Let me ask you a question. It’s a really, wreally, important question. I’d like you to take a moment, a minute or maybe two to think about for a minute before you answer.  You may also want to prepare yourself.  Ok. Ready? Here goes … Why is the media so obsessed with Sarah Palin? Ok that answer there might be kind of obvious. She’s reasonably photogenic and regularly says shit that’s less than substantive and crazy and therefore perfect for less than substantive – pseudo – high energy three minute cable news – pseudo – debates between the likes of Katrina vandenHeuvel and Patrick J. Buchanan.  So let me ask that again in a slightly altered from. Why are the mainstream media’s highest profile political prognosticators writing and talking about Sarah Palin as if she’s a viable candidate for the Republican Party’s 2012 presidential nomination?  Seriously? Think that through for a moment.

Click here to view the embedded video.

Remember all those polls and pieces from 2008 that told us all that women just plain didn’t like Sarah Palin. Just ask yourself how someone who literally scares women can win Florida? Then ask yourself how a Republican who could not win Florida could become president? The answer is simple, they couldn’t.  And so, neither can former Governor Palin.

Please feel free to infer a large and dramatic period at the end of that last sentence. So where does that leave us? Well, probably asking the same question the rest of the pundit’s 2012 favorites? Mitt Romney?  Should someone who isn’t paid to seriously be required to point of that the single whitest and well known Mormon in America isn’t going to turn out the same percentage of the Evangelical vote as Bush did or cull the same percentage of Hispanic voters as John McCain managed to hold onto? That means no Ohio, no Florida, no Southwest excepting Nevada and a Texas that the pre-tool makeover numbers crunching Chuck Todd labeled as likely to be in play soon [Youth Explosion + Growing Latino population + Both groups alienation from the GOP].  Do we even need to address the clearly wouldn’t win one state outside of the confederacy likes of Mike Huckabee and Haley Barbour? Or Tim Pawlenty who might not even win a single Republican primary outside his home state’s.  Or New Jersey Governor Chris Christie? Who to be honest, might be a semi viable candidate if it weren’t for how a failed run for the White House in 2012 would make him even easier meat for Newark Mayor Cory Booker [Who's a vegetarian?] a year later.

Those are the names we’ve all been hearing out the anointed punditocracy and not one of them has rats chance in your crazy cat obsessed great aunt’s house of ever being elected President of the United States.  So what’s up with that? If they aren’t realistic candidates why are we being force fed  them?

There are really two possibilities here … well three now that I think about it. First possibility; they’re all going to run, they’re the only candidates who are going to run and so they have to be covered. Second possibility; our mainstream media’s political punditocracy is completely freaking incompetent. Third possibility; the aforementioned incompetent political punditocracy is pushing a 2012 storyline they know to be ridiculous and unlikely so that the storyline they know to be credible, will still be fresh and exiting copy when the time comes.

Ok true believers, what do you guys think the answer is … number one, two or three?

Well my answers three. Which means I’m thinking that our mainstream media’s worse than incompetent. It means I think they’re irresponsible. Worse, that the list of reporters, pundits and political prognosticators who’re being so dangerously irresponsible includes about everyone you can think of on the so called professional left. Now maybe it’s just me, but from that I’m led to conclude that we – i.e. the actual left – can’t trust them.  As in not even a little bit. As in not any of them. Not Dylan. Not Chris. Not Ed. Not Keith. Not Rachel. Not Adam. Not Chris. Not Glenn. Not Joan. Not Katrina. Not David. And especially not Arianna.

You probably want me to hurriedly back up my bullshit after all that and fortunately that’s easy to do, as in with one name easy—the name of South Dakota Senator John Thune.  Who, I assure you, will be the Republican nominee in 2012 [assuming he runs and isn’t a complete moron]. And more importantly, he’s the only possible GOP nominee who might win.  Why? Well, he’s the one candidate who would secure the base broadly speaking, offer a telegenic counter-punch to Obama. Because the simple fact of the matter is that Thune and Obama are kind of bizarro twins … They’re both are tall, lanky, basketball playing, articulate and telegenic, they’re the same age, they were elected to the Senate the same year and just as Obama was dubbed the most liberal U.S. Senator, Thune has been anointed the most conservative [the American Conservative Union scored Thune a "perfect" 100]. Like Huckabee, Thune’s a devout Christian, but not a Chicken-fried Evangelical and so will be more palatable to Suburbanites and Soccer Moms. He might also put California in play as she went to college in L.A. and has strong ties here. And with a goddamned freak show worth of ridiculously flawed Republican presidential wannabes there he’s the only one who genuinely scares me.  And if you, like me are a Democratic Party Activist, volunteer, type individual [calling yourself a progressive is just a way to not take responsibility for the practical implications of your politics] he should scare you too.  Thune beat Obama’s Rabbi Tom Daschle to win is Senate seat. He’s kept his head down doing policy stuff and we all need to stop talking and writing about Sarah and Newt and Glen Beck and Park 51 so that we can fucking destroy him before he’s President.

Click here to view the embedded video.

So anyway I’d like to close with a story. The other day I was thinking about some of this after watching way too much CSPAN [don’t judge, I’m a junkie and can’t help myself].  I turned on Boogie Man, you know, that great – well pretty darn good – documentary chronicling the career legendary Republican political operative Lee Atwater. A particular detail caught my attention. You see, back in 1988 Atwater correctly identified Bill Clinton as the only democrat who had a chance in hell of taking his boss – the first President Bush down – and so he made it his business to take Big Bill down before he could do just that. Atwater was diagnosed with cancer before finish and we all know how that turned out; but Atwater’s anti Clinton effort became Whitewater and Paula Jones and finally impeachment.

Click here to view the embedded video.

