2008 Prez - GOP

[Uh oh. One hour before the caucus I completely forgot I had this post to finish. In Shanghai watching the election returns at the moment, but thought I'd try to complete a post mostly written a month ago. I think it still mostly holds up.]

We're headed to uncharted waters. One month before the first primaries open, the Republican presidential race is wide open. Any one of four candidates can still get the nod. Though it's terribly difficult to imagine of any of these guys doing so.

How did we get here? Think of who's missing. It's easy to imagine someone who'd kick ass in an open GOP primary. Start with a big white head. Add dark brown hair, navy blue suit and red tie. Affix the "Gov." honorific to a strong Anglo name. Plant a pretty-in-an-unthreatening-Doris-Day-kind-of-way wife. Two blonde kids, preferably girls, in their teens. Southern drawl. Baptist. Multi-millionaire.

Once you've created the avatar, you just need to add a few substantive touches. Make sure he gives full-throated support to tried-and-true conservative positions -- cut taxes, kill people, cut taxes, deport people, save fetuses, guns, cut taxes, deregulate, help defense contractors, cut taxes. As well, make sure he gives props to the right people, which, include, in no particular order, God, Reagan, Jesus, Saint Ronnie, "strict constructivist" judges, the troops, the 40th and greatest president evah. Most importantly, make sure he's liked by the folks that matter: (in no particular order) the GOP party financiers, the leaders of the religious right, Big Oil, Big Pharma, and defense contractors. And don't forget: your dream candidate must appeal to a vital but underpublicized wing of the GOP: the haters.

Looking at this profile, one name comes to mind. But the name, alas, is the problem. You can't be named Bush and expect to wiggle out of the 80 pound anchor marked "GWB legacy" chained to your ankle. So the ambitions of Jeb Bush, the ideal GOP candidate (socially conservative, liked by GOP money men, big state governor, charismatic, competent), has been yet another casualty of the current president's reckless regime.

So we're left with John McCain and a bunch of clowns. Whoever wins the nod will likely lead a splintered, deflated party on the verge of a realignment. The Republicans of 2008 are the Democrats of 1968: it's a governing party comprised of ideologically distinct, often conflicting groups banded together for common cause against "liberals". It's a confederation that is now about to come apart at the seams. The choice of the GOP nominee will provide the clearest indication of where the GOP is eventually headed once it reconstitutes itself. That makes this race doubly interesting.

Anyway, the following is my assessment of where the race stands today (November 10), along with my personal evaluation of the candidate, listed in descending order according to their odds of winning.

Mitt Romney (chance of winning at 33%)

Path to nomination: The most plausible scenarios still find Slick Mitt standing at the end. Romney's best bet is too outlast surging Mike Huckabee (with his stronger organization and perhaps some last minute smears) in Iowa. His "comeback" will give him momentum to handily take New Hampshire, where he's leading. With Grandpa Fred taking just enough of the Evangelical vote from a hobbling Huckabee, Romney clinches in South Carolina. The other path going nuclear on Huckabee in South Carolina after the two split Iowa and NH, with Huckabee lacking the resources to make his last stand. McCain is done after losing NH, and Giuliani is toast after not finishing higher than fourth in any of the early states.

Electability: (2 out of 10.) The Mittster is the weakest of the GOP candidates in a general election. First, he's Mormon, which will hurt him with a non-trivial segment of the GOP base. Second, the man is a transparent panderer, which hurts in a climate where authenticity is prized. Third, he's basically a generic Mr. Republican from casting call in an election where the GOP candidate has to transcend his tarnished party label. In a more favorable climate for the GOP, Romney might be the most electable of the bunch. He's the least offensive and the most superficially appealing candidate out there. In an election where the Republican nominee has to do more, Mitt's likely a goner.

Easiest Democratic Opponent to Defeat: Hillary Clinton. This election -- the most likely election match-up still -- would be a battle of inauthentic technocrats moving hard towards the "middle." Romney's personal liabilities would be minimized against Hillary, and swing voters might be attracted to his Ultra-competent White Boss mien -- perhaps enough for him to keep it close.

Hardest Democratic Opponent to Defeat: Barack Obama. The press, who hates Romney and worships Obama's authenticity and bipartisanship rhetoric, would be Obama's second battalion. It'd be a rout.

My personal view: Romney will say or do anything to be president. But jury's out on whether that's a good or bad trait. On the one hand, by catering to the Haters, the former governor is clearly a contemptible, smarmy ass with no spine or backbone, running the most cynical campaign I've ever had a chance to live through. On the other hand, his flexibility gives hope that the man would govern more in line with his moderate Rockefeller Republican record rather than his wingnutty rhetoric. Can't stand the guy, but he might be tolerable. Romney's the former CEO of Bain & Company -- he can't possibly believe the lunatic stuff he's been saying, can he?

