* No tagline here... it's actually a series of movies that I just wasn't that interested in... maybe I'll watch it here and try to see what all the fuss was about.
* 71% of the Earth's surface is covered by water. That's a lot of space to find one fish. (Disclaimer here - I like this film, but I would only watch a little bit of it.... first and foremost because I've seen it eleventy billion times with my son already, but also because it's in Japanese with no subtitles... that's kind of why I'm listing it, though. It's fun for a few minutes, at least!)
There are a lot of films I skipped on this list, because it didn't appear that the link was working. Take a look around and tell me about some of the gems that I might have missed!
We take a momentary break from the political side of PTF to bring you a pop cultural gold mine.
I'm almost afraid to even blog about it and tell you about it, for fear that if too many people find out about it, it may disappear.
This morning, a friend told me about this AMAZING website... it has links to all of these great TV shows... you name it, and there's more than likely a link to it. So, if you've been jones'n for an episode of The Office at work, now you can have it.
They're are here, to be sure... but LOOK what else is here! There's this, or this, or this... or maybe you'd prefer something MUCH more recent... like THIS?!?
I'm not saying if it's right or if its wrong... I'll I'm telling you is it's all here.
The fine folks who bring you PTF will unveil a new blog shortly that will be focused on this theme, but here's a tidbit in the meantime.
I have maintained for quite some time that Democrats would be foolish to nominate Clinton as their candidate, as there is no reasonable way to anticipate that she will actually win in a General Election.
While supporters will point to the inevitablitiy of her nomination, citing any number of polls which place her ahead of her closest rivals by double-digit leads (this memo, distributed earlier in the month from Clinton's Chief Strategist, Mark Penn, states "In recent election cycles, any time a candidate has had as much as 35 or 40 percent of the vote consistently across polls in a multi-candidate field, that candidate has gone on to win the nomination. In the last race, Joseph Lieberman was in the teens at this point while Walter Mondale’s numbers in the 1984 Democratic primary were comparable to Hillary’s now...." Why he would want to compare Clinton to Mondale is beyond me)... there is something else to consider.
Dive a little deeper into the data, and you find even more interesting statistics. Looking at the favorable/unfavorable ratings, we see as follows:
FAVORABLES: Barack Obama - 59% John Edwards - 53% Hillary Clinton - 50%
UNFAVORABLES: Hillary Clinton - 48% (40% of whom registered as "strongly unfavorable") John Edwards - 35% (22% of whom registered as "strongly unfavorable") Barack Obama - 27% (15% of whom registered as "strongly unfavorable")
Despite this information, we continue to see most media portray Hillary Clinton as the frontrunner.
Why is that? Please... feel free to leave your comments. It's not a rhetorical question. Is it simple name recognition? Is it nostalgia for the Bill Clinton Administration? Is it a conspiracy?
Leave your comments, and tell me. Because I'm not sure I get it... yet.
I haven't posted about the CNN YouTube debate as of yet, mainly because I found so many interesting story lines in it, and anticipated it to be a MUCH longer posting than I had time to write this week, and so I procrastinated, and now it largely feels like yesterday's news, to a certain extent.
Later in the week, Clinton lashed out at Obama for agreeing to meet diplomatically with these leaders, calling Obama naive. This, despite the fact that she has personally attacked the Bush Administration for failing to engage Iran or Syria directly.
Media covered the story as though Clinton had Obama up against the ropes.
One candidate had the judgment to oppose the war from the start. One candidate knows it's irresponsible to send troops to war without a plan to bring them home. One candidate believes it's naïve to believe we can resolve conflicts without talking to our adversaries.
Ready for a new direction?
It's nice to see a candidate like Obama, who can speak intelligently and eloquently, and yet has the ability to defend himself when attacked.
Do you think that a lot of Republican critics of Democrats are actually closeted salon hags, who desire nothing more than to be beautiful, and get cranky whenever someone beats them to it?
I remember the big brouhaha over Bill Clinton getting his hair cut by Cristophe, and the amount of time that Republicans beat the drum about "the $200 haircut" as a way to criticize the President - long before Monica Lewinsky came around.
Well, now it seems they've got a new Main Mane to tangle with in John Edwards. Rather than talking about legitimate criticism of the Bush Administration, they want to talk about John Edwards' hair (when they're not talking about Barack Obama's name or his big ears, that is...).
I LOVE the YouTube video put together by the Edwards campiagn to retaliate against this nonsensical criticism and attempts to divert the attention of the American public. If you haven't seen it yet, you've got to watch:
(those that got the title reference to Jimi Hendrix's DEBUT album get bonus PTF Points, redeemable in the forthcoming PTF Fan Shop)
Just a quick thought here... I'm getting a little pissed about people continuing to talk about the "lack of experience" that Barack Obama has.
The alleged "frontrunner" was a former First Lady, and has served in the Senate since January, 2001. I'm not sure how that qualifies as a significant difference in experience. Obama has served since 2005, so I guess Clinton has four years on him serving as the junior Senator from New York. Wow.
John Edwards served as a one-term senator, but people don't seem to question his experience.
