Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Sioux Nation -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: CalculatedRisk who wrote (64802)	4/20/2006 3:37:00 PM
From: SiouxPal	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 362350

Here's what the Times says today about it... 'Dreamz' feels like a nightmare By STEVE PERSALL, Times Film Critic Published April 20, 2006 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ American Dreamz is a satire so toothless that it barely registers as a caricature. The Daily Show would surely jab the Bush administration, terrorism and the No. 1 show on television, American Idol, more sharply in two minutes than Paul Weitz manages in a feature-length film. This feels like an idea rushed into production without much thought and certainly without a second draft. The characters are just elemental enough for viewers to think: “Oh, Hugh Grant’s behaving like Simon Cowell, and Dennis Quaid kind of acts like President Bush.” But that’s the extent of Weitz’s ambition; he sets up targets without ever knocking them down, without even taking a clear shot at anything. Grant plays Martin Tweed, producer-host of the top-rated American Dreamz, which chooses the next pop music star. The resemblance to Cowell is unmistakable, yet Martin isn’t as caustic as the real thing. A new season is about to begin and Martin wants new faces and stories to exploit. Among them are scheming Sally Kendoo (Mandy Moore), Hasidic hip-hopper (Adam Busch) and Omer (Sam Golzari), a sleeper cell terrorist and Broadway show tunes fan mistakenly chosen over his cousin. American Dreamz could skewer contemporary music, but Stephen Trask’s original songs don’t explore the vapidity of modern pop composition. There isn’t a single laugh among the lyrics. We only get a smidgen of Martin/Simon’s insulting criticism and performances since Weitz has more to push around his plate. Meanwhile, President Staton (Quaid) awakens one morning and decides to read a newspaper, shocking his vice president (Willem Dafoe), who looks like Dick Cheney and pulls strings like Karl Rove. Imagine a president wishing to be informed by sources other than his staff through an earpiece. The president joins the season finale of American Dreamz as a guest judge. There’s absolutely no reason why the story lines should converge except Weitz wants them to. Then he doesn’t know what to do with the mix. What he settles upon is combining Omer’s suicide bombing mission and his chance to meet the president and make a deadly statement on national television. However, Omer is a terrorist with a conscience. Or maybe he just wants to win the competition. Either way, it isn’t his finger ending up on the detonator. Who has the bomb is the closest thing to a satirical statement in the movie, yet it seems tastelessly incomplete since nothing else has been as bold. Why not have the contestants band together in a terrorist-style takeover of the show? Or make the president’s vote a life or death matter? Or play up the competition between the Arab and Jewish finalists, perhaps even making them accomplices? Because Weitz never planned beyond, his premise begs another question: Why even make this movie? -- Steve Persall can be reached at (727) 893-8365 or persall@sptimes.com. American Dreamz Grade: F Director: Paul Weitz Cast: Hugh Grant, Mandy Moore, Dennis Quaid, Sam Golzari, Marcia Gay Harden, Willem Dafoe, Chris Klein, Jennifer Coolidge Screenplay: Paul Weitz Rating: PG-13; profanity, brief sexual situations sptimes.com

To: CalculatedRisk who wrote (64802)	4/20/2006 4:09:20 PM
From: T L Comiskey	Respond to of 362350

Senate Bill Shorts Gear for Troops By ANDREW TAYLOR, Associated Press Writer A Senate measure to fund the war in Iraq would chop money for troops' night vision equipment and new battle vehicles but add $230 million for a tilt-rotor aircraft that has already cost $18 billion and is still facing safety questions. President Bush's request for the emergency appropriations to cover costs of the continuing war and Hurricane Katrina recovery operations included no money for the troubled V-22 Osprey, which takes off and lands like a helicopter but flies like a plane. The Marine Corps, however, followed up with a letter to lawmakers endorsing additional V-22s, noting that it is the only active production line capable of replacing four Vietnam War-era CH-46 choppers lost since Sept. 11, 2001. Critics maintain that it's still a curious choice to be funded in a bill whose defining purpose is to replace equipment worn out or destroyed in Iraq. The Osprey, manufactured by Bell Helicopter, a subsidiary of Textron Inc., has been in development since the 1980s and has cost the government $18 billion so far. It has suffered numerous setbacks over the years, including two crashes in 2000 that killed 23 people. The Marine Corps says the program has gotten back on track since then despite an incident last month in which a V-22 momentarily took flight on its own. To pay for the Ospreys, the Senate Appropriations Committee — guided by the Corps — cut into funding for night vision goggles, equipment for destroying mines and explosives, fire suppression systems for light armored vehicles and new vehicles that can be transported into battle inside the V-22. The panel insists the equipment cuts won't affect readiness. Vice President Cheney, as secretary of defense in the first Bush administration, tried to kill the V-22, to no avail. The aircraft is popular with lawmakers, especially those from Pennsylvania and Texas, which host the manufacturing plants. "They've hijacked the bill to spend money on their toys," said Steve Ellis of Taxpayers for Common Sense, a budget watchdog group. "You have the V-22, which isn't even ready for fielding and it's getting money in the supplemental." The V-22 is but one example of the Pentagon and lawmakers using the mammoth bill to skirt limits on the already rapidly growing defense budget. For example, there's more than $3 billion in funding for an ongoing overhaul of the Army that the Pentagon admits isn't directly related to fighting the war. Meanwhile, senators have added $228 million to procure seven C-17 Air Force cargo planes that can't be completed until 2008 at the earliest — and would eventually cost a total of almost $2 billion. The C-17 cargo plane is manufactured in Long Beach, Calif., by Boeing Co. The line there is now slated to close in 2008 with the completion of a 180-plane inventory. Instead, the $228 million would purchase parts as a downpayment for building seven more planes. It would take at least another $1.6 billion to finish the job. "If it goes through, you basically force the Air Force to buy another seven planes," said a lobbyist for a rival defense contractor. The Senate will take up the $106.5 billion Iraq funding bill — which includes $27.2 billion for additional hurricane relief along the Gulf Coast — on April 25. The House passed a companion $92 billion measure last month. Generally speaking, emergency war funding bills get less scrutiny than the Pentagon's regular budget. And since they provide crucial funding for U.S. troops and equipment, most lawmakers are reluctant to criticize the bills. However, Senate Budget Committee Chairman Judd Gregg, R-N.H., is taking aim at $3.5 billion the Army requested for creating smaller, independent fighting units. Gregg wants to use some of the money to finance border security initiatives and the Coast Guard's ongoing upgrade of ships, planes and helicopters. "There's a fair amount of money in this supplemental that is not an emergency. It's essentially an attempt to pick up operational and core needs outside the usual budgeting process," Gregg said. "It's certainly in the multiple billions." The Pentagon says restructuring the Army belongs in the Iraq spending because it would accelerate transforming 5,000-man brigades into independently functioning units and facilitate troop rotations in and out of Iraq. But Gregg and others say the Army restructuring should be part of the regular budget and the Pentagon tacitly agrees; next year it will be funded that way. For now, the inclusion of the expensive restructuring project in the war funding bill is a way to avoid cutting other defense programs. ___ On the Net: Defense Department: defenselink.mil