Mike Huckabee (18%)

Path to Nomination: This guy needs to start running really hot. If Huckabee can withstand the increased press scrutiny and the Grover Norquist-wing's expected attacks, he looks to prevail in Iowa. With that win, money starts to pour into the shoe-string campaign. Riding the Iowa momentum, Huckabee finishes in the top 4 in NH, with Romney a weak winner. The story from New Hampshire is Ron Paul's shockingly strong second, which also knocks out McCain and Giuliani, who finishes an embarrassing fifth. Huckabee puts all of his marbles in South Carolina. A blow out win in the Palmetto State cripples Romney, and with his competitors fallen by the wayside, Huckabee marches to victory.

Electability: (4). An affable campaigner with a folksy charm, Huckabee's a dangerous foe mainly because he's a true "compassionate conservative." Spouting feel-good populist bromides, Huckabee has a chance to win over that wide swath of America that is economically populist and socially conservative. Is he the Democrats' biggest nightmare? Huckabee's recent performance in the spotlight (not having heard about the NIE, for example) doesn't bode well, but I've got to believe he's potentially the most electable Republican after McCain, unless, of course, he's destroyed by his inner-yahoo. Huckabee's media savvy will reduce to the media's institutional contempt for socially conservative populists, and residual Republican loyalty will prevent the Norquist-wing from abandoning him, especially if Huckabee makes some kind of anti-tax-raising pledge.

Best matchup: John Edwards. Populists duke it out, but Huck's religious right credentials and Edwards' problems with projecting authenticity may make him competitive. An Edwards-Huckabee matchup would surely beckon Bloomberg into the race as the candidate of the elites, allowing Huckabee to win with ~40%.

Worst matchup: Obama. 45 state landslide.

My personal take: What's surprising isn't Huckabee's recent surge but that he's been stuck in the second-tier for so long. (I bought Huckabee futures contracts in February.) The Arkansan's formidable political skills have been talked about for a long time, and for awhile, he was a favorite of the liberal blogosphere, largely because he didn't appear certifiable. Sure, Huck believes the Earth is created in 7 days and all that, but on policy matters, he seemed pragmatic enough, at least until recently, when it's clear he doesn't really give a hoot about policy details (Huck's m.o. is making a show of how his heart is in the right place.) But the former preacher needs the Hater vote now, so I can't imagine him being the liberals' favorite GOP candidate (non-Ron Paul division) for much longer.


John McCain (15% ed. note now 25%)

Path to the nomination: Win New Hampshire big after Romney skids in Iowa. Count on his operation in South Carolina, where the party's establishment is largely behind him, to push him past Huckabee. Peel off Rudy supporters and make it into a two way race with either Huck or Romney, and hope that general election polls (which invariably show McCain doing best against the Democratic candidate) and the McCain fan club (aka The Media) work their magic[Not as improbable as previously imagined]. Of course, he still needs to find a way to appease a base hostile to his MSM-beloved maverick persona.

Electability: McCain's the only GOP candidate who has a better than 40% chance of winning in the general election. The media infatuation with him is real, and it'll only grow if he triumphs over Romney and Giuliani, two figures absolutely loathed by the media.

Best Matchup: Obama. If a crisis event breaks during the election season, voters would likely gravitate towards the ancient vet from the hotshot rookie. Also McCain's the only guy in the GOP field who can neutralize Obama's two big advantages: appeal to independents and positive media coverage.

Worst Matchup: Obama. If no crisis event breaks, then the youth and vigor vs. old craggy dude contrast might be too much for even McCain to overcome.

My take: still the only tolerable Republican in the race. Early summer when my pal Brent and I gamed the GOP race, McCain seemed like the only plausible nominee, even understanding the rage the base feels for Saint John's apostasy. And now if McCain wins the GOP nod without pandering to the hate groups (and with Iraq "improving"), he would be a formidable candidate. I'm confident he'll make the best president of this lot, but the Arizonan's probable strength in the general forces me to root against him.

Rudy Giuliani (10%)

Path to the nomination: Rudy's the front-runner in name only, as he's drawing to an inside straight at this point. Rudy's really banking that his celebrity and money will allow him to outlast the other candidates to Super Tuesday, where he hopes to crush his opponents with large media buys and the "America's Mayor" mystique. This strategy works best if no favorite emerges from the early rounds. So Huckabee has to destroy Romney in Iowa, weakening the latter's hold in NH. Rudy finishes third in NH while Romney and McCain destroy each other, and hold on while Romney finally is toast after South Carolina. Then, in a three way match-up with Huckabee and McCain, Rudy consolidates GOP establishment support and wins in Florida, which springs him into the lead in the Super Tuesday states. He wins all the big Super Tuesday states and becomes the presumptive nominee. (Note: bet the farm against Rudy. I did, and I can't imagine a better bet at the moment.)

Electability: This guy will get eaten for lunch. Nobody can overcome that many skeletons.