That’s what your friend and humble narrator here at 2112 wants for Senator John Thune—only I want it early. I want the man beaten into an un-electable pulp by every liberal with show, a regular commentator slot, a column, a blog or goddamned Twitter account from now until the exact moment he squeals like Ned Beatty, begs for mercy and crawls the fuck back to South Dakota on bloodied knees.  And because that’s what I want, I’m acutely aware of a simple fact … That every segment, every post, every article, every tweet wasted on non threat national jokes like Sarah Palin is John Thune that much closer to the White House.

“Someone pointed me to Charlie Wilson’s War the other day. My response was that it was Charlie Wilson’s war that gave birth to the Taliban we know as an enemy today. It was Charlie Wilson’s War that justified building up and training young men to fight the Soviets without any thought or regard to what they might do with their anger and their arms when the Soviets were no more, and American dollars stopped flowing in. And then it became Bush’s war, but Bush abandoned it like an ADHD teenager with a new video game for Iraq. Barely gave Afghanistan the time of day, much less a strategy, a timeline, and some funding. And now it’s Obama’s war, mostly because someone’s got to inherit it and Obama said he would step it up over there. No, he said we’d win, whatever winning is. It was the one plank of his campaign I most disagreed with, this idea of “winning” in Afghanistan. There is no winning to be had in Afghanistan. Before we were there, and after we leave, it will still be Afghanistan.” OTS’ KAROLI

Maybe I’m misreading the post a bit, but the ambivalence Karoli [who I’m a quite a fan of by the way] is expressing there seems to be based on two misconceptions or rather a misconception plus a misconception slash flash-forward … What I mean is that Charlie Wilson’s War [which is to the United State’s covert proxy war in Afghanistan/Pakistan] is not responsible for the Taliban—at least not exactly.

Click here to view the embedded video.

The Taliban was born because we first fought a proxy war there that cost between 1,400,00 and somewhere north of 2,000,000 civilian lives, then abandoned the place for twelve years [during which first "factional fighting" then a civil war then Taliban rule—cost another 400,000 to 1,000,000 plus civilian lives, turned the "country" into a bank slash training ground for virtually every violent jihadist group you could name and crippled it's capacity to adequately feed itself just for – well  – bonus points].  Charlie Wilson’s War didn’t create the Taliban, Abandoning the country afterward did.

But the Taliban was also created by the first misconception … which is to say that there is an Afghanistan.  Now obviously there’s a place on all our maps that we all call “Afghanistan” but the “unconquered Afghanistan” that dominates our national conversation and feeds our fears is kinda a myth.  A good myth, but a myth nonetheless—for a lot of reasons but mostly because what we think of as “Afghanistan” only exist because a mid level British bureaucrat decided that leaving the geographic space it occupies “unconquered” would be a great way to end the storied Victorian silliness known alternately as The Great Game or “this tournament of shadows” [because those damn Russians have a way with words].

Now maybe none of that is our problem, there’s certainly a serious and valid argument to be made that it’s time to wash our hands and come home.  But we [the United States] first actively, then through apathy then complicity [the Taliban takeover coincided with series of Central Asian pipeline deal negotiations] contributed to the disaster that place has become and a formulation that stops at the Soviet pullout places emphasis at a misleading historical pivot point. The Taliban weren’t the logical consequence of proxy war; they were the logical consequence of our having failed to mount even a minimal effort to stabilize the region after our proxy war.  For instance: In addition to the Taliban we supported individuals who could have become a responsible Afghan government, we ignored the place just long enough for the Taliban to kill them all.

And I can’t honestly – say today – that we’ve given cleaning our mess up – our best effort.

READ PT ONE: TREASON

“It’s like a great darkness falling; it’s the beginning of forgetting.”

- Marguerite Duras

PART TWO: CASUALTIES

For just about as long as we’ve been at war there the recent and distant history of Afghanistan has been wrapped in a cloud of myth that’s worked hard to obscure the context of civilian casualties. And that means we’re all just going to have to be brutally honest for a few minutes.  As it happens I have this really cool Great Aunt who turned 100 the other day, and she’s import to this next phase of the our discussion because she’s my cool great aunt but rather because she’s only one I know who even vaguely recalls a time when civilians did not account for the majority of casualties in war time. Yes you read that correctly. Ninety percent of the casualties in World War I were soldiers, but by the end of World War II, half of casualties were civilians and the ratios haven’t gotten any better since.

Click here to view the embedded video.

Now that’s not me saying that we – as a society – should ignore the horror of those casualties, but rather that we all need to proceed from the something approaching same conceptualization when we use a word like “war” – that there are no civilian casualty free wars. And if we’re going to go around having wars, we’re all just going to have to figure out a way to deal with that. What I mean is that if you’ve signed one of those “stop genocide in Sudan” petitions or something like one or bought into virtually any call for human rights based extra-state intervention—you are pro war—at lease given a certain set of provocations.   So to properly evaluate the horrific civilian casualties chronicled by the War Logs we’re going to need to contextualize and even differentiate “horrific civilian casualties” [as all casualties are horrific] from “truly horrifying casualties.”

And that’s going to be tough – and fuck, it should be – but why don’t we start with six numbers.  1,000,000. 2,000,000+. 400,000. 1,000,000. 16,000. 40,000. Those are in order … The low estimate of the number of civilian deaths during the ten-year Soviet occupation.  The high estimate of the number of civilian deaths during the ten-year Soviet occupation. The low estimate of the number of civilian deaths during the post Soviet pull-out Civil War [1990-2001]. The high estimate of the number of civilian deaths during the post Soviet Civil War. [note: in the anti genocide community, the 400,000 death toll is typically cited as the death toll in Afghanistan under Taliban “rule” rather than of the civil war in its entirety.] The low estimate of civilian casualties during the NATO war in Afghanistan [2002 – today]. And finally, the high estimate of civilian casualties during NATO’s war. Two further numbers might also be worth considering in this instance … 8,000 and 6,000. The number of Hazaras [Persian-speaking, Shia Muslims of Mongolian descent], Massacred by the Taliban on two occasions during the late 90’s when: “Young men over 16 were brought out of their houses into the streets and had their throats slit in a ritualistic killing. Younger boys had both hands chopped off at the wrist.” via Ahmed Rashid

None of those absolve us of the blood on our hands. Our military has been responsible for at least 16,000 civilian deaths and we are hardly to be congratulated for having inflicted less in the way of horrendous death and destruction than the red army.  Nor are we to be proclaimed innocent, holy or righteous for having murdered fewer innocent men, women and children than Mullah “fucking” Omar and his band.  However, in order to have an intelligent and informed conversation about the nature of our war in Afghanistan; we need to come to grips with what the numbers reveal … a level of civilian security the people of Afghanistan haven’t had since 1979.  Moreover, they reveal the welter of ethnic violence Afghanistan will likely fall back into once NATO departs.

