I’m not a comic book guy or a science fiction afficionado, but I appreciate having some intelligent themes to chew on in my otherwise hokey pop diversions.  I never read the X-Men comics, but the film series continues to grapple with themes related to the acceptance of difference in others and in oneself, social conformity, and the challenge of channeling anger into positive action to promote the common good.  And anyway, Ian McKellen is da bomb.

I’m told science fiction has a long history of implicit social commentary, as this wikipedia entry discusses. The original Frankenstein films by James Whale, for example, examine some themes similar to the ones on display in the X-Men series.  Certainly, it’s easy to name films that wear their politics on their sleeves, like On the Waterfront, Twelve Angry Men, or Seven Days in May on the liberal side of the ledger.  Then there are populist entertainments with fascist undertones, like Rambo or those Charles Bronson vigilante flicks.

What are some of your favorite, not so obvious works of popular entertainment with political undertones?  Don’t limit yourself to films, or even to science fiction.  Tell us about your favorites in the comments. 

And if James Wolcott stops by, I’ll scream like a nellie queen for sheer delight. 

Perhaps it was fate that Scott Custer, a former U.S. Army Ranger, and Michael Battles, a failed Republican candidate for Congress in 2002, joined together to form the "business risk consultancy" Custer Battles, LLC. (Whoever thought that putting "Custer" and "Battles" together would signify "success" was terribly misinformed.)

Custer Battles’ rise from obscurity to winning a $16 million securities contract in Iraq was outlined in an August 13, 2004 article in the Wall Street Journal (full article posted at CB’s website):

In July [2003], Scott Custer and Michael Battles, two former Army Rangers in their mid-30s, found themselves in charge of a $16 million contract to guard Baghdad’s airport. Barely funded with credit cards and money borrowed from a friend, their nine-month-old company had neither guns, accountants nor guards. It had to hire Nepalese Gurkhas to staff the project.

[…]

"For us, the fear and disorder offered real promise," says Mr. Battles, 34 years old, a onetime bull rider who served three years as a Central Intelligence Agency operative. (emphasis mine)

UPDATE:  Markos and Jerome are currently on CNBC on the Tim Russert show.  FYI — it’s a good conversation thus far.  (Cozumel says that the show will repeat on CNBC again at 10 pm ET.)

Continuing from Part I. 

Judge Walton then goes on to the actual detailed requests made by Libby’s defense team.  The sole issue that he finds merit in is the following (PDF):

Therefore, if the government is in possession of documents that show the defendant’s intent to participate or his actual participation in such legitimate efforts [to rebut the merits of Ambassador Wilson’s findings], those documents must be produced pursuant to Rule 16. (Walton Op., p. 4)

Okay, here’s the thing: Fitzgerald would already have been required to turn over any such documents in his possession, if any even exist, because this information would be considered potentially exculpatory material (making Irving look less guilty). So as victories go, this one rings awfully hollow: "Here, you can have access to the most likely nonexistent documents that you already likely would have had access to anyway." Oh boy. Pass the cocktail weenies and light the sparklers, it’s a par-tay.  Cel-e-brate good times.  Come on.

Judge Reggie Walton has issued another opinion on motions made by Team Libby.  A copy of the opinion can be found on the DC Federal courts website (PDF). 

Jeralyn covered the opinion on TalkLeft yesterday.  And Jane kicked a few things around as well yesterday – including Byron York’s inaccurate, petulant spin — and the fact that Fitz has the gift of snark.

The opinion stems from a May 5, 2006, status conference wherein a number of discovery motions and issues were argued before the court.  We covered the hearing initially here — detailing information as to what a status conference is, among other things.  Once the hearing transcript became available, we covered it in more depth here and here (The Cirque Du Soleil defense series of posts).  At the time, I said this:

And all the knots in the world — tied or untied — don’t get around the ultimate questions: did Scooter Libby lie to the jury under oath? Repeatedly? Did Libby lie to the FBI during the investigation? Repeatedly? Did he do so to obstruct Fitzgerald’s investigation? Repeatedly?

That’s what the jury will be asked to answer. And that’s where the smokescreen doesn’t hold up for Scooter and Team Libby. None of the smoke has anything to do with whether Scooter lied and why. If he did not out Valerie Plame Wilson — why bother lying to the FBI and the Grand jury in the first place? Now that’s a question I’d love to see answered.

The judge appears to have agreed with this assessment for the most part. As you read through the spare eight-page opinion, you can feel his exasperation at having to cover and re-cover this ground beginning to show.

But let’s get to the meat of the order, shall we? 

How does anyone ever know who to vote for for school board or to put on the local judiciary? And in states like California sometimes there are a dozen or more propositions to pule over. I always make it my business to know about the candidates for statewide office and for my congressperson and state legislators. But beyond that… it gets tough.