Best matchup: Obama. Rudy is the mostly likely guy to run on a fear and smear, Islamophobe/racist strategy against Obama. If Obama wins the Democratic nomination on a Mr. Nice Guy platform, he might be handcuffed by that persona and unable to retaliate in kind.

Worst matchup: Hillary. She would have no reservations going ballistic against him. And Rudy is pretty much unelectable if everything is aired.

My personal take: An authoritarian and a demagogue who counts among his advisors a who's-who of neocon chickenhawks, this guy is Bush on steroids. His presidency would be an unalloyed disaster. It's possible that Rudy's lunatic act may be just that...an act, the 9/11 Man has shown himself to be enough of an egocentric maniac that he -- much moreso than Romney -- might actually buy into his own bullshit as some kind heroic Islamo-fascist warrior. Rudy's campaign is despicable, built entirely on lies, exaggerations, demagoguery, and hate. Every single major candidate from both parties is preferable to this whackjob. A part of me hopes he gets the nomination and is utterly destroyed and humiliated.


Ron Paul (1%)

has some neat things to say and is supported by interesting people. But he's not really a Republican.


Fred Thompson (1%)

is a joke.

MLB predictions

The predictions are not, I hope, based on wishful thinking (at least not largely), but rather on obscure stathead metrics like the Pythagorean and equivalent run record (generally closer to measuring a team's true strength than win-loss), and "secret sauce" rankings (Baseball Prospectus's formula of postseason success based on strength of important pitching and defense metrics). Oh, and some observations resulting from having actually watched a bunch of baseball games this year. I gotta give more weight to the metrics, since pretty much every commonly-accepted stathead tool indicate that the Red Sox are the best team in baseball this year, whereas my own eyes tell me this team has a lot of problems.
ALDS 1 - Red Sox over the Angels in 4. The Angels would be a fearsome team if they didn't get screwed by some late-season injuries, and if they didn't suck at Fenway. Right now, the Sox catch the ball better, hit the ball better, and throw the ball better. I'll be going to Game 3, yay me.

ALDS 2 - Indians over the Yankees in 5. Key is Wang. If he outduels Sabathia in the opener, the Yanks prevail. Otherwise, the Indians, closer aside, are an exceptionally balanced team that should end up outlasting a loaded Yankees team that's short on dominant starting pitching, which happens to be the most important element in postseason baseball. Just make sure Betancourt is toeing the rubber at the end of a close game.

NLDS 1 - Rockies over Phillies in 4. Going by stathead metrics, the Rockies are the best team in the NL (outside of the departed Mets, anyway). They also have lightning arms in Morales and Jimenez and play terrific defense, the epic Monday night game aside. Rox should end up outslugging the offensive juggernaut from Philadelphia, who have a staff getting by on Cole Hamels's flowing locks and pins and needles (JC Romero?, Kendrick?, are you kidding me?).

NLDS 2 - Cubs over Diamondbacks in 4. Basically a sentimental pick, though the Diamondbacks are the only team in the playoffs with negative run-differential. That means they might be just a bit lucky. Superior bullpen usage accounted for the Snakes' strong record in one-run games, but the Cubbies are a slightly better team. It comes down to the two Webb versus Zambrano matchups.

ALCS - Sox over the Indians in 7. Pretty even matchup; Indians probably win this if they had home field.

NLCS - Cubs over the Rockies in 7. Rockies are probably better, but not by much. That leaves room for a good story.

World Series - Sox over Cubs in 4. Sentiment only takes you so far though. In an uncertain world, we still need little comforting certainties, like the persistent futility of the Cubs. So we have more agony for the North Siders. But it's not their fault. Any of the AL teams would beat any of the NL teams in 5 games or less. The gap between the leagues remains that wide, last year's fluke aside.

P2P streaming sports

Some folks have asked why I don't blog so much, and my standard response is that I've been watching way too much baseball ever since I've discovered this site.

This myp2p site is basically a compendium of streaming p2p software, with a community centered on seeding live streaming of sports. The site is pretty easy to navigate and is self-explanatory, though I encourage a dig through the forums. Volunteers on that site seed not only much of the daily baseball schedule, but also European soccer, football, NBA as well. Basically, follow their directions, download the third party client software, follow the links and voila! Live streaming sports! I use mainly SOPCast for Red Sox games and VPU (for college football), and even if you don't watch sports, these programs stream TV shows and movies showing in channels in Europe and Asia. Quality isn't always great, but it's hard to get churlish about free programming. Warning: the programs mostly are PC-only.

