad thing?  Hell, no.  But to walk out of the President’s state of the union address to the nation on live television?  I would much rather see them act like the British parliament and speak out during the address.  This may be a bold suggestion, but I doubt it would help the Democrats win votes.  Remember when Republicans created a shut down of the government in an attempt to pressure and shame Bill Clinton into signing a budget he didn’t like?  Who lost there?  It wasn’t the Democrats.  Strong-arm tactics like this will not endear Democrats to the voters.

There’s been speculation that this would be the last season for The West Wing, and now it’s official.  Along with Will & Grace, The West Wing will be closing its doors come May, 2006.  Not that NBC cares, but I think that’s a good decision on their part.  Will & Grace stopped being funny about three years ago and I haven’t watched since the WB moved Smallville to Thursdays.  As for The West Wing, well it has certainly seen a resurgence in creativity this season with the Vinick/Santos presidential race, but it’s been lacking something for a couple of years.  And no, I don’t think it’s because Sorkin left.  Unlike so many, I never thought Sorkin’s jumbled plot lines and heavy-handed preaching was all that great.  I think a lot of it has to do with the fact that The West Wing has run its course.  It’s a fictional political story playing out in a world that has changed drastically since it first aired.  The writers and producers have struggled to find a place for the show in this world and more often than not they failed.  The show certainly had some bright spots this year and I will be interested in how they end the show, who wins the race, and how they deal with the death of John Spencer.  It would be fitting to bring Sorkin back in order to finish the show, honor Spencer, and maybe even have Rob Lowe come back; although, I always thought Lowe’s presence on the show was over-rated.

On another note, I wonder who the producers will have win the race?  I know the writing staff is overwhelmingly liberal, but those liberal writers have written the Vinick character a hell of a lot better than the Santos character.  They’ve also had the Santos character trailing in the polls from the beginning.  Could they end the show with a new Republican administration?  If they did, I don’t think it would be such a bad thing.  Maybe that would make more realistic.  One area in which I think the producers have really failed with the Republican nominee, played wonderfully well by the always great Alan Alda, is to not spend more time with him and his campaign.  The character is a pro-choice, moderate Republican from California.  Why don’t we see more of the problems a candidate like that would have with the hard-right constituency?  So far, they’ve only devoted one episode to that issue.  They’ve also vastly under-used a great actor like Alda.  Either way, I am looking forward to seeing how this faux election plays out.

I’m have no real opinion on Harry Belafonte the entertainer, but I do think his recent comments go little far.  Calling Homeland Security "the new Gestapo" and President Bush "the greatest terrorist in the world" is just silly and stupid.  It makes him no better than Chris Matthews saying Osama bin Laden sounds a lot like Michael Moore.  Fighting stupidity with stupidity is a losing battle.  Osama bin Laden is the greatest terrorist in the world, not President Bush.  That needs to be our focus.  We need to be working together to take care of that real problem.

So, if the Disney deal to purchase Pixar in a straight stock-swap deal with Steve Jobs is approved by the board is this a good deal for Disney?  Or is it a bad deal for Pixar?  In many ways it’s a good deal for both.  Pixar has an enviable record of hits, but can that streak last?  They are sure to have a flop sometime.  However, as long as that streak last it’s a win-win deal for Disney.  Instead of only get a tiny piece of the distribution deal, all the money made by Pixar goes into Disney’s already large coffers. However, is this a good deal for Pixar?  Yeah, they get the marketing and distribution power of a major, major media conglomerate behind them, but Disney’s record of encouraging risk and thinking outside the box is not all that great.  One of the big reasons their animation division has failed over the last few years is that all they churned out was tired and boring pablum.  Pixar has taken chances pretty much from its inception and over time those chances paid off with huge hit films.  Will Disney stifle that creativity?  Having Jobs as the largest shareholder on the Disney board might change that.  Might bring a new and stronger voice to the company.  Maybe.  From a political standpoint, how will Jobs’ more liberal views jive with a company that has become little more than a whore for the right wing?  It will be interesting to watch.  I just hope the product doesn’t suffer. I am nearly 40, but I do like those Pixar films.