Republicans are looking even more pathetic than usual as they attempt to make something out of the fact that Senator Obama’s middle name is Hussein.  It’s almost laughable in its stupidity if it didn’t speak to the hatefulness that runs through the Republican party these days.  What do these people hope to achieve by bringing this up over and over?  They’re not going to sway Obama supporters away just because he has a Muslim-sounding name and the same middle name as a despicable despot.  I doubt seriously it even has an affect on Republican voters because they’re not going to vote for him anyway.  I’m sure many of them are embarrassed to be associated with it.  My hat goes off to Senator McCain for speaking out aganst it.

So, it turns out the 80th annual Academy Awards presentation were a big flop in the ratings, as least compared to previous years. I know I didn’t watch, and haven’t really been an avid viewer for the better part of a decade.  I think the last time I was really interested in the Oscars was when The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King was nominated and won Best Picture.  Some would say the Oscars are irrelevant to most viewers because they don’t see the films, and I think there’s some truth to that.  Not one of the Best Picture nominees was a box office smash and most will be lucky to recoup their cost with DVD sales.  I’m sure Marion Cotillard was well deserving of the award of Best Actress, but how many viewers have actually seen La Vie en Rose?  For that matter, how many viewers have actually see any of the other actress nominated films?

Of course, I’m not one of those people who thinks the Oscars should nominate for successful films.  Look 2007’s five most successful films:  Spider-Man 3, Shrek the Third, Transformers, Pirates of the Caribbean 3, and Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix.  Were any of these five really Oscar worthy?  Some point to popular films being nominated and winning in the past.  For example, Gone With the Wind was hugely popular and won for Best Picture.  If this film has been made today, and if it could get past the PC Police, I think it would be like Titanic — makes lots of money and win Best Picture.  However, consider other Best Picture winners:  Rebecca, How Green Was My Valley, and Casablanca from the 1940s; All About Eve, An American in Paris, and From Here to Eternity from the 1950s.  Of these two groups Casablanca and From Here to Eternity might be hits today and I think it’s a big “might” for Casablanca, but would films like How Green Was My Valley and An American in Paris be any different than No Country for Old Men and There Will Be Blood?

What it comes down to, I think, is there really isn’t as much interest in these award shows as there used to be.  While a certain group will always be interested in the celebrity lifestyle, the cable-spawned, never-ending onslaught of celebrity news makes it all not so interesting anymore.  Who really cares what someone’s wearng on the red carpet.  Most of us certainly can’t afford to dress like, not even the knock-offs!  Networks will just have to get used to the idea that the days of old when half the television audience would tune in the Oscars has passed.

Nothing annoys me more about Republicans than this perceived support for the militarya and our troops they’re suposed to have and Democrats lack.  Time and again, we read reports like this that show our troops of underpaid, under-trained, and ill-equipped at a time when they need all that and more.  President Bush, the Republican-led Congress, and far too many Democrats took us into a war in Afghanistan (which I supported) and another war in Iraq (which I certainly did not support), but they haven’t taken care of the men and women they’ve put in harms way.  More sadly, those who make it home, especially the injured, are finding a Veteran Affairs that is also under-funded and ill-equipped to help them.  It’s just sad.

I don’t really buy into the whole Kennedy comparison with Barak Obama.  JFK and Barak Obama are two different people at different times in history.  What I find interesting is that just like John Kennedy, Barak Obama defending himself from the “liberal” label.  Unlike his counterparts he doesn’t shun the liberal label.  Like John Kennedy he defends what it means to be a liberal.  Bravo to him.

By the way, one of the things that’s causing this defense is the suggestion by Obama that would have no problem sitting down with Raul Castro, Fidel’s brother and most likely successor.  I know this will piss off Cubans in this country, but it’s time to move on.  I know it’s not easy, and for many it may be near impossible, but Cuban-Americans need to realize that the only way they will help the people of their ancestor’s homeland is to set aside this worthless embargo and open up communication the government of Cuba.  Why is Cuba treated so different from China? China, a happily Communist dictatorship, has an even more despicable human rights record than Cuba; while at the same time gladly taking jobs away from our citizens.  There are any number of horrible dictatorships we so no problem with.  Hell, we sell arms to some of them!  So, again, why is Cuba treated so differently?  Because Cuban-Americans are so powerful in Florida?  This needs to change, but I don’t think even Barak Obama (if he wins) will find it easy to “sit down” with any Cuban government official.