I know I'll be spending plenty of time this weekend, following the wide-open NL race. All of the division leaders appear intent to cough up the title. It's just a question of whether any team can get lucky and seize the opportunity. In the East, the Mets are in the midst of a historical choke-job, cursed with an awful bullpen, an inconsistent bullpen, and an offense that was humiliated by Joel Pineiro yesterday in one of the biggest of games of the year. The loaded Phillies somehow beat both Tim Hudson and John Smoltz to tie things up with three to play. We may end up with a postseason without the Mets, which had been the best team in the NL through most of the year. Nobody seems to want the NL Central title. The Cubbies are distinctly mediocre, stumbling against bottom-feeders when a couple of wins could put the division away. Luckily for them, they're up against the bumbling Brew Crew, who made five errors in a must-win game and their putative ace Gallardo on the mound. Their series with the Pads is the marquee series this weekend. I like the Pads, who have suffered through horrendous luck and generally runs a good organization, but I'm rooting for the Rockies, who've bolted into contention on the strength of a bunch of young players.

Colorado's the only team that's playing like they want to win, and their Pygathorean record (record based on run-differential, which is a more accurate gauge of a team's true strength) indicate that they are the best team in the NL. Primarily, though the Rockies are appealing because they've won through a youth movement. They've decided (due to financial necessity perhaps) to play good young players rather than load the team with expensive, underperforming veterans that reflect a management philosophy from the 20th century. That philosophy has doomed my 2nd favorite team, the Mariners, who have unfortunately asked hapless GM Bavasi and their incompetent, veteran-obsessed manager McLaren to return. The highly sophisticated Mariner fan blogs do not approve. A similar difficulty is creating havoc for my hometown Dodgers, currently imploding. Whiny, unproductive veterans are pointing the finger at Matt Kemp and James Loney, the most productive Dodgers in the 2nd half. If the reports are true, Loney and especially Kemp might be prima donnas, but it's not as if Jeff Kent is Tony Gwynn himself. Smart Dodger fans know that the organization has some of the best young players in the game, including the top left-handed pitching prospect in baseball in Clayton Kershaw. A good organization should aggressively mix in their top young players, or trade them for valuable pieces. I fear that the Dodgers, a team that gave Juan Pierre a $45 million dollar contract, will end up trading Kemp and LaRoche for an aging name like Ken Griffey Jr.

TIFF - Movies Seen

Comments to be fleshed out, hopefully, as I've been bed-ridden for four days following a nasty bug caught on the last day I was at TIFF. Tiff.

Day 1

The Duchess of Langeais (d. Jacques Rivette): B+

This movie tries very hard not to break your heart, but does a little anyway.

The Mourning Forest (d. Naomi Kawase): C+

While I can always go for Shinto animal spirit mumbo jumbo, this movie is about an erratic child-man healing via group therapy. That is much too ask from this viewer.

Flight of the Red Balloon (d. Hou Hsiao-hsien): B/B-

Juliette Binoche is stressed out in this movie. Has anyone ever been stressed in a Hou Hsiao-hsien movie?

My Winnipeg (d. Guy Maddin): B+/B

I noticed that Canadians are very tickled by jokes about how bored and miserable people are in Canada. They were also very entertained by Guy Maddin's live narration of the film, as was I. That's the kind of special presentation that makes TIFF worth it.

Day 2

The Romance of Astrea and Celadon (d. Eric Rohmer): B+/B

What if someone filmed Nicaraguan fourth-graders doing a shadow puppet performance of Corey Hart's "I Wear My Sunglasses at Night" video? It would probably be as pointless and weird as this experiment in period camp. But would it be as fun?

The Man From London (d. Bela Tarr): C+

This movie has elegant tracking shots, images of lusciously inky black, and a guy trying to balance an apple on his nose. I wish I cared about the dude from London, though.

The Edge of Heaven (d. Fatih Akin): B

This movie had a pretty hot lesbian scene. But I think it ends up saying that German liberals should not be helping Turks. Or maybe not. Also, I'm kinda depressed that Hanna Schygulla did not spend 3 million euros to aid her in aging as gracefully Deneuve has.

Ploy (d. Pen-Ek Ratanaruang): C

This movie likes to do that trick where out of nowhere something totally shocking happens, but then it will say ha ha, just a dream. Besides that, it is mostly boring when it is not stupid.

Day 3

Secret Sunshine (d. Lee Chang-dong): B+/B

This movie features the ultimate helper guy. Also a woman who kinda cycles through the five stages of grief one too many times. Movie peters out, but this Lee Chang-dong sure knows how to direct actresses.

Les Chansons d'amour (d. Christopher Honore): C+

I love preening twits like the actor in this movie when he's in one of those French movies all about examining these preening twits under the microscope as if they were plankton on a slide. But who wants to go on an emotional journey with one?

Day 4

4 Months, 3 Weeks, and 2 Days (d. Christian Mungiu): A-/B+

Remember when helper friend was stuck in her boyfriend's apartment, subjected to a torturous dinner party where conversation revolved around doctor gossip? Remember how badly she wanted to leave, how tense she looked as she took the champagne glass to toast, and how the camera doesn't even catch the face of other party guests? That was so awesome.