Maybe it shouldn’t matter, but me, I can’t help but wonder how many petitions we’ll all be asked to sign demanding that the [insert name of president here] administration “take” action to prevent [insert specific atrocity here] in Afghanistan—And how much play, such efforts and the horrifying war crimes that prompt them will garner in the media spaces operated by anti-war pundits named Greenwald, Maddow, Sullivan, Huffington and Assange.

My rather uncharitable – but well informed – guess goes like: About as much as Chad or Sudan or the “Democratic” Republic of Congo are currently getting on their “air.”

None.

TO BE CONTINUED

“The poison that is war does not free us from the ethics of responsibility.”

– Chris Hedges

PART ONE: TREASON

There are one or two things ahead that your friend and humble narrator here simply avoids having to discuss, that are deflected plus joked about rather than detailed whenever they come up—but that nevertheless form the basis of  nightmares. What that means is that if you happen to have stumbled into 2112 tonight because you know the narrator in life, stop reading—now. You don’t hear about this stuff on purpose and you’d prefer to keep it that way.

Click here to view the embedded video.

Ok now that the rest of us are alone, there are a few thoughts about the WikiLeaks outbreak that just plain need to be shared. Why? Well because it’s time to talk about treason, casualties and war crimes and that third thing simply cannot be delved into sans context [as much as Glenn Greenwald might wish otherwise] and in this instance – much as your friend here would rather not – context necessitates personal observation.  You see, it seems that a certain segment of the anti-war left is about to try and leverage this whole WikiLeaks episode into a kind of “pull the fuck out of Afghanistan” oriented southern strategy. Which is to say employ facts [that are appalling but sadly common place in context’ out of context so as to – well – disproportionately horrify a public that’s been so criminally under-served by its news media before and during this latest wartime of ours—that it frankly may not know any better.

So anyway let’s start with treason and a) why we should all get used to calling the individual who gave the so-called “war diaries” to WikiLeaks a traitor [in that he or she could certainly be charged with a crime that translates into treason] and b) why we should be ok with that because we have a justice system equipped to deliver a proper verdict on the question of whether or not it was a necessary treason or one that should be  punished.

Now to illuminate my position here, we’ll need to take a trip back to darkest parts of 2003 – specifically – to the capture and subsequent torture by water boarding of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in Rawalpindi, Pakistan and to the public arguments that swirled around the public revelation that KSM had in fact been tortured [regardless of what Bill Keller might have you believe, there is no such thing as “enhanced” interrogation by water boarding. Though I suppose the term might be fairly applied to interrogation with chemical assistance – if the Spanish Inquisition listed the technique in its “torture” manuals and your government has charged soldiers they later executed for torture with having done it, its torture … so anyway] But that’s not really what’s important tonight, what is import is to recall the ticking time bomb argument used to justify first the torture itself then a legislative carve out making it “legal” for intelligence officers to engage in it. We need to recall that because the argument is unicorn shit – complete unicorn shit – in that not only is it bullshit, it is bullshit flavored with a fantasy construct.

You might be surprised to read this next statement on an avowed and active activist progressive’s hobby blog, but the fantasy in this example is not and never was the ticking time bomb scenario. Such things do indeed happen, both literally and metaphorically. Take the case against Frankfurt police chief superintendent Wolfgang Daschner for example. You see, back in 2002, Daschner threatened to torture the kidnapper of an 11-year-old boy if he did not reveal where he had hidden the child. The threat worked, though as he later testified, Wolfgang Daschner was prepared to do more than threaten.

He was tried and found guiltily but Judge Baerbel Stock handed down the lightest possible sentence because the officer had an honorable motive. The kidnapper, Magnus Gaefgen, is currently serving life.

My point? That the fantasy construct in our torture debate was that additional laws were necessary to protect potential torturers from prosecution and conviction when one need look no further than the Oscar Grant verdict to note how willing citizens serving in trial juries are to offer the individuals tasked with protecting our collective security the benefit of every doubt. So no CIA officer guilty of torturing a terrorist for the location of a ticking bomb will ever see the insides of a prison cell and I’d submit that no officer or bureaucrat guilty of treason when treason is the lesser of two evils will see the inside of one either – at least not at the votes of an American Jury.  More importantly, anyone arguing that treason isn’t treason or that the courts can’t be trusted to determine in this instance, is tacitly agreeing with Darth Vader himself [Dick Cheney] and his all too similar assertion that torture wasn’t torture and the law—as it existed—couldn’t  be trusted.

So – you know – if that’s you – you might want to reconsider that shit.

TO BE CONTINUED

So tonight’s post on 2112 was going to be all about how much I often want to junk-punch guys like Tavis Smiley, Roland Martin and Michael Eric Dyson with a brick and how and why I think I outta be allowed to for the sake of Christmas and  puppies and also to promote general cultural sanity and thereby ensure the future of life the universe and – well – everything  … But then a couple of hours ago I can across this little news item “SDCC: Warner Bros. Planning ‘Wonder Woman’ Surprise?” And it all went a little like this …

“Ok, remember how we said that David S. Goyer was potentially being considered a frontrunner to direct “Superman: The Man of Steel” reboot godfathered by Christopher Nolan, but might not be able to because he was considering another super-hero property? Well, here it is. We’re hearing that at ComicCon sometime in the next 48 hours or so WB/Legendary are going to announce Goyer and a “Wonder Woman” film for 2013. What’s Goyer’s role going to be. As a director? A writer? We’re honestly not sure, the intel is fuzzy. Again, we don’t know if this is true, so take with a huge grain of salt if you will, but it’s intriguing information if it’s correct. Either way, “Wonder Woman” is long overdue to hit the screen (would be nice to get a female super hero perspective that isn’t “Elektra”) and even if this info isn’t true, we’re pretty confident that some kind of Amazonian announcement is going to take place.”

