I'm going to get a little bit real here for a second because things are scary here in the U.S. right now. And we're sort of asleep at the wheel and/or distracted by various things, which is what "they" want.

"They" are the current president + his henchmen (for lack of a better word). Not his supporters outside the inner circle, though; I honestly think those poor people are just duped.

I grew up in a very "red" state surrounded by Republicans. I moved away from that, but most of my family are still Republicans. Most of my friends, however, are Democrats. Take that however you like.

Here's what I see happening, though:

Casting aspersions on journalists and news outlets. They do this because they don't want people to know the truth. So they trot out their own version of the truth—"alternative facts," which is PR rebranding for "lies." The goal is to keep us uninformed, under-informed, or wrongly informed. They want to control what we know because that's how we come to conclusions, how we make decisions, how we decide when and where and how to act.

Attacking on several fronts. The environment. Women's rights. Immigration. Education. The goal is to keep us busy so that we can't focus our opposing strength. Hey, this is an old military strategy, right? You can't fight a war on multiple fronts. Meanwhile, while we're distracted by the outrage of the day, they're doing any number of things behind our backs.

Throttling our information. Net neutrality anyone? Why does it matter? Because now the government will apply pressure to Internet and cable providers to push through the channels and websites they agree with and want us to see while making it more difficult to see and hear from opposing views. They'll swear it's legal, it's just capitalism, but it's actually a limit to free speech.

Cutting ties with our democratic allies. The trade war, pulling out from the Paris Accord and G7—the president and his cohorts have made it very clear they have zero regard for our fellow democratic countries. Meanwhile, he gets cozy with dictators. Why? Because that's what he wants: to be a dictator. And he wants to isolate us so that we have nowhere to turn while he takes over.

Nepotism. He wants a dynasty, plain and simple. So he's put his children in places of power.

Invalidating elections and hobbling our ability to vote. We're already fairly certain the 2016 election was fraudulent. Now the Supreme Court has ruled that states can strike voters from the registers. His plan is to continue getting the results he wants, any way he has to. And he's taking lessons from other dubious leaders who do the same. Why do so many GOP politicians continue to support him? Because he's promised them they won't lose their jobs come election time. And they believe him.

We've got a relatively narrow window here to make sure our country remains a democracy. We must act. Definitely we've got to ensure our voting systems are secure and the results valid. And then we need to send a message with those votes—that we refuse to become some third-world shithole dictatorship just because this man and his friends want to pillage and get rich.

World, the majority of Americans do not want him, but he's curtailing our attempts to end his would-be regime. We welcome [diplomatic] efforts on our behalf. After all, HE can't fight a war on multiple fronts either.

Movies: The Post

It's interesting to watch something like Ready Player One and then The Post. On the surface they are tonally very different. But both adhere to traditional filmmaking structure, and both are, at the core, stories of fighting the big bads who appear to hold all the power. They're both about using whatever kind of power you may have to defeat those who would strangle democracy.

I tried, while watching, to decide whether I'd know that the same director made both films. But all I could say is that I'd probably guess Spielberg made both films. If it were any other director, I might not have cottoned on. But Spielberg has a definite style (or definite styles, depending on the type of movie—I know a Spielberg popcorn film when I see one, and I know a Spielberg drama when I see one, too).

As for The Post, well, I can't say I was engrossed. I think it must be difficult to make people reading papers and trying to decide whether to publish them very interesting to watch. The end result being I didn't pay as much attention as I should have. In fact, I had a glorious moment of stupidity at the end when I asked, "Wait. Why is The Washington Post in New York?" My husband just stared at me. "You weren't really watching, were you?" he asked finally. Busted.

I think Meryl Streep's character of Kay Graham is meant to be the dramatic focus of the film—the protagonist, the sympathetic character. She has inherited The Post by what most of the people around her seem to consider a terrible accident, and so she has a bunch of men advising her and making her doubt herself. We're used to seeing Streep play a dynamo, and there's probably a reason for that; her as wishy-washy and subdued does not make for very exciting viewing. Spoilers: she eventually makes the big decision to publish the Pentagon Papers, despite all the advice not to, and despite knowing it means going to trial and possibly losing and going to jail. But the stakes here just don't feel very high, and by the time Graham grows a backbone, we've already lost interest.

There are a lot of characters here, too, a lot to keep track of. The surfeit of familiar faces is somewhat distracting. And it seems that no one character received enough time to really become established and interesting.

That said, The Post is timely in its reminder that the free press is key to democracy. In fact, it hits viewers over the head with this point repeatedly. And ends with the door open for viewers to go watch All the President's Men after. The message seeming to be that any administration that tries to squash the flow of information is usually trying to hide something much bigger and much worse. I can't say I necessarily disagree, and there's something cathartic about having all this encapsulated in a movie. Too bad the movie isn't more entertaining as a whole. We all know I love Spielberg, but this wasn't one of my favorites.

Television: Designated Survivor, "Pilot"

Yeah, so I'm a week behind on this one. But I enjoyed it for what it was: squarely network political drama.