Happiness (d. Hur Jin-ho): B-

Terminal illness movie: -28 points. Soulless city slicker finds humanity in the countryside trope: - 31 points. Corny romance: -22 points. "I wanna hold your hand" scene: -10 points. Maudlin score: -5 points. Somehow turning on a dime into the preferred Destruction Wrought by Weak-Ass, Selfish Man movie: +60 points.

Sad Vacation (d. Shunji Aoyama): D+

I remember a flat, unnecessary movie called Texasville, a sad attempt by Peter Bogdonavich to capture the old magic of The Last Picture Show after producing a string of flops. This is Mr. Aoyama's Texasville, only the results are far worse.

Redacted (d. Brian DePalma): B-

I expected this movie to be abject crap, and so I was shocked when it was not totally retarded. While there are many scenes of community theater badness, DePalma is not afraid to show the central problem for U.S. soldiers in Iraq, which is that they are on a hair's edge all day, playing protector to their potential killers. And also, they've been letting in some serious nutjobs in there.

It's a Free World... (d. Ken Loach): C+

Ken Loach tries really, really hard in this movie to not make a polemic about the Evils of Globalization by casting Pamela Anderson as a single-mom entrepreneur. But soon enough, each scene turns into either Illustration of the Destructive Logic of the Profit Motive, or Example for Why Capitalist Competition Dehumanizes Us All, or Why Must This Bitch Continue to Exploit These Poor Undocumented Workers, Why?

Day 5

Silent Light (d. Carlos Reygadas): B+

This movie is of course excellent. I would use the phrase "tour de force" except every moment in this movie is a "tour de force". Which makes me think maybe this movie has problems.

TIFFing

My September unexpectedly freed up, and what better way to spend some free time than to catch five movies a day in one of the most attractive cities in North America? All accounts a bumper crop of festival goodies, most of which will be screening at the Toronto Int'l Film Festival. Alas, I won't be seeing too many of them, given (1) a short stay of four-and-a-half days; (2) the perverse programmers decided to schedule a bunch of cinephile must-sees at the same time-slot (on the 9 am-noon on September 9: the new Rivette, Rohmer, Roy Andersson, Kitano, and Pen-ek are all screening); and (3) I'm staying mostly away from major commercial releases. I'm aiming largely to catch movies that won't get a release, or at best, have one of those blink-and-it's-gone deals. I've been very bad about catching up to movies on one-week runs lately.

It also means I won't be seeing (or won't aim to see) many of my most eagerly awaited movies of the year, which I hastily rank this way: (1) I'm Not There, Todd Haynes' pomo Dylan riff (with Cate Blanchett!); (2) There Will Be Blood, PTA's long-awaited new effort (with DDL!); (3) No Country for Old Men, Coens' reputed return to form; (4) Paranoid Park, another Gus paean to troubled youth and shot by Chris Doyle (I fully expect this to be my favorite movie of the year), (5) Wes Anderson's The Darjeeling Limited, boasting a typically great cast, trailer, and one sheet, though the Venice reviews are mixed; (6) American Gangster (Crowe + Denzel > 90s version of De Niro + 90s version of Pacino); (7) Ang Lee's steamy Eileen Chang adaptation Lust, Caution (Tony Leung in Tony "the Lover" Leung mode! Hot Chinese ingenue doing full-frontal!); (8) Noah Baumbach's Margot at the Wedding, with Nicole and Jack Black; (9) the acclaimed My Kid Can Paint That; and (10) lastly, what do McCabe and Mrs. Miller, Pat Garrett and Billy the Kid, and The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford have in common? Westerns with long titles conjoining two names? Hope for more. Jesse James is billed as a spiritual descendant of those languorous, poetic masterpieces, though I'd settle for a slightly more focused The Proposition.

Eight of the ten cited above will be playing at TIFF. But I think I can wait.

For some reason, the TIFF gods didn't schedule either the new (supposedly terrible) Wong Kar-wai or the new (supposedly terrible) Olivier Assayas. Cannes' fave Actresses is also nowhere to be found. Yet for all the whining one can do, it's hard to complain about four days where new movies by Jacques Rivette, Eric Rohmer, Guy Maddin, Bela Tarr, Hou Hsiao-hsien and the highly regarded Cannes bows Silent Light, Secret Sunshine and 4 Months, 3 Weeks and 2 Days are all screening. With the exception of the latter, all of these face iffy prospects for commercial release.

My schedule below is borne of both necessity (I couldn't score tix to Mourning Forest, Secret Sunshine, or Redacted) and choice (I want the flexibility of having some slots open to take advantage of festival buzz). With ticket prices at close to $20 a pop, I'm also wary of taking chances on less touted features.

Anyway, TIFFers, give me a holla if you happen to be at the same screening.

