If there is any justice in Hollywood, this year will be the first year a woman takes home an Oscar for Best Achievement in Directing.  And not because she’s a woman, but because of the believability of the scenarios she staged.  At times, I thought I was watching a documentary, but the Hurt Locker wasn’t even, as far as I can tell, based on a true story.

It was more a portrait of a man who enjoyed the thrill of disarming bombs in Iraq in 2004, as terrorists were increasing their attacks on civilians and the U.S. military, often using IEDs (improvised explosive devices).  It was not just the direction of Jeremy Renner as Staff Sergeant William James where Kathryn Bigelow showed her stuff.  It was how she showed his interactions with his fellow soldiers, particularly Sergeant JT Sanborn (Anthony Mackie).  

You could see Mackie attempt to keel his cool as snipers fired upon his unit in the desert.  You believed his unease–and relief–after he had completed the task.  This seem like the way a man would act.  When she shows the soldiers interacting with one another, it seems real because this is the way men interact with one another.  And by man in this paragraph, I mean our sex not the species.

And that’s where Bigelow really distinguished herself.  Like the best of her male counterparts, she can direct the other sex.  Watching this film was bit ironic for me, given that just over a month ago, after seeing Julie & Julia and It’s Complicated, films directed by women where the male characters don’t act like male individuals, rather serve as a type of feminine wish-fulfillment, behaving as women want us to behave, I had e-mailed some friends wondering if woman could direct men.  Well, Kathryn Bigelow can–and in the most masculine of situations–the heat of battle. (more…)

I think I’ll start a new category for that, in fact. For a guy who came to office running not against his opponent, and only somewhat against his would-be predecessor, but rather against “cynicism”, the current president has done a lot to raise eyebrows that he dost protesteth too much.

The latest is a new statement out from his economic advisor, Lawrence Summers about the pending jobless figures for the previous month due out this Friday, as it is every first Friday of the month. No doubt, these numbers will be (all together now) “unexpectedly high”, as they’ve been “unexpectedly high” for the past oh, thirteen months, for some reason. (I wonder, by the way, how decimating the economy with onerous taxes, threats of government take-overs, demonization of our strongest and most admired industries while attempting to federalize 1/5 of our economy would lead anybody to “expect” anything but higher unemployment…but then again, I’m not a wise economist. Hell, I’m not even a doltish sheep-like member of the old-school media. So what would I know?)

Anyway, Summers on CNBC today said that because it was snowy, “it’s going to be very important … to look past whatever the next figures are to gauge the underlying trends.” Uh huh.

And there was an earthquake in Chile, so that’s clearly going to affect our unemployment. Not to mention, that guy who died on the luge…. You know how that can have such a negative impact on the US employment rate.

If you weren’t watching closely enough, you might think that perhaps Summers is trying to cynically make excuses for his boss’s asinine policies and destructive proposals. But then again, that’d be a cynical way to look at it.

-Nick (ColoradoPatriot, from HQ)

The question is all the buzz on Twitter today after this article appeared in the British press.

Barack Obama is still struggling to kick smoking, according to his first medical examination since becoming president.

Obama is sensitive about his cigarette habit and tetchy with reporters who raise it. But after his 90-minute medical at the Navy hospital outside Washington yesterday morning, his doctors confirmed he had not yet managed to conquer the habit and suggested he “continue smoking cessation efforts”.

<…>

The doctors also recommended “moderation of alcohol intake”.

One would have to assume that Obama’s doctors had some evidence which led to their recommendation.  What was it?  Did Obama admit he drinks too much? Or did a blood test or other diagnostic provide the doctors a warning of some kind?

Oh yeah, and what kind of moral ground does Obama stand on when he clicks at the health habits of Americans (primarily eating) when he can’t stop smoking?

But more importantly, shouldn’t the American people know if their President has a drinking problem?  After all, those on the Left constantly reminded us that President George W. Bush had quit drinking years before his time in office.

UPDATE: The Guardian story might be more sizzle than substance.  From the political shop of only person at NBC that I trust, Chuck Todd, comes a link to the actual medical report.

Recommendations: Follow-up colorectal cancer screening is recommended in 5 years for routine colon cancer screening. Continue smoking cessation efforts, a daily exercise program, healthy diet, moderation in alcohol intake, periodic dental care, and remain up-to-date with recommended immunizations. Continue modified exercise regimen, and lower extremity muscle strengthening program, for occasional left patella-femoral pain secondary to chronic tendonitis. Recommend dietary modification to reduce LDL cholesterol below 130.

Judge for yourselves.  I still find it odd.  The doctors ARE recommending CHANGES to the President’s lifestyle.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

The popular will be damned, Democrats are bound and determined to press on with their statist health care overhaul.

Nancy Pelosi says she’ll get the votes needed to pass it the House.  Now that President Obama has made overtures to transparency by holding a health care “summit” in front of news cameras, will she follow his lead?

Will the negotiations to craft the legislation put before the House be held, as per Obama’s campaign promise, in front of C-SPAN cameras?

From the San Francisco Democrat’s rhetoric, things don’t sound too promising.  She’s still lashing out at Republicans as if this were a partisan contest to show who has the best intentions rather than an effort to improve our health care system.  And frankly, it doesn’t make the 12-term liberal legislator sound very confident.  Republicans she says, have “had a field day going out and misrepresenting what the bill says. . . . But that’s what they do.”

But, the real question is what will she do?  Will she continue her practice of closing the Republicans out and negotiating the final bill in private in tandem with the special interests allied with her party?

Don’t think those those tactics or her rhetoric will increase the likelihood of health care passage or the popularity of this big government “reform.”