Click here to view the embedded video.

Which of course started me thinking – and not just because the what if comic book slash genre film casting game is one of my all time favorite past times [don’t judge, my first real job was in a comic book store]. But rather because this particular character’s road to a theater near you is something a ghost from one of my past lives.  You see, gentle readers, once upon a time your friend and humble narrator had this brother from film school … Who hadn’t thought – you know what would be great thing to do a screenwriting degree – child advocacy work in “stressed” urban communities … And instead found herself one of [yes her, yes brother, no it’s none of your business], now where was I? O’ yeah, as one of the scores upon of scores upon scores of wannabe screenwriters asked to pitch a take on Wonder Woman on film. Now needless to say it didn’t work out but she still kept me awake all night talking about it. So I have one or two ideas on the subject of Wonder Woman: the Movie that I’m now going to share with you two crazy kids.

First and foremost is this little piece of free advice to Hollywood in general and Warner Brothers in particular … Don’t. Do. It. No seriously, I’d love to see a Wonder film and a lot of other people would too, but this just the wrong time to do one. Why? Well, it has to do with something Ridley Scott mentions during Legend’s DVD commentary. While talking through Legend’s casting process he noted that at given time, Hollywood is short of a particular type [actor-wise] and right now it’s just short on Wonder Man types. They should have pulled the trigger back when Catherine Zeta Jones was up and coming – she was perfect for it … as were a couple two three of her peers. Today on the other hand even the best choices – talented as some are – are less than ideal. But, since the suits are gonna make it anyway:

Now where to start, o’ yeah … start with a Bava-esque haze of ancient Greece … with Herakles’ theft of Hippolyta’s girdle then the revenge of the Amazons and their subsequent exile to Paradise Island. Skip all of that Diana sculpted from clay stuff and flash forward to the island during WWII and a downed fighter pilot named Steve Trevor washed up on its shore and discovered by the Amazon’s princess. [Don’t dare skip this part, and don’t start thinking about shifting to the present day, the whole don’s it to fight the Nazi’s is fking crucial to making the red, white and blue with stars costume/armor make sense – got me? Good.] But don’t worry ‘cause you have an out.  You see, Paradise Island exists [in certain chronologies] in a kind of bubble wherein time moves super slowly. So by the time the Amazons have their contest and name their champion and Princess Diana leaves the island with Trevor … its 2013 [or whenever].  Which is just [sorry but I need an aside here … watching Streets of Fire and feel the need to point out that you morons also dithered through the chance to make this Wonder Woman movie with Diane Lane – sigh] anyways they or rather she – Wonder Woman shows up just in time to get between a plague of monstrous mythological beasties – monstrous enough to make Ray Harryhausen envious [including Ixion the Assassin – think the Kraken – as in release the – only named Ixion and stepping on Boston] plus the ancient enchantress Circe and the good old U.S. of A.  So what you’ll wind up with should be just be your basic sword and sandal, World War II, pulp inspired, creature, sorcery, super hero, giant monster movie.  You get all of that guys?

That just leaves casting the dang thing and well, since that’s the easy part because of the limited options so let’s start with the easiest choices—and remember what Oscar caliber casts did for Superman: the Movie  Iron Man and Batman Begins—Well, for Hera, Queen of the Gods and patron goddess of the Amazon’s [well, technically they have three, but this is a production budget conscious blog post] seems like a good place for an old world presence like Catherine Deneuve’s.  And for Hippolyta Queen of the Amazon’s … how’s about the aforementioned Catherine Zeta Jones. Then for the evil enchantress Circe … let’s say someone like Charlize Theron. So onto the must include supporting players Etta Candy and Dr. Julia Kapatelis. For Candy, go with the obvious but perfect choice … the one and only Christina Hendricks and for Kapatelis … you could do a lot worse than my personal favorite overlooked by Oscar actress … Julianne Moore.  Steve Trevor … and there are more than a few decent actor options here [John Hamm wouldn’t suck] but for that true blue WWII look … it would be hard to do better than Timothy Olyphant.

That just leaves the big show, Diana Princess of the Amazon’s and regardless of what you kids might have read in fan boy dominated forums, Warner Brothers only four reasonable actress options here that have any chance of pulling Wonder Woman off and not one of them is as picture perfect a fit for the part as Zeta Jones would have been in 2000 but here goes … casting Emmy Rossum, Olivia Wilde, Jessica Biel or Evangeline Lilly wouldn’t be driving too far off the mark to arrive in unintentional parody movie land.  No really, just ignore whatever pre-pubescent musings you’ve heard concerning Megan Fox or Brigitte Regan. Fox can’t act, she had her chance and she can’t end of story and while it’s probably unfair plus a tad early to drop Regan into the same category—her prior work hasn’t exactly set inside the actors studio on fire so best to steer clear and stick with the above. Which I’ll now helpfully pair down:

Let’s start with Rossum. Frankly there are a few things to recommend her, not the least which is the simple fact that she knows she should be on the list and has been quietly doing things to remind folks. She signed up for a dog like Dragon Ball: Evolution to say “hey I can do action” and Dare to “hey, I can act too” and even a photo shoot [think it was Vegas Magazine] in a super style garb to say “hey, I can also pull off this look” – now that said, she’s also the weakest choice on the list – on basically every level. She’s the weakest actress, has the least marquee value, less than wholly impressive action chops, doesn’t really have a strong look and is the least popular with geeks I derided a few sentences ago [‘cause their “guys that was a bad choice” casting instincts are better than their proactive casting ideas].