Friday - September 7, 2007

Same Day tix - The Mourning Forest - Scotiabank 4 - 12:00 pm
The Orphanage - Sb 1 - 10 pm

Slots open - (a) 5 pm - 7 pm (Nap)

(b) 9:30 pm - 12 am The Orphanage - Sb 1 (10 pm)
Control - Sb 2 (9:45)

Tentative Schedule

09:45 am - 12:00 pm Rivette - Sb 2
12:00 pm - 02:00 pm (Mourning Forest - Sb 4)
02:45 pm - 04:45 pm Hou Hsiao-hsien - Ryerson
08:00 pm - 09:30 pm Guy Maddin - Wintergarden (Visa Screening Room)
10:00 pm - 12:00 am [Slot (b)]

Saturday - September 8, 2007

Same Day tix - [Choices from (a), (b), and possibly (c)]

Slots open - (a)11 am - 3 pm - The Man from London - Sb 14 (12:30 -3)
My Kid Can Paint That - Sb 2 (12:15-2)

(b) 3 pm - 7 pm - Edge of Heaven - Sb4 (3:30 - 5:45)
Useless (Jia) - V-8 (4:30 - 6)

(c) 9:30 pm - 11 pm (Socialize - Poker?)
Happiness (Hur Jin-Ho) - Sb 1 (9:30)
Chrysalis - Sb 4 (9:45)

Tentative Schedule

09:00 am - 11:00 am Rohmer- Isabelle Bader Theater
12:00 pm - 03:00 pm [Slot (a)]
03:30 pm - 05:45 pm [Slot (b)]
07:00 pm - 09:00 pm Ploy (Pen-ek) - Sb 14
09:15 pm - 12:00 am [Slot (c)]


Sunday - September 9, 2007

Same Day tix - Secret Sunshine - Sb 1 - 11:45 am
Slot (a)

Slots open - (a) 9 am - 11:30 am - (Rush Secret Sunshine if no same day tix avail)
(Sleep in)
Lust, Caution - Sb 2 (9:15 -11:45)
XXY - Sb 4 2 (9:30-11:00)

(b) 5 pm - 9 pm - (City stroll/shop/surf net)
The World Unseen - Sb 3 (6-8 pm)
Barcelona (A Map) - Sb 4 (6:45-9)

Tentative Schedule

09:00 am - 11:30 pm [Slot (a)]
11:45 am - 02:15 pm (Secret Sunshine - Sb 1)
03:30 pm - 05:00 pm Les Chansons d’amour (Honore) - Sb 1
05:00 pm - 09:00 pm [Slot (b)]
09:15 pm - 11:00 pm Chaotic Ana- Ryerson

Monday - September 10, 2007

Same Day tix - 4 Months, 3 Days - Cumberland 1 - 10:00 am
Redacted- Varsity 8 - 6 pm

Slots open - (a) 9am - 12 pm - 4 Months, 3 Weeks... - Cumberland 1 (10 -12 pm)
In Bloom- Sb 2 (12:15-2)

(b) 12 pm - 2:30 pm - George Romero’s Book of the Dead - Sb3 (1:00 - 2:30)
Chrysalis- Sb 1 (12:30 - 2:00)
Happiness - Cumberland 3 (12:15 - 2:15)

Tentative Schedule

09:45 am - 12:00 pm [Slot (a)]
12:00 pm - 02:00 pm [Slot (b)]
02:30 pm - 05:00 pm Shunji Aoyama - Sb 4
06:00 pm - 07:30 pm (Redacted -V 8)
08:00 pm - 10:00 pm Ken Loach - Wintergarden (Elgin)


Tuesday - September 11, 2007

Same Day tix - Jellyfish - Cumb-1 - 2:30 pm or Man from Plains - V8 (2:15 pm)

Slots open - (a) 9 am - 12 pm [ten movies screening but nothing to see]
Night - Cumberland 1 (9 - 11)
Terra - Sb 10 (10 - 12)
Buddha Collapsed Out of Shame - Sb 4 (9-10:30)
Love Comes Lately - Sb 1 (9:15 - 11)
(Sleep in)

(b) 2:30 pm - 5 pm Jellyfish - Cumberland 1 (2:30 - 4:30 pm)
Man From Plains - V8 (2:15 - 4:15)

Tentative Schedule

09:45 am - 12:00 pm [Slot (a)]
12:15 pm - 02:15 pm Silent Light - Scotiabank 4
02:30 pm - 05:00 pm [Slot (b)]

Suns, suspended + sports notes

The NBA would do well to follow the teachings of (not-Leandro) Barbossa, who wisely pointed out that the Pirate's Code is best viewed as a set of guidelines than hard and fast rules. The evil pirate's had a much smarter approach to legal reasoning than the NBA, which suspended the Suns' Amare Stoudemire and Boris Diaw one game each for leaving the bench momentarily, reacting to a cheap shot delivered to their star point guard in the closing seconds of the game. The Spurs' Robert Horry, the instigator, got two games. Under the NBA's Draconian rules, any player leaving the bench during an altercation will be automatically suspended for one game, no questions, no exceptions.