If you look to the Democrats who have the MOST experience (folks like Joe Biden and Chris Dodd), they're actually polling LOWEST right now.
The person who arguably has the MOST appropriate experience, Al Gore, is not running - for the moment.
I'm just wondering if "experience" is code language for another more insidious reason people might have a problem with Barack Obama.
But since the Democratic leadership can't seem to actually LEAD and listen to their constituents, Russ Feingold is left to do the heavy lifting and to represent any form of spine that the party has remaining.
Feingold has had it right the entire time on Iraq (as well as a host of other issues), and his notion that Congress must address the lawlessness of this Administration on a historical level, at the very least, is once again exactly right.
PTF is once again tan, rested and ready to gear back up again, having spent a week at my "unofficial retreat" location. Those who know me well will sigh and ask, "what?!?.... Again?"
For those of you who don't know, this serious-minded, furrowed-brow PTFer LOVES to vacation in Walt Disney World.
I know Disney gets a bad rap. Critics will say thyat they sanitize history and reality to suit their economic means. Or that they unnecessarily push the "good triumphing over evil" storyline in their films, making an argument that all obstacles can be overcome. Or perhaps they mention that some Disney employees don't receive living wages.
I've heard it all before, and I don't turn a deaf ear to it. Disney is NOT Utopia - it IS a corporation, and a conglomerate of businesses, and not everything they do is perfect.
I'm going to be the first to admit that. I would counter, however, that Disney is AMAZING when it comes to supporting the arts (both in terms of philanthropy, as well as the practical day-to-day hiring of artists, musicians, actors, dancers and all manner of other artists). Disney has long supported the rights of the gaycommunity (anything that pisses the Southern Baptists off makes me happy)... they take a LOT of very positive steps within their corporation every day.
But let's set even THAT aside for a moment.
The REAL reason why I vacation there has nothing to do with social activism or arts advocacy or anything like that.
It's simply this - Disney GETS it, and they do it right. Period. End of story.
If you've visited a Disney theme park for a single day, then you may not feel as strongly about it. But spend some time on the Disney property - in the hotels, in the restaurants, travelling around from theme park to theme park.
I have yet to see ANY company, large or small, make the efforts that Disney does to ensure that a visit is seamless and perfect.
So, maybe you think I rode Space Mountain 14,356 times while I was there? Guess again. On my Disney vacation, I swam in pristine pools, went boating three times over the course of the week, ate at two five-star restaurants (including a Kobe steak that was probably the most perfect thing I've ever put in my mouth!), danced at clubs, viewed evening fireworks aboard a private cruise for my family, drank too much at several clubs, saw some truly entertaining live shows... oh, and I did manage to make it to the theme parks, as well.
I've been going to Walt Disney World on a regular basis for over eleven years now (my wife and I honeymooned there), and at this point, it's almost as if I DARE them to disappoint me - but they never do.
And one of their biggest secrets? It's the Cast Members. The AMAZING Disney employees who come from all over the world to work in some capacity at Walt Disney World. Truly magnificent service in just about any possible service-oriented position.
I'm not going to drivel on and on about how magnificent Disney is at what they do (though I could).... the main point of this post was simply to say that I was on vacation, and now I'm back.
And so what if Disney creates a little "fantasyland"? Have you SEEN reality lately? It's nice to escape it every now and then.
I could probably create a whole new blog just babbling on about how great Walt Disney World is.... but I'll spare you. Feel free to babble to me if you want to gush over it, though. :)
I saw this today and absolutely lost my shit. Religious freedoms be damned!
There are over 700 Hindu temples and centers in the United States, and well over a million followers of the faith. Worldwide, there are over 900 million who practice Hinduism. That's over 13% of the world's population - more than one in every ten people.
And yet, as the world strains to see us as the Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave, this is what they see: Disgraceful.
But according to the Initial Benchmark Assessment Report for Iraq that was released today, we have thus far only had ANY measure of success on eight out of the eighteen benchmarks. That equals 44%. Last time I checked, that percentage would earn you a big fat "F" in school. As in "FAIL."
And even in the benchmarks deemed satisfactory, there is failure. One of the benchmarks given a satisfactory mark was "Establish 'supporting political, media, economic, and services committees in support of the Baghdad Security Plan.'" While these committees have been established, the report goes on to state that “the purpose for which they were created as their contribution to date has not been adequate."
One of the benchmarks graded as satisfactory was reducing sectarian violence. The report, however, states that "...though sectarian violence has been reduced, it is not yet reduced to a level the Coalition judges acceptable."
And where are the areas where the report deemed efforts unsatisfactory? Little things. You know. Eliminating militia control over local security. Providing even-handed enforcement of the law. Supporting Iraqi security forces. That type of thing.
It has long baffled me why a state with as many electoral votes as Pennsylvania, which in recent elections has become a key state for candidates to win, waits until May to hold its Primary elections.
We here at PTF have long advocated against the current process of Primaries, which allow states like Iowa and New Hampshire (clearly states that are wholly unrepresentative of the nation at large) to crown a victor in the races before the voice of the nation as a whole has been heard.
As it stands, the Pennsylvania primary results, at least for President, have been largely insignificant and meaningless. The victors of each party's nomination have usually been determined long before people of Pennsylvania weigh in.