Let's all take a moment to appreciate the utter ridiculousness of the fundamental plot. Kiefer Sutherland plays Tom Kirkman, a low-level (Housing and Urban Development, I think it was?) Cabinet member who gets tossed into a safe room during, I dunno, the State of the Union or something. He's the titular "designated survivor" in case anything should happen to the rest of the Cabinet and Congress and whatnot. And of course something does happen, leaving Kirkman as acting President.

It's all played very straight, but if you think about it too much you'll see it's pretty silly.

Still, Kiefer does a great job as a very un-Jack Bauer character thrown into a Jack Bauer situation.

I do wonder if there is/was something going on between him and that Rhodes chick, though.

Kal Penn is on hand as a speech writer who has no faith in Kirkman's abilities. And of course there is a shady, warmongering general plotting to get rid of Kirkman because clearly Kirkman has no ability to lead (based on the whole hour or so he's been in charge and his refusal to bomb everybody).

I feel like there would surely be an emergency election or something, right? But I don't know enough about how our system works to be sure, and Designated Survivor is banking on most people not knowing much either. It's one of those shows that does just enough to skirt believability. Maybe the whole election thing will come up later. When you're in scramble mode after a major attack, who has time to run for president?

Overall, I found the show amusing and entertaining, which is all I really wanted from it to begin with. I'll keep watching.

Movies: Our Brand Is Crisis (2015)

Let's start with the fact that I have never seen the 2005 documentary. So I'm basing my comments solely on this film. And it was boring.

The chief problem that I could see was that it wasn't entirely sure whether it wanted to be a comedy or taken seriously as a commentary of some kind. So it attempted to straddle the line and do both and therefore did neither very well.

The "jokes," such as they were, were weak and felt old, even for something that came out a year ago. The situations were cliché—there were scenes that I felt could've been lifted from or inserted into almost any movie. Nothing about this film felt specific. Which is weird since the setup is specific: dueling political consultants attempt to get their candidates elected as president of Bolivia.

I love Sandra Bullock (and have worked with her), but her character here—political consultant Jane—I just never felt any depth with her, never connected. Everything was at face value; there was nothing deep down. Even the ending didn't make me feel anything, and I'm sure it was supposed to. If I'd been connected to Jane, and like she'd taken me on an arc of some kind, I might have. But no. This story would have been better told from someone like Eduardo's perspective. (A young idealist working in the campaign office only to be crushed when his candidate fails to keep his promises.)

It does make me wonder why anyone wanted to remake the documentary as a dramedy that doesn't really deliver on either the drama or comedy. Maybe the documentary is amazing. And we all know Hollywood really only wants to recycle the stuff it thinks will bring in viewers. Studios have become insanely risk averse. They keep going to the same restaurants and ordering the same meals, offering us their leftovers as if we want their lukewarm, half-eaten burgers, fries, and pizza. Apparently enough of us do because some of these movies continue to make money. Sigh.

But anyway. Our Brand Is Crisis—at least this version of it—isn't much worth your time. You never really feel the crisis, nor is it funny. It just sort of lies there. Maybe it has altitude sickness.

Movies: Captain America: Civil War

Starring: Chris Evans, Robert Downey Jr., Scarlett Johansson, Sebastian Stan
Directed By: Anthony & Joe Russo
Written By: Christopher Markus, Stephen McFeely (screenplay), from the comic book by Mark Millar, using characters created by Joe Simon & Jack Kirby
Marvel, 2016
PG-13; 147 minutes
4 stars (out of 5)

_______________________________________________________

Well, I mean, it's better than Age of Ultron, right?

After so many of these movies—not just the Marvel ones, but all these superhero blockbuster flicks—here are the two things that seem to be key: banter, and seeing how many new and different ways there are to break landmarks, buildings, and other big things. Even before this movie started, we sat through the X-Men: Apocalypse trailer and the Independence Day: Resurgence trailer (movies no longer come without colons, btw), and they looked almost identical. The same stuff getting demolished in pretty much the same ways.

These movies also come in two distinct flavors now. 1. Superhero or team of superheroes fights bad guy or team of bad guys. 2. Superhero or team of superheroes fights another superhero or team of superheroes. It looks pretty much the same either way.

In Civil War we get Captain America versus Iron Man while other Avengers pick sides. The rift begins when the Avengers are asked to sign the Sokovia Accord which allows the UN to decide when and where to use the strength of the Avengers. Given all the collateral damage they've wreaked, it's not an entirely outrageous request that the Avengers adhere to some basic rules and protocols. Tony, Rhodie, Natasha, Wanda, and Vision agree. Steve, Clint, and Sam do not.

Things go further south when, at the signing of the Accord, a bomb goes off and Cap's old friend Bucky Barnes is pegged as the culprit. Cap of course moves to save/help Bucky while everyone else is after him. Cap and Iron Man amass teams, and the shootout begins. At one point they literally stand on either side of a line and face one another. Well, no one ever lauded these movies for their subtlety.