It's a lazy rule, and by applying it without thought or care, the decision led to a horrid result which rewarded the bad actor while punishing innocent actors. It's hard to imagine such an ill-considered decision made by someone not associated with the Bush administration, but there you have it. Sports fans everywhere are rightly furious.

To add insult to injury, David Stern is now trying to make high-minded "letter of the law" justifications for his mistake. On the Dan Patrick Show, Stern came off as a defensive, self-satisfied douchebag. "A rule's a rule", Stern insists from his Olympian perch, insinuating that he's too high-minded to worry about such pesky matters as facts. If we don't apply rules inflexibly, why, we'd have...judgment calls! You can't have the league commissioner, getting paid tens of millions of dollars a year, actually be put in the tough position of making judgment calls, can you? Stern pretends that he's applying the law judiciously, but as a former attorney he should know that few laws are bright-line rules applied with no flexibility. The law empowers courts to take situation and circumstances into consideration. Even the most inflexible of laws -- traffic laws -- are enforced and applied differently: nobody treats the guy running red lights to get an ailing mother to the hospital the same as a drunk driver. That's why we have judges -- note the title -- rather than judicial clerks deciding matters.

Stern's been a very good commissioner, but he needs to call a PR firm and regroup. And contrary to Stern's retorts, the problem isn't just that the results are unjust but also that his reasoning is screwed up. Only the most intellectually lazy, folks incapable or fearful of making judgments based on available information, would reason in this literal fashion. I mean, what happens when the Suns send cheerleader Sean Marks to break Tim Duncan's knees, and Parker and Manu rush in to defend their star? Suspend them all? If the Suns end up losing this game, the heat's gonna be turned up another three notches.

Bill Simmons just posted his take. Pretty dead-on, especially this part:

Let's say you're one of the best seven players on the Phoenix Suns. You love Nash -- he's your emotional leader, your meal ticket to the Finals, the ideal teammate and someone who makes you happy to play basketball every day for a living. He's killing himself to win a championship. His nose was split open in Game 1. His back bothers him to the point that he has to lie down on the sidelines during breaks. He's battling a real cheap-shot artist (Bruce Bowen) who's trying to shove and trip him on every play. But he keeps coming and coming, and eventually, everyone follows suit. Just as things were falling apart in Game 4 and you were staring at the end of your season, he willed you back into the game and saved the day.

Suddenly, he gets body-checked into a press table for no real reason on an especially cheap play. You're standing 20 feet away. Instinctively, you run a few steps towards the guy who did it -- after all, your meal ticket is lying on the court in a crumpled heap -- before remembering that you can't leave your bench. So you go back and watch everything else unfold from there. Twenty-four hours later, you get suspended for Game 5 because your instincts as a teammate kicked in for 1.7 seconds. Think about how dumb this is. What kind of league penalizes a teammate for reacting like a good teammate after his franchise player just got decked?

Random sports notes:

* How do you not go with the Suns this series after all the dirty tactics we've seen? I respected the Spurs before, but man, it's hard not to root for Steve Nash, the consummate warrior and the best pure point guard I've ever seen.

* Warriors-Jazz. Every time I tune in to this series, I see some variation of this sequence: (1) Stephen Jackson or Matt Barnes launching an off-balanced trey; (2) AK-47 grabs long rebound; (3) Utah goes into half-court set, resulting in a Boozer post move, an Okur three, or a second-chance basket. The Jazz must be something like +60 in the playoff games I've watched. So on the internets I find out that the Jazz are actually not the second coming of the '87 Lakers, but a mid-tier team. Maybe so, but the nine quarters of Jazz basketball I've seen on the teevee make them look like world-beaters, and this team seems to match-up well to both the slow-footed Rockets and the run 'n gun Warriors. They'll give the eventual NBA champs (Suns or Spurs) a tough series.

* The Rocket in pinstripes. Well, we'll always have Pedro. It's sad, I suppose, that my favorite player growing up turns out to be a mercenary. But that's what he is, and the deals on the table weren't even close. Can't blame the guy for taking an extra $9 million. Plus, a pro-rated $28 million (+ luxury tax hit) is a lot of coin in exchange for 5.1 IP and a 3.80 ERA, which is what you can expect from Clemens facing the more patient and deeper lineups in the AL. In any event, the Yankees', with their roto-team lineup and the addition of Clemens and all-world prospect Philip Hughes, should be able to mount a run. If the Yankees don't, they'll be biggest bust in baseball history. Not a good way to send Steinbrenner off.