But beyond that, it creates and reinforces the sense amongst voters that "my vote doesn't count - it won't make a difference." EVERY voter needs to feel as though their vote DOES make a difference before we'll ever see numbers at the polls increasing.
We would prefer to see a streamlined series of perhaps four primary election dates. The groupings could be organized by means of regional sections of the country, although a better method may perhaps be by size of the states. If elections were held solely by geography, it would be easy to see candidates focusing on New York in the Northeast or California in the West, while giving no attention to Rhode Island or Nevada, respectively.
With the current trend of states shifting their individual dates, this might be just the time to begin once again pondering election reform such as this.
Republicans like to say that Clinton failed to take action on terrorists when he had the opportunity, and failed to take action against Osama Bin Laden when he had the opportunity.
Scratch one more off the list for Republicans - they always thought they could rest on the "Clinton didn't take action against the terrorists" argument. Looks like the Bush Administration can now have the same criticism leveled at them.
And for those of you who believe that the Clinton Administration DIDN'T take action against the terrorists prior to September 11th, one might argue that you need to look at the facts:
* Republicans state that Clinton never took action against those responsible for the initial World Trade Center attack in 1993 - HOWEVER, four suspects were tried and convicted in 1994, each being sentenced to 240 years in prison. In addition, Ramzi Ahmed Yousef was captured in 1995 and was sentenced to 240 years in prison in 1997.
* Republicans state that Clinton never took action against those responsible for the attack in Riyadh in 1995. HOWEVER, the Saudi government arrested and put to death four Saudi nationals who confessed to that bombing - the Clinton Administration was denied authority to question them.
* Republicans state that Clinton never took action against those responsible for the Khobar Towers bombing in 1996. HOWEVER, once again Saudi officials took thirteen Saudis into custody and the United States was refused the ability to extradite these suspects.
* Republicans state that Clinton never took action against those responsible for the bombings at the embassies in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam in 1998. HOWEVER, four suspects with ties to Osama bin Laden were captured and sentenced to life in prison without parole.
* Republicans state that Clinton never took action against those responsible for the bombing of the USS Cole in October, 2000. HOWEVER, the FBI was never allowed to interrogate Yemeni officials, and even if they had been allowed, the chance that the investigation would have been conplete by the time Clinton left office three months later is absurd.
* Republicans state that Clinton failed to take action against Bin Laden. HOWEVER, when he DID order missle strikes against Bin Laden, Republicans such as Arlen Specter accused him of trying to divert attention away from the Monica Lewinsky scandal.
* Republicans state that Clinton ignored terrorism. HOWEVER, under the Clinton Administration, the federal budget on anti-terrorism initiatives nearly tripled to $6.7 billion dollars. Reminding you, of cousre, that this was a PRE-9/11 budget increase. And when Clinton closed Pennsylvania Avenue in front of the White House following the Oklahoma City bombing, Republicans accused him of hysteria.
...separated into some neat and tidy sections, as follows (I'll list them by their tag line, and you can guess and see if you know the film):
MOVIES THAT I REALLY DIDN'T WANT TO SPEND THE TIME SEEING IN THE THEATRE:
MOVIES THAT ARE SIMPLY TOO GREAT TO NOT WATCH AGAIN:
MOVIES I WON'T EVEN WATCH FOR FREE:
We take a momentary break from the political side of PTF to bring you a pop cultural gold mine.
That was just the TV section.... click on the Movie Icon, and a whole new world of time-suckage explodes from your computer!
...it's as simple as that.
Dive a little deeper into the data, and you find even more interesting statistics. Looking at the favorable/unfavorable ratings, we see as follows: 
I haven't posted about the CNN YouTube debate as of yet, mainly because I found so many interesting story lines in it, and anticipated it to be a MUCH longer posting than I had time to write this week, and so I procrastinated, and now it largely feels like yesterday's news, to a certain extent.
Do you think that a lot of Republican critics of Democrats are actually closeted salon hags, who desire nothing more than to be beautiful, and get cranky whenever someone beats them to it?
(those that got the title reference to Jimi Hendrix's DEBUT album get bonus PTF Points, redeemable in the forthcoming PTF Fan Shop)
It's been a long time since we here at PTF have thrown some love in the direction of one of our favorite members of the United States Senate, Russ Feingold.
PTF is once again tan, rested and ready to gear back up again, having spent a week at my "unofficial retreat" location. Those who know me well will sigh and ask, "what?!?.... Again?"
It's simply this - Disney GETS it, and they do it right. Period. End of story.
No... it's not the cause for optimism that President Bush spoke about earlier today. Here is some of what the President said today, folowed by some brief rebuttal: 
It has long baffled me why a state with as many electoral votes as Pennsylvania, which in recent elections has become a key state for candidates to win, waits until May to hold its Primary elections.
If you're John McCain, you know you're in trouble when you have less cash on hand than Republican candidate and political blip on the radar, Ron Paul.
Republicans like to say that Clinton failed to take action on terrorists when he had the opportunity, and failed to take action against Osama Bin Laden when he had the opportunity.