So, Ralph Nader wants to enter this election?  I’m sure some people think that would be election 2000 redux, but I’m not so sure.  Yeah, Nader could grab some votes, but I don’t think he will attract the kind of support he did in 2000.  First, I really think people realize Nader may have damaged Gore’s chaces against Bush by siphoning off votes that could have put him over the top in the electoral college.  Second, this isn’t the 2000 election.  There’s a lot that can be said about the campaign Al Gore ran, but both Clinton and to a greater extent Obama are running pretty good campaigns.  I think both will be able to hold their own against McCain.  Moreover, when I talk to people I don’t hear this desire to go outside the two-party system.  Sure, certain people are disgruntled with both parties, but you’re always going to have that.  Someday, I would like to see another party step up to really compete with Democrats and Republicans and be a viable third choice, but Ralph Nader is not that person and people know that.

I thought all those video games and sexy TV shows were ruining our kids?

A New York Times columnist asks the question, “Is PBS still necessary?”  To his way of thinking, cable and the Internet have stepped in  to take over PBS’s historical role as a purveyor or hard-to-find entertainment, entertainment the networks wouldn’t touch with a ten foot pole.  In that respect, I think he’s correct; however, with broadcast television becoming even more of a wasteland featuring craptacular reality television that’s cheap to make and doesn’t require those pesky union writers.  The real problem for PBS is Congress, and in particular Republicans who see the Liberal bogeyman wherever they look.  They have crippled PBS financially and left it incapable of giving us the great entertainment of past.

Moreover, while it’s true you can find much of what PBS offers, or used to offer, on cable and the Internet it’s also true that for many people who live in rural communities with no access to cable other than expensive satellite services like DISH and DirecTV, and where broadband is non-existent, PBS is the only alternative.  True, rural communities are less likely to watch PBS than than more urban communities, but it’s still watched.  If PBS could be untied from the strings Republican Congresses have wrapped it up in, and if it could get the money it deserves, I think people would watch.  Granted, the network model is in decline, but I don’t think you can apply the broadcast network model to PBS.  Moreover, PBS could benefit from new media just like the broadcast networks.  Killing PBS would be a great mistake.

So, now the Clinton campaign is accusing the Obama campaign of…wait for it…plagiarism!  Really!  Is that the best you can do? OK, Obama used someone else’s words and didn’t attribute the quote, so what?  I’d be surprised if most politicians didn’t do this.  It’s a speech for, Pete’s sake, not a doctoral dissertation.  All this does is make the Clinton campaign look pathetic.  Hell, even the person Obama borrowed the words from said he’s not upset about it.  Move on, you little baby!

So, actor/commedian — and I use both of terms loosely — George Lopez has endorsed Barak Obama.  I find this interesting because it makes me think of the episode I watched of Lopez’ show that turned me off to the series forever.  In the episode, President Bush was coming to town to speak at the character’s place of employment.  The Lopez character’s daughter wanted to speak out against the president, but her father said it was wrong to do so.  Then, in a piece of irony, the mother (played by Constance Marie) talked about how her family once had no freedom and fled Communism in Cuba to grab their slice of the American dream, while at the same time reprimanding her daughter for wanting to use those freedoms to protest the president!  I never watced the series again (not that it was great to begin with).

You know, the Clinton campaign is starting to sound like a bunch of whiny little babies.  They are now whining about the fact that Sentor Obama has yet to commit his campaign to public funding.  Why should he?  He’s not the nominee and even so, why should he?  If Senator Clinton was pulling in the cash her counterpart is I doubt seriously she would commit to public financing either; and at this time, she hasn’t either.  Stop whining; it won’t get you votes, because the only people who really give a shit about this are you guys, not the average America.