What about Biel? Well, she’d be a perfectly solid choice. She can act, she can do action, she has a good look and frankly deserves to be working more [she would have made a great Black Widow] but somehow I’m just not feeling her in the red white and blue. Now, that is kind of arbitrary but what else can I say. Just thinking that maybe Biel poisoned this particular well with a yeti turd called Blade Trinity.

Wilde falls into almost the exact same category. We’ve seen that she’s pretty darn good actress, that she can do action or at least be cast to do action – i.e. she’s the kick-ass warrior program in Tron Legacy and she’s currently shooting Cowboys & Aliens [which you may feel free to read as the geeks would pretty much f-king love to see her snag the part]. And so would I, but I’m just plain not sure I’d pick her.

That being the case I’m pretty sure you’ve just guessed who I would pick …   Evangeline Lilly. Now to be fair to the others, they’ve all got about two inches worth of super heroic height on hee. But Lilly’s a damn good actress and more importantly perhaps, is clearly the most naturally athletic actress on the list. She also has what’s arguably the best look for the part of the four – somewhere between Rossum’s too wholesome to kick a minotaur’s ass and Wilde’s just a tad too villainess to eat apple pie.  She’d also be a popular choice among geeks but that, in the end, is not the factor that’s sold me. That factor would be how she knows – as in broke her self-imposed no movies during Lost rule to work with – one of the maybe three directors who should even be allowed with 100 yards of a Wonder Woman film … Kathryn Bigelow. Which reminds me of the other reason Lilly makes the most sense … because, if the two team up to do something else, it will probably be Last of the Amazons [James Cameron owns the rights] which will kill any chance of making Wonder Woman dead – as in as dead as Jeb Bush’s chances of being president.  So my advice – not that you asked, but I gotta fill this blog with something – pull the trigger before your friends at Fox beat you to the dynamic duo.

Just one more piece of advice thing before I sign off – and frankly, this last thing is the most important thing … Do. Not. Fuck. Up. If you’re in a suit and on the Warner’s lot you might want to read that again because this is basically just for you. You see, Wonder Woman isn’t the Fantastic Four or The Ghost Rider or Wolverine or Catwoman; she isn’t even Batman, Superman or Spider Man. She is in a category of her very own. Why? Well, take a look around the room. See that woman over there who clawed her way into your little corporate frat house through sheer force of will? She wore Wonder Woman footy pajamas.  Her little sister, who has never read a comic book in her life, uses a Wonder Woman action figure to set her cubicle apart.  Their mom carried a Wonder Woman lunch box to elementary school and their  cool aunt had a Lynda Carter poster on her bedroom wall so large it fucking dwarfed the Peter Frampton poster next to it.  What I’m trying to say here is that if you really want to find out what it’s like to have Hillary Clinton, Laura Ingram, Sarah Palin, Tina Fey and basically every woman you know or know of  pissed off at you, as in reaching for their nut-crackers and thinking of yours—Screw around and fuck up Wonder Woman.

The other day I got into a conversation with a co-worker concerning how the right-wing’s off stated desire to partition the country would be just fine with both of us [just as long some manner of land swap could be arranged for Austin]. Now usually that kind of separatist talk amongst self identified progressives would have led my nerd thoughts back to all of that [true, interesting, but somewhat misguided] Urban Archipelago talk that followed Kerry’s loss, but on this occasion – instead – I started thinking about Angelina Jolie, Rachel Sklar, Michael and Shelby Steele [no relation to the best of my knowledge], that weird tea party representative lady who happens to be black and Mr. Potato Head himself … Ron Christie.

Click here to view the embedded video.

If that reads like an odd stream of thought to you, it probably should. But bear with me for a minute ‘cause I think maybe I can explain.   You see this thought all happened like this … there was a news item noting that Jolie’s interest in playing the decidedly not-so Nordic Cleopatra had stirred up some sort on controversy in the wake of The Last Airbender’s let’s just say having been whitewashed thing but rather than become annoyed or disappointed – as I had upon hearing the Airbender news, my thoughts flashed  through Jolie’s activism in New Orleans, in Africa and through her rather magnificent portrayal or Mariane Pearl in A Mighty Heart and arrived at this thought … that “we” [meaning the naturally browner than not as opposed to say John Boehner - pictured here] should take Jolie, that it was good deal,  that we should even trade someone we weren’t so fond of to the “other team” and from here onward consider Angelina one of “ours” [which I must add would considerably bump up “our” profile in Hollywood]. And later when the Cleopatra thing came up in conversation with an only semi-ironic afro-fist-pic owning film school buddy of mine, I explained my thinking and after a mere moment of balk, he agreed. [What? We’re film geeks and she was fking awesome in Mighty Heart].

So anyway, I didn’t think about this again for awhile until one day when I flipped off a Mr. Potato He … I mean, Ron Christie appearance on the Ed Show and came across Sklar’s Daily Beast piece … “The Unbearable Whiteness of Cable” which so entertainingly expressed so many of my frustrations with cable news—especially whenever the subject of race pops up, as it has in recent days—that my tweet linking to it went something like “I am absolutely ready to vote Sklar in as an honorary sister after reading this” … Now obviously I was at least half kidding on both occasions. Maybe even more than half kidding.

But then there’s the remaining part where I absolutely wasn’t. And frankly that’s the part that popped into my head yesterday. You see, not only would I be more or less honestly willing to broker some kind of Sklar for Shelby and or Michael Steele hostage swap with representatives of Sarah Palin and company, after everything idiotic and ill-informed re race that’s been said on my TV [well, mostly on my live stream but still] I’d  also eagerly swap journalist folk like Sklar, Chris Hayes, Ana Marie Cox, Adam Serwer and Dave Weigel [just for example] for the likes of well, basically everyone currently hosting an evening cable “news” or Sunday morning “news” program … and yes I do mean everyone. [Chris, Keith and even Rachel]. Yes of course there are degrees here … Wolf = typically flat fucking offensive disaster vs. Chris = well intentioned but generally condescending fucking disaster [see Tuesday’s “How Can People Be So Heartless” Hardball sing-along] vs. a Rachel, whose  on and off ineptitude on race related subjects is usually blunted by discussion partners such as Cox or Melisa Harris Lacewell but it’s middling ineptitude nonetheless. And here’s what I’ve been getting at here [sorry, I know it’s about time], if this country’s going to have a black president for the next two to six years and maybe another one not long afterward [Cory Booker 2020 FTW!] the current sorry ass state of affairs of re race on TV news is simply going to have to end.