* Red Sox: Best team in baseball? When you're first in the league in runs scored and runs against, the answer is pretty clear. Can this excellence be sustained for the entire season? Last couple of seasons, the Sox took a dive soon after the all-star break. This team should be more resilient. Offensively only Lowell and the 2B platoon are seriously overperforming; Theo's high-priced acquisitions like Lugo and Drew haven't stepped up yet, and Manny should regress to the mean. As should Coco Crisp, the weakest link on the team right now. Even with four starters underperforming, the offense currently leads baseball in team OPS. A good sign.

The pitching should drop off some, as Schilling and Wakefield will end up with ERAs in the high 3's. But Beckett, as long as he can get a handle on the finger issue, should remain a Cy Young contender. Last year, he'll pump his straight 97 mph four-seamer until he's blue in the face, stubbornly "challenging" hitters at every opportunity. He's now mixing in a change-up and snapping off sharp curves for strikes on fastball counts, finally learning to pitch. It's a pleasure to watch. I'm also confident Dice-K will end up posting great numbers. Guy's stuff is just too good. Even in his strong start against the Tigers, he didn't have his best pitches working (the curve, slider, and the shuuto, a change-up with a screwball action). He ended up up throwing cutters and two-seamers most of the game, inducing 15 groundouts. Once Matsuzaka settles in, he'll be a top ten starter in the AL.

* Non-Sox baseball fans: If you love baseball, you owe it to yourself to watch at least one Curt Schilling start (the Sox are on TV like 20 times a year) and then go to Curt's blog 38 Pitches the following day to read about what's going through Curt's head as he's pitching. It's incredibly illuminating, the internet equivalent of reading Greg Maddux's notes after a game.

* De la Hoya-Mayweather. Caught some of the replay -- kinda reaffirms what everyone thinks about boxing these days. It's boring. A couple of guys getting a big paycheck and going through the motions. Hey, Oscar's got a hot wife, a hundred mil in the bank, fame, and the unblemished face of a tennis pro. Why risk your health by going all-out?

Virginia Tech Killer (updated)

Awful. And we now get a portrait of a dude who exhibited tell-tale signs of a would-be psycho killer.

“He was always really, really quiet and kind of weird, keeping to himself all the time,” he said. “Just of anti-social, didn’t talk to anybody. I tried to make conversation with him in August or so and he would just give one word answers and not try and carry on the conversation.”

Then there's this:

Cho was an English major whose creative writing was so disturbing that he was referred to the school's counseling service...

I'm sure we'll soon be hearing about him skinning cats for fun.

Whenever something crazy and catastrophic like this happens, demagogues of all stripes use the incident to beat the drum for their own cause. Gun zealots are already crying foul. And in our nativist climate, I'm rather curious about how Cho's national origins would play. By way of background, the Post identifies Cho as a Centreville, VA man who immigrated from South Korea to the United States as a child. The emphasis seems right. Having immigrated as a pre-schooler to the United States myself, I would certainly think it's more accurate to describe me first as someone from Alhambra, CA rather than "an immigrant from Taiwan" . The AP on the other hand, leads with the guy's national origins and immigration status, as if he were an exchange student. The guy grew up in the U.S.; he was majoring in English lit. He's not a fob. It'll be interesting to see if the media continues to emphasize Cho's weirdness and alienation (which may partially be attributed to the immigrant experience but obviously not entirely) as the story plays out, or if they start playing up his foreign origins.

Lastly, did he go by his surname first? If not (and I can't imagine why he would), why is the media calling him Cho Sueng-Hui? Weird.

Update: A Counterstrike fanatic! Mercy as we go through another cycle of hand-wringing about violent video games.

Update 2: Obviously, his ethnic background should be mentioned. But it's not his defining characteristic (I'd suggest "sociopathic"), unlike, say, the 9/11 attackers, whose motivation is religious tribalism. To AP 's credit, the story discussed up top eventually had the headline altered to "English Major blamed for massacre," though I'm not sure being an English major is all that germane either. Last note on this: I still think the Asian American's Journalism Association's advisory, imploring the press to not identify Cho's race unless "germane to the story" is an overreaction, but reading these kinds of exchanges between right-wing nutjobs gives me some pause (Via Daily Dish (and House Next Door). Now, it's entirely expected that some whites, especially in economically distressed times, would scapegoat minorities for their problems, especially the illegal immigrants perceived to be taking their jobs. What's disturbing is the large number of whites who think of themselves as besieged on all quarters by minorities and "liberals" -- two classes that don't actually wield a whole lot of power in this country. You can find the sentiment underlying the grievances aired during the two big media stories last week, the Imus brouhaha and the Duke lacrosse team botch-job. It's hard to say what's most pathetic about these people: their bottomless self-pity, the total lack of self-awareness, or their unshakable sense of white entitlement.

Oh, and Jo, the throwaway comment about Old Boy? Check this photo out. What. A. Fucking. Basketcase.