The fight scenes in this one suffer from choppy, shaky action that makes it difficult to admire. The introduction of Spider-Man makes him more annoying than anything else, too. I understand what they were going for—"What would a teenaged superhero do if invited to join up?" The answer: talk too much and be mostly obnoxious. Don't get me wrong, he's perfect for Spider-Man. Just not right for this movie.

On the flip side, I actually did enjoy Black Panther. He felt integral rather than shoehorned in like Spider-Baby.

The plot itself involves a lot of moral gray areas, and while I can commend the franchise for attempting to address these things, they do so in such a glossed over way that it feels more like them trying to balm the critics than really say anything important. The chief villain here is a man who lost his family during the Sokovia fight—he wants revenge and decides the best way to get it is to instigate infighting amongst the Avengers. But he does this in such a weirdly complicated way that one can't help but think, "Surely there was a more direct route?"

The deeper allegory here is one of America's place in the world. Should we work with other countries and come to the table to forge accords, or are we better off not allowing various sanctions to choke chain our ability to act and react? Are we puppets for other countries' agendas when we agree to rule by committee? And are we tearing our own country apart via the political rift as we line up and take sides for our upcoming presidential election?

I don't know if the writers really meant anything as coherent as all that, but I was desperately searching for something to keep my brain engaged during fight scene after fight scene.

Best moment: Bucky asking Sam to move the seat up in the car. This film could have done with a few more moments like that one.

Most awkward moment(s): Vision's apparent crush on Scarlet Witch. And why does Scarlet Witch wear that pseudo-bustier as her superhero suit? Does it "bust-ier" her powers? Or is she just planning to go clubbing afterward?

All right. I'm done here. In short, it wasn't a bad movie. Telegraphed a lot of stuff, though, and didn't really do anything all that new or interesting. Except split up the team. Because, let's face it, it's getting harder and harder to fit everyone into any one movie. Better to split them into various franchises. More money that way, too.

Television: House of Cards (American Version)

Now I'll admit I've only watched the first "chapter." I was drawn in by all the phenomenal reviews, and I have to say it is very good. But you have to like complex stories of political machinations, and you have to be willing to keep track of many people and moving parts. Otherwise you'll be lost or bored or both.

This first episode was directed by David Fincher, and it looks it. I swear that man never met a camera filter he didn't like. But it works here, and I have to wonder whether, having set the tone thus, subsequent episodes from other directors will have the same look.

Anyway, for those who might be wondering, House of Cards stars Kevin Spacey as South Carolina Congressman (and Majority Whip) Francis Underwood. With a new president in office that he helped get elected, Francis has every expectation to be nominated—and, one assumes, eventually confirmed—Secretary of State. So it comes as quite a blow when President Elect Walker doesn't keep his promise.

And so Francis decides to take matters into his own hands.

This is Netflix's take on the BBC series, produced by Netflix for subscribers of its streaming video service. I haven't seen the original, but there is definitely something vaguely Shakespearean about the whole story. Well, and Mr. Spacey does run the Old Vic nowadays. In any case, however, despite the British roots, the plot transplants nicely to American soil. Reminds me a bit of Stuart Woods' novels, too. Grass Roots. Anyone remember that one?

In short, an engrossing program for anyone with the concentration and interest to follow along. I don't have the stomach to "binge view" this one, but I expect to finish it off in a timely manner.

Movies: The Campaign

Starring: Will Ferrell, Zach Galifianakis, Jason Sudeikis, Dylan McDermott
Directed By: Jay Roach
Written By: Chris Henchy & Shawn Harwell
Warner Bros., 2012
R; 85 min
1.5 stars (out of 5)
_______________________________________________________

Dylan McDermott is just about the best thing about this movie, and that's saying something. Bad. That's saying something bad. Because McDermott is hardly in the movie at all.

The Campaign simply isn't funny. One would think with Ferrell and Galifianakis to tap into, this movie would have at least a handful of laughs in it, but it doesn't. Most of the jokes fall flat. Many more are stale. The politician caught with his mistress? Puh-leez. Big money funding a shady campaign? This is me rolling my eyes.

I will say The Campaign starts weak and gets slightly stronger as it goes on, to the point that the end is the best part (and only partly due to the fact that it's a relief the movie is over). Unfortunately, by the time things start to get even a little more interesting, the viewer's attention has already wandered.

The plot itself is cardboard: Ferrell plays Cam Brady, a North Carolinian congressman running for his fifth term. He's slated to win despite his known nasty habits because he's running unopposed—until Galifianakis' Marty Huggins throws his hat in the ring. Huggins is something of a local bumpkin, the sweet-natured son of a local bigwig. Alas, despite his meaning well, Huggins is unwittingly backed by big business looking to sell the 14th district to China.

There's something about the movie as a whole that smacks of too many creatives dipping their balls in the soup (if you'll pardon my words, but I figure I might as well be in keeping with the crude humor The Campaign leverages in place of anything that's actually funny). I can't tell whether the writers were inexperienced, or the actors and director simply strong-armed the script, or both, but the result is—as Huggins would say—a mess. I typically enjoy Will Ferrell's movies, but this one is a bust.