To be honest, I’m not one-hundred percent sure which internal factors separate a Chris “word to your mother” Hayes from a Chuck Todd or a John “Breitbart helps spark debate on racism” King from an Ana Marie Cox – whose startlingly precise vivisection of Michael Steele’s insulting appearance at Howard University was just cool to hear for a change [I’d link to it but Air America sucks for having taken all that stuff with them].  What I mean is that in someone like Matthew’s case, it’s pretty obvious that his thinking and speaking on race is simply burdened by history [i.e. being one of those always stuck in the 60s boomers]. But when it comes to Chuck Todd vs. say Dave Weigel or Chris Hayes, I’m not so sure why – the three are all in the same age bracket, from essentially the same educational backgrounds and have lived in many of the same locales but the differences are clear.  Just try to picture Todd penning or even discussing something like Weigel’s Megyn Kelly’s Minstrel Show post or ending a show with Hayes semi infamous sign-off and not making your head explode in the process? So I think what I’m doing here is asking two questions … what’s different about the less-brown than not journalists who can discuss, comment or report on race in intelligent and insightful ways [read: the opposite of however Joe and Mika talked it up this morning] or just brush up against race in ways that aren’t either silly-superficial or offensive [read: Roland Martin opening his mouth]? And B) How can we – as in as a society – get those people on more news shows?

… Still waiting for those answers kids.   And Tavis, don’t think I’ve forgotten about you mfkr!

So at this point it would be somewhere beyond pointless to recount the details of the Shirley Sherrod story, everyone already knows them and I don’t really want to get into it anyway. I want to have my say and ask a fairly simple question about something else – something related and crucial to – but well, else.

Here’s what Ta-Nehisi Coates wrote today: “Taking it all in, it must be said that the landscape is as follows: We have an administration that will contort itself to defend a movement whose convention speakers call for the reinstatement of the tools of segregation. That same administration will swiftly jettison an appointee, herself the victim of homegrown terrorism, for echoing the kind of message of redemption and personal responsibility that has become the president’s hallmark on race. Andrew Breitbart says that Sherrod’s speech, not the Tea Party’s rhetoric, is the real racism. It is an argument that is as old as American white supremacy, and one that this administration, through its actions over the past week, has tacitly endorsed.”

Click here to view the embedded video.

Later Coates  added: “Thus the Obama’s administration strategy here is not simply a reatreat in the face of racist inversion (as bad as that is), it’s a retreat from defending the livelihood of Americans in need. Many of those people, possibly most of those people, are not black. Racist inversion, like the racism it springs from, is a cluster-bomb. Being white gets you a running start, but it does not get you in the clear.”

Now here’s Adam Serwer from last Night: “For all the left’s mocking of Andrew Breitbart, in the post-ACORN era the Obama administration seems to have taken a reflexive supine position on any selectively edited “bombshell” stories he happens to produce. In this case, Breitbart responded to the NAACP’s request that the Tea Party purge the racist elements of its movement by releasing a selectively edited video (Breitbart claims he didn’t edit it himself) of Shirley Sherrod, the USDA’s development director of Georgia, telling an audience at an NAACP gathering she discriminated against a white farmer because he was white.”

Here’s what Rachel Maddow had to say …“Dear White House, dear administration: believing conservative spin about what’s so wrong with you and then giving into that spin is not an effective defense against that spin. Just buying it and apologizing for it, and doing whatever they want you to do doesn’t make the problem of them lying about you go away. In fact, it makes it worse… The huge tide of negative publicity that followed these video tapes and the coverage they got on Fox wall-to-wall was a dishonest political stunt that bears no resemblance to journalism and no resemblance to the actual facts of what happened. But it worked. Means be damned, in the end it worked.”

They weren’t alone. And if you’re here reading this, you already know that … twitter has been on fire for two days as #p2 personae’s such as @JamilSmith and @owillis have – let’s just say – taken the Obama Administration to task for the President’s  unwillingness to defend Yosi Sergant, Van Jones, Sherrod and others by engaging Fox and Friends [read: the conservative media in general] in a racially charged debate. As have a variety of liberal bloggers, two reporters I couldn’t quite make out in the tiny live stream of today’s White House Press Conference literally asked Robert Gibbs “Robert, during the campaign, particularly during the speech on race in Philadelphia, the President said he would use every opportunity to advance dialogue on race.  Since taking office the President has had numerous opportunities or these teachable moments to advance the dialogue on race.  Why hasn’t he done more to advance the national discussion on race and race relations?” And then another reporter added this jewel: “But why do you — I mean, a lot of this — part of the reason why people reacted so quickly I think at the end of the day is because this is about race.  Why do you think this issue of race remains so inflammatory?” [no really that’s what was said kids]. And Now Ed Shultz and company are busily proclaiming the Administration’s unforgivable-n-unmanly fear of Roger Ailes Land.

But that’s all mostly full of yeti-shit because this isn’t just a story about race and the rightwing attack media, it’s also story about race and the mainstream media  and so here’s my question for them all, and in all honestly, this has been my question since the first complaint-barbs  were aimed at President Obama in reference to him “running away” from race related news items like say ACORN or Skip Gates and most recently regarding Shirley Sherrod’s firing … Do you not understand how galactically awful MSNBC and CNN are at talking through race issues? Did you not watch Chris Matthews well intended but at best lamentable “Race in America” special [so startlingly superficial that not even Melissa Harris Lacewell’s participation could redeem it]? Have you forgotten that when Eric Holder called us a nation of cowards when it came to talking about race even non-conservative, non-sixties-obsessed-boomer Matt Taibbi incredulously asked after what he’d been smoking?