Sometimes I lean on the local alternative weekly’s endorsements — at least for a jumping off point. Today I read the L.A. WEEKLY’S endorsements and got sick. On two of the most high profile races on the ballot Tuesday they were ALL WET. They picked Westly over Angelides for governor and, far worse, Harman over Winograd in CA-36. 

A far more intelligent way to look for electoral help would be to forget about flawed and superficial rags like these weeklies and pick up David Sirota’s brilliant new book, Hostile Takeover… and pay close attention. Using David’s book as a guide you’ll soon teach yourself how to tell a real progressive from a Big Business shill. He doesn’t offer a guide to individual names, of course; instead he helps define the issues we all need to focus on when making our decisions about who to vote for — especially in primaries where we have the luxury to vote our progressive ideals, without jeopardizing an at-least-they’re-better-than-the-Republicans Democratic majority.

Put on another pot of coffee.  Jamison Foser has a follow-up to last week’s Media Matters piece on media bias (which Pach covered here), and Foser hits this one out of the park.

…And still, too many journalists, pundits, progressive activists and Democratic leaders chalked this up to John Kerry’s failings as a candidate, or his consultants failings. They blamed the victim (again): Kerry talked too much about his military service, they said: he was asking to be smeared by Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. He spoke with too many qualifiers (remember: when Dean was blunt, he was derided as angry and crazy). He flip-flopped too much (Bush’s own flips and flops escaped similar scrutiny).

Those who would apologize for the media’s treatment of Clinton, Gore, Dean, and Kerry — or who somehow fail to recognize it even now — chalk it up to Clinton’s supposed slickness, or Gore’s trouble with the truth, or Dean’s craziness, or Kerry’s liberalism, and on and on and on — somehow failing to recognize that they’re excusing flawed media storylines about these candidates by citing those same flawed storylines. Hopefully hoping for the day when a progressive leader would emerge without these weaknesses.

Enter Democratic Rep. Jack Murtha. Murtha is, by general consensus, a conservative Democrat. A U.S. Marine and a highly decorated veteran of the Vietnam War. Ranking member of the Defense Appropriations committee. The kind of politician the media tends to refer to as a "pro-military Democrat" (buying into the ridiculous and offensive right-wing smear that most Democrats are anti-military). A serious, plain-spoken man with an impeccable record of serving his country and a "leading Democratic hawk."

Surely, if Clinton, Gore, Dean, and Kerry faced such abusive media coverage because of there own faults, here was a Democrat who didn’t share those flaws.

The WaPo reports that the Bush White House has embarked on a strategy which has the President publicly appearing to listen to opposing opinions, and that this may be the same thing as Bushie coming out of his bubble:

A White House long accused of squelching internal dissent and ignoring outside viewpoints has been reaching out in its moment of weakness to prominent figures who have disagreed with the president. Bush just hired a Treasury secretary who opposed his policy on global warming and a press secretary who dismissed his domestic agenda as timid and listless.

How much such moves reflect a genuine opening up for an insular White House remains uncertain. Symbolically, at least, the White House is eager to rebut the longstanding public impression of a president in a bunker listening only to like-minded advisers. Substantively, Bush has hardly signaled a major course change in the direction of his presidency, and skeptics recall past instances when nonconformists within the administration were shut out.

Yet some Washington veterans detect signs of a tentative new willingness by the administration to heed the advice of others rather than sticking stubbornly to its position. Just this week, under pressure from European allies and U.S. foreign policy elders, the administration reversed itself and agreed to join talks with Iran if it suspends nuclear activities. And last week, Bush temporarily sealed documents seized from a congressman’s office in response to complaints from Capitol Hill.

Bolten’s PR offensive aside, I call bullshit. Unless and until we see some willingness for George Bush to actually consider opinions contrary to his own, discuss them, and contemplate the ramifications of his action above and beyond "my way or the high way," all of this is just so much pre-election PR positioning. I’m with Larry Wilkerson on this one:

Others are more dubious. "I want to see the proof," said retired Col. Larry Wilkerson, who was chief of staff at the State Department until last year, when he emerged as a vocal critic of the administration. "I can hope, as I imagine 60 to 70 percent of Americans are hoping, . . . we are going to see some moderation and it’s going to bear some fruit. But I’ve got to see the fruit, because I’ve seen this before.

Actions speak louder than a new chief of staff’s attempts to put lipstick on a pig.  And so far, the only action I’m seeing is a busy WH fax machine.

UPDATE:  Oliver Willis and Peter Daou caught this as well.  I don’t care what kind of blue light special they are selling this under, a steaming pile of bullshit still smells.