Let me say goodbye and good riddance to the dreadful year of 2007 by wishing you good cheer via these counterintuitive findings:flag-waving reduces jingoism

a few extra pounds won’t kill you

Happy New Year, dear readers.

Very interesting discussion of Juno over at Ross Douthat’s place:

Douthat likes the complications suggested by the movie:

I would say that Juno goes further than Knocked Up in presenting abortion as a plausible choice for a girl in the heroine’s position, and doesn’t go nearly so far as Apatow’s movie in making the advocates of abortion look like heartless creeps. And Hulburt’s right that Juno McGuff’s decision to bear her child to term is an act of personal autonomy that’s of a piece with her broader nonconformity, and that deliberately sets her apart from the conformist (and judgmental) world of parents and teachers and too-chatty ultrasound technicians.

He also hopes that other filmmakers take note of this film’s nuanced m.o.:

The only thing that’s remarkable about this cinematic approach to controversy is how rare it is in Hollywood: Juno’s shades-of-gray approach the culture wars ought to be required viewing for Brian De Palma, Paul Haggis, Robert Redford, and just about every other Hollywood filmmaker who’s turned out a lousy movie about the Iraq War in the last year or so.

Douthat’s commenters reflect that various reactions to the movie:

Perhaps it’s our different politics, but I didn’t perceive an anti-abortion message in Knocked Up. My sense is that because it’s not even ever a serious option for the parents, you don’t get a chance to really have a message one way or another. There’s never any sense that Ben and Allison keep the baby because they’re bothered by abortion.

In one of the two scenes where abortion is discussed, whatshisname looks like a heartless creep, but the other whatshisname looks like a ninny–he can’t bear to hear the word ‘abortion’ and ends the scene with him loudly calling himself a patriot as he pounds his maple-leaf tattoo. Meanwhile, Ben (the one who is actually making the decisions) is not even a part of that discussion.

An anti-abortion message would be one where someone who doesn’t really want the child keeps it because the alternative is so terrible. That’s not the dynamic in Knocked Up.

Posted by Justin | December 28, 2007 4:09 PM

“An anti-abortion message would be one where someone who doesn’t really want the child keeps it because the alternative is so terrible. That’s not the dynamic in Knocked Up.”

I’d argue that that is precisely the case in Knocked Up. In the movie, abortion is so terrible, so unspeakable, that neither of the two unplanned parents can bring themselves to discuss it as an option.

Posted by Amy P | December 28, 2007 4:21 PM

The nice thing about both movies is that the pregnant women were able to make a … yes, that’s right … wait for it … CHOICE about their lives, their futures and their families.

No one was forced to have an abortion.

No one was forbidden from having an abortion.

Posted by Woody Bombay | December 28, 2007 5:55 PM

For his part, Douthat hopes that other filmmakers take note:

The only thing that’s remarkable about this cinematic approach to controversy is how rare it is in Hollywood: Juno’s shades-of-gray approach the culture wars ought to be required viewing for Brian De Palma, Paul Haggis, Robert Redford, and just about every other Hollywood filmmaker who’s turned out a lousy movie about the Iraq War in the last year or so.

Apparently, there’s been quite a reaction to the announcement that Bill Kristol will have one of the most coveted bully pulpits in America: a column in the New York Times. I first wrote about this a couple of days ago and then went out of town.

Now the Times has been confronted. Editorial page editor Andy Rosenthal finds it easy to defend his hire:

Rosenthal told Politico shortly after the official announcement Saturday that he fails to understand “this weird fear of opposing views.”

“The idea that The New York Times is giving voice to a guy who is a serious, respected conservative intellectual — and somehow that’s a bad thing,” Rosenthal added. “How intolerant is that?”

Kristol himself is one gleeful culture warrior:

“I was flattered watching blogosphere heads explode,” Kristol told Politico. “It was kind of amusing.”

She’s not in the blogosphere, but could Kristol have meant Katha Pollitt?

Just shoot me. First, it was Sam Tanenhaus, conservative editor of the New York Times Book Review being put in charge of the News of the Week in Review section. That means one conservative will determine how politics,culture and ideas are covered in TWO of the most important sections of the supposedly liberal newspaper of record. Now, says the Huffington Post, the Times is set to announce that Bill Kristol will be writing a weekly op-ed column. That’s Bill Kristol ,Fox commentator , editor of the the Murdochian agitprop factory Weekly Standard, George W. Bush’s propagandist in chief, co-founder of the Project for a New American Century, relentless promoter of the war in Iraq , ideological bully and thug.

Kristol responded directly to that attack (via Exurban League, where you can check out his Thug 4 Life pic too):

Give a holla to my neocons in the Bay,
I’m livin’ in DC still clutchin’ on my AK.
Tell ‘em,
“Thug for life,
High till’ i die”
When ‘em stupid Nation witches ask why!

Among other spicy events to look forward to, election 2008 is about to get a little more interesting (Kristol has a one-year contract).

Bottom line, says The Politico, this is a smart business decision for the New York Times:

Despised or not, Kristol is bound to create controversy (read: Web page views). It’s no surprise that during this overheated election season Newsweek and other such magazines are bringing in political lighting rods like Karl Rove and Markos Moulitsas.

In the new media world of the early 21st century, apparently it’s no longer enough to merely attract attention. You want (or need) to attract lightning to get noticed.