So seriously – Ta-Nehisi, Adam, Rachel, all of you - what’s President Obama – what’s his administration’s other option again? What would be gained? Who would be better off for it? Are you honestly suggesting that he open up the only can of worms that could possibly give us a President Palin? And more importantly if you are, where are you suggesting he open it? Between George Will and Katrina vanden  Heuvel? Hosted by David Gregory? Where?

Right now, as I type this, Chris Matthews is talking about To Kill a Mockingbird in reference to this story, yesterday he was quoting Hair [yes the source of all those girl’s named “Scout” and yes the musical]. It is not  – you’ll allow me to observe – the most helpful  chat on the subject of  race I could imagine … And I mention him not because this represents one of worst conversions on race that stories like Sherrod’s prompts, I mention Matthews because his will certainly be one of the better ones.  Which is to say that the capacity of our current media to host any meaningful discussion of or reportage on race is so pathetic it’s frankly obscene.   My point … reflexive fear of Glenn Beck just isn’t the fucking problem here – and rather obviously isn’t. If the administration’s worried about anything it’s what would be said about race by Wolf Blitzer or Roland Martin or by someone standing next to Wolf Blitzer or Roland Martin [like say Jesse or Al or Tavis or Dyson or that guy who looks like Mr Potato Head or … wait, have I already pointed out that fucking Roland Martin and his ascot would be involved?]. And before I listen to or read another “President Obama’s a coward on race” story slash screed, I’d like someone – anyone – thinking of penning or airing one, to say where, when and in what mythical American media universe that productive fight and or conversation could occur? I’d like them to just admit up front that  what they’re requesting, expecting and or longing for is clearly fucking impossible in today’s media environment. That launching a complaint about Obama’s unwillingness to dive into one is roughly as reasonable as critiquing his unwillingness to fly around the earth until its rotation reverses and causes time to move backward so that he can save Lois Lane’s life.  Now maybe that won’t always be true.   But it’s sure as shit true today.

Or As Jamelle Bouie wrote yesterday: “It’s been almost two years since America collectively patted itself on the back for electing a black president. And since then, we’ve proved conclusively that we are a nation of cowards when it comes to race.  I’m just wondering when we’re going to finally grow up?”

“Loeb told CBR News, adding that after catching the first flight from Los Angeles to New York Monday morning to meet with Marvel Publisher Dan Buckley, the job has so far involved finding a way to make Marvel’s independent publishing identity work with Disney’s broader broadcast division. “We (Marvel and Disney) all want the same thing: to make the best shows with the best talent. Marvel Television will approach each project the way publishing does with the comics and Marvel Studios does with the movies — get the right people who understand and love the characters.” The writer acknowledged that while superhero TV has grown outside the occasional kitsch attempt drama over the past decade, Marvel hasn’t had as strong a hand in that growing genre in the same way it has in other media. All the while, genre-driven shows as varied as “Battlestar Galactica” and “Burn Notice” each have considerable followings and big budgets without the backing of network TV, and in part, that paradigm shift helped the newly merged Marvel/Disney company bring him into his new role. “Marvel waited for the right situation to present itself before getting into live series,” he said. “With Disney the opportunity is perfect. Between ABC Studios and ABC Family combined with the networks ABC, ABC Family, Disney Channel, Disney XD, ESPN – who could ask for anything more? When we look at the best of ‘genre’ television, the stuff that sticks out for me is what’s been driven by the vision of a super talented creator/show runner. Damon Lindelof on ‘Lost.’ Joss Whedon on ‘Buffy.’ Al Gough and Miles Millar on ‘Smallville.’ And as it happens, these guys are also big Marvel fans. What we will be looking for is that kind of energy for Marvel Television. People who understand and love both mediums.”

Click here to view the embedded video.

That pretty much spawned a lot of “Which books/characters should marvel adapt to TV?’s

My answer:

Three words … Patsy Walker: Hellcat!!! [which should star Deborah Ann Woll]

Ok – you caught me – that was nine words, but still … what kind of self respecting comic book geek wouldn’t watch that show? More importantly, it has virtues starting with how unlike too many of the other marvel show suggestions that have been offered up in blog posts just like this one  (cough: Luke Cage, Power Man + Iron Fist and adapts of various sub X-Men X books) Hellcat isn’t going to be staring in her own film – or even her own film development deal – anytime soon. And unlike great comics like Alias, [which also received more than its share of yea make that votes] a Patsy Walker: Hellcat show would depend on marvel continuity references for added humor rather than for critical points of its main story lines. And the final sell point; Hellcat even has a topical villain [yeah, say it with me kids] … Roxxon Oil!

Now a couple of seven to twelve folks out there in comic book geek Blogger-land have argued in response to the news that there will be a marvel show or shows that “it should be male fronted because female fronted shows haven’t done so well” … To which your friend and humble narrator is forced to respond with a sobering dose of reality + a history lesson … It’s the genre films with female leads that have run some trouble [though the Underworld and Resident Evil films seem to have done pretty well box office-wise]. On TV the female lead fronted genre shows have done as well and arguably better than most – both creatively and ratings-wise.  This soon after Dollhouse and Sarah Connor crashed and burned [Connor ratings-wise  and Dollhouse—did anyone else lose the ability to watch the show after Sierra’s origin was revealed? I mean, how were we supposed to not root for the place to be burned down after that?] but where was I? O’ yeah … It may be tempting to look at their fate and forget all about Xena, La Femme Nikita, Dark Angel, Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Veronica Marrs, Tru Calling, Charmed [crap - but that sh-t ran for-ever!], Ghost Whisperer plus Medium [also craptasticalishous but not exactly what you’d call ratings poison] and then of course there was Alias and the simple fact that genre shows from Heroes and Battlestar Galactica to Fringe are more or less built around their female stars. Fringe plot-wise and Heroes and Battlestar Galactica popularity-wise [meaning by the way that there are simply more actresses than actors capable of carrying such a show].  So anyway, even though it may be tempting to apply the lamentable cinematic success rate of turkey’s like Catwoman and Aeon Flux to the question of which B or C grade marvel hero should get his or her own show, but it wouldn’t exactly be accurate or helpful to.

