It seems that most pundits get confused about the Tea Party movement thinking that it is in the political center. It is purely focused on fiscal responsibility and limited government. Since it does not focus on social issues, it is open to anyone who desires more freedom, lower government spending, and smaller federal government.

It's called the "Oil Drum" at 7/11. It is next to the Double Gulp cups. And it comes with a sling so your arms don't get tired holding it. But I have never seen them sold inside movie theaters. ??? My guess is that is Moore waddles down to the 7/11 during his government mandated smoking break at 10:30 and gets himself one. With the sling, he can smoke and still drink his favorite soda.

Steven:

You said "be tender to the helpless." I am a right-wing, tea party nutjob who believes in the US Constitution, smaller government, low taxes, and low national debt. And I am feeling pretty helpless right now.

Thanks for your concern

Exactly. It wasn't too long ago in human history that this guy would be hanging from a tree somewhere "fur what he done."

If we can have a congressional hearing on whether college football's BCS is a good thing, why can't Congress get their ass in gear and bring all of these liars and thieves into a hearing and give them a ham-fisted pummeling. Timmy Geithner got his a few weeks ago. Where's Al's?

I think Roger Ebert deserves our pity and support. Anyone who can subject themselves to thousands of utterly meaningless, awful movies over the course of decades should be under a more regular psychological evaluation schedule.

The fact that we, the Puffington Host, or normal-minded Americans should even begin to care what Ebert thinks is baffling to me. Clearly, the man has been scarred for life due to all of the "hits" his mind has taken over the years. An individual can only take so much abuse. I wouldn't listen to a punch-drunk Muhammad Ali on matters of governmental policy, why should we care what a punch-drunk Ebert thinks?

We owe him a debt of gratitude for watching movies like Pecker so we don't have to. Give the man some rest and leave him to drool in the corner of his funny farm.

This particular skit was not very funny, but I also believe that we have skin that is too thin. It was more about Rahm than Palin. Sometimes I think that SNL can't win. Once, they tried to make fun of the media going to Alaska to dig up dirt on Palin. Again, it wasn't funny. But it also wasn't designed to attack Palin directly. But many on the right seemed to interpret it that way.

My patience is worn out with SNL. Mostly because it just isn't that funny. Last week, they had two different skits attempt humor with the "Don't ask, don't tell" policy. There isn't much humor in this topic from any side and they did TWO SKITS!! What are their writers thinking? The actors are decent. But the writers are simply awful.

There is so much material that the Obama administration cranks out every week. It isn't that hard. I can't believe that comedic writers desire to be this partisan. It really is bizarre.

PS: The other week (with Jon Hamm?) was pretty good. The Scott Brown skit was funny. As was the Sergio digital short and the Ham & Buble skit. So it is possible for them, but it is such a chore for the audience to endure the tripe to find a few decent morsels of quality.

All it will take to completely destroy the narrative is to find a way to replace the associated press. If Breitbart can do this, then the MSM will become meaningless to the public. The news networks have already been compromised. The NY Times and other major papers are slowly becoming relevant and are financially dying. The AP is the last brick in the wall. We have plenty of pundits and "experts" on both sides of the spectrum. But the liberal side still reports the actual news (only small exception is Fox News). And ultimately the only way to control (and hopefully abolish) the narrative is to report (not comment) on the actual news.

I too need to rewatch, but to me it seems that the whole point of the movie is that David is a machine. The A stands for artificial, not real. John, you might know a bit about the evolution of this film. I do not, but it seems that Spielberg simply added the end to make himself feel better. He is great at having you leave the theatre feeling good about the experience. Kubrick wanted you to leave feeling empty, alone, or confused. I just figured that a perfect ending for a movie about artificial intelligence would be having that intelligence spending thousands of years staring at what he thought was his mother-- almost poetic knowing everything he had endured to get to that point.

PS: Though I can't really remember it, but from what I can recall, I definitely agree with you about the answer guy schtick.

A.I. would have been a masterpiece if Spielberg had left well enough alone and simply kept the boy David sitting on the bottom of the Hudson River staring at the statue for eternity. It would be have a classic Kubrick ending. Unfortunately, his "E.T." radar took over and completely ruined the ending.

Why do we complain about Hollywood not producing these types of movies? Mike, you mentioned several great potential projects. I have thought of dozens of others as well. We know the American people will spend their dollars on these shows. Why not create a movie studio and simply produce them? We could find the capital. There are thousands of capable waiters and waitresses in LA who would jump at the chance regardless of politics. If distribution is a problem, then let's convince a right-leaning billionaire to buy a theatre chain with the express purpose of providing a place for these films. There seems to be plenty of money in the movie business. It just needs to be better channeled.

If I am missing something, please tell me. But it seems almost odd that we would gripe regularly on movies that should be made when we know there is a market for it. I mean, a movie that featured Reagan, Thatcher, Pope John Paul, and Gorby about the end of the cold war would kill at the box office.

If conservatives simply aren't talented enough to pull this off, then we need to ask the question why.