Which brings me neatly to my back-up choices … starting with how my second choice would be a Dazzler adaptation  staring someone whose been criminally underused on the big screen … namely Kristen Bell; who—for those who haven’t seen the musical Reefer Madness—can  sing, dance, do action and be beloved by geeks all at the same time. Third choice would be a Cloak and Dagger adaptation staring maybe Mehcad Brooks and say Sarah Carter [what? I really enjoyed DOA, don’t judge]. Fourth and finally I can’t help but wonder how a network, other than Fox, could miss with a Jessica Drew: Spider Woman adaptation starring say … the only reason many geeks get up in the morning – wait for it – Summer Glau!

Bonus thought … The Starjammers

Ok so for about the last day and half I’ve been trying to think of a name. We [meaning the United States] desperately need someone to replace the decidedly disappointing  Karl Eikenberry as U.S. Ambassador in Kabul … The thing is that name would need to belong to a person who was a couple a three to seven or eight rare things all once.  But the right person, the right person could, well … actually make the difference.

Click here to view the embedded video.

The person would need to understand counterinsurgency and nation building, get along somewhere between famously and reasonably-well with David Petraeus, be a devotee of the respect school of foreign policy [100% necessary for any deal making in the region], have experience in conflict zones, be able to speak for the President  [which is to say be known to have his ear and blackberry's number]and maybe have some experience with Islamic states in general and the region in particular. Now that’s a long frackin’ list [and I probably left a couple of  three things out] and as a result I’ve only been able to come up with one name to match its requirements [infer some drum roll stuff here] … Samantha Power – yes that Samantha Power – also the current Director of Multilateral Affairs over at the National Security Council.

[But please feel free to counter with any alternate names that occur to you guys?]

Crazy as it may sound upon first utterance, Power may be the obvious and only choice. Just look at the facts … Her think-tank at Harvard [and buddy Sarah Sewall] collaborated in the crafting of the Petraeus counterinsurgency manual—in fact she wrote a forward to the published version. Do you ask someone do that for your book if you hate their guts? [And not that it’s the same thing but she seems to have gotten on famously with Wes Clark]. Now where was I? O’ yeah “understand nation building” … Power was hired by then Senator Obama specifically to work on issues of Nation building. Has pushed the “respect” theory of foreign policy quite forcefully for like years now. Has spent time in the former Yugoslavia, Zimbabwe and Sudan – so, you know, conflict zones thing check. But can she speak for the President? Well yeah. She and Obama don’t appear to be as close as Daddy Bush and James Baker or anything but they’re definitely friends [and her husband, Cass Sunstein and the President have been friends since his University of Chicago days]. Now all that said Power’s experience in Islamic states and with the region is minimal, so she’s not the perfect choice. But I don’t see that a “perfect” choice exists. How about you crazy kids?

The job left on the ground in Afghanistan will require the same sort of ethic and approach Power’s hero – Sergio Vieira de Mello – brought to bear. And with the aroma of fresh McClusterfuck still ripe in the air, it’s definitely the time to make a change.

Ok so it’s pretty obvious that Evan Bayh is “retiring” because he’s an angry … angry … angry little girl-man forever stuck at the brink of womanhood. He’s angry at us liberal activists primary voter types for having ignored him, he’s angry at lefty bloggers for criticizing whenever he acts like he’s Evan Bayh, angry at President Obama for rejecting him, and angry at the Senate for not having gone along with his attempts at hissy fits but most of all I’m guessing he’s mad at this semi legendary liberal Senator named Burch Bayh for having been a better man – who  actually could have been president – and his Daddy all at the same time.

So yeah Evan Bayh is one seriously angry empty haircut and soon to be former senator but why is that? Well think about the last three years of his life … He had to drop his going nowhere run for presidency and support Hillary Clinton’s on the off chance – or perhaps promise – that he would be named her VP and that might have worked out for him but the possibility of him as Vice President actually became an occasionally cited reason not to support Clinton and then Senator Barack Obama just did so well that it quickly became clear that even if Clinton had won, Obama as her VP was probably gonna be the price of party unity.

So he pouted out the end of the primary season and then latched onto Nominee Obama like one those friends that you don’t really want but who’s feelings you don’t want to hurt, in hopes of being his VP – even giving interviews on the subject of how compatible they were personally and politically. That didn’t really work out so well so he tried to form a centralist gang of fifteen and make himself a big man in the senate, but since Mark Warner and Claire McCaskill are both smarter than he is, that didn’t really work out either.

Click here to view the embedded video.

Now he’s pulling this My Super Sweet 16 style pubescent fit slash retirement stunt only days before Indiana’s filing deadline  because it’s apparently finally dawned on him that he’s never – ever – going to be president.  And well, he’s right.  If Biden – God bless him – keeled over tomorrow or retired after 2012, moronic pundits would talk about Bayh as on the short list of replacements but he’d never actually make it on it.  I mean how could he ever … why would anyone in their right mind put Bayh’s name before Clinton’s  or Warner’s or McCaskill’s … No Bayh isn’t going to be VP if Biden retires and he isn’t going to get the nom in 2016 and even if an asteroid  struck the capital and only he survived we’d still all vote for Brian Schweitzer instead … ’cause Bayh’s an empty haircut disliked for good reason by the kind of Dems who vote in primaries and snot-wrenchingly boring even by CSPAN standards besides.  And having realized the above,  Senator Bayh decided to make one last wanker move on his way out the door.

Well Evan, I hope you’re finally happy now.