GW Bush = Emperor Palpatine? Who knew?

[lookout123]

Lucas at Cannes

Apparently Lucas isn't just interested in rolling nude through piles of cash earned from making a mockery of the beloved Star Wars name. Good ol' George is interested in politics, too.

CANNES, France (CNN) -- "Star Wars" director George Lucas says that although he wrote the original film during the Vietnam War, his six-part saga could apply to the war in Iraq.

''In terms of evil, one of the original concepts was how does a democracy turn itself into a dictatorship,'' Lucas told a news conference at Cannes, where his final episode had its world premiere.

''The parallels between what we did in Vietnam and what we're doing in Iraq now are unbelievable.

''On the personal level it was how does a good person turn into a bad person, and part of the observation of that is that most bad people think they are good people, they are doing it for the right reasons,'' he added.

Fox version of story

some of the dialogue in the movie seems familiar somehow...

"This is how liberty dies. With thunderous applause," bemoans Padme Amidala (Natalie Portman) as the galactic Senate cheers dictator-in-waiting Palpatine (Ian McDiarmid) while he announces a crusade against the Jedi.

"If you're not with me, then you're my enemy," Hayden Christensen's Anakin — soon to become villain Darth Vader — tells former mentor Obi-Wan Kenobi (Ewan McGregor). The line echoes Bush's international ultimatum after the Sept. 11 attacks, "Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists."

eh, whatever. if this really is the best Star Wars movie since TESB, count me a happy boy.

[Happy Monkey]

No, Cheney is Palpatine. Bush is Jar Jar.

[lookout123]

couldn't resist, could you?

[cowhead]

damn! beat me too it! I have high hopes for this one.. then again I had high hopes for the other two too..

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by lookout123

couldn't resist, could you?

Couldn't think of a reason to resist.

[lookout123]

that is called "giving in to the power of the dark side". there still may be hope for you HM - turn away from the dark side - it can lead only to destruction.

[SteveDallas]

I always saw it as more of a parallel to the rise of the Nazis. When I thought about the great social import of Star Wars at all, which was not often.

(Of course, there was that whole business with the throne room scene in Star Wars and "The Triumph of the Will."

[Happy Monkey]

It's a parallel to the destruction of any republic, from Rome to France to Germany.

[Happy Monkey]

What's ironic is that before Bush, the same sentiments would have just been accepted as dangerous/evil. Now they're partisan.

[lookout123]

HM, what is sad is when good ideals are upheld not because they are good ideals, but because they conveniently align with partisanship.

example: this morning i heard Bill Nelson (sen. from FL, i believe) say that he doesn't really have a problem with the nominee per se, but "why should the white house get to have all their nominees?"

i'm not sure, but i thought that was how it worked. the president nominates, the senate confirms or denies based on qualifications.

i am not suggesting that GWB has put the best people forward, but i am saying that the dems need to put forward the case for why someone isn't qualified or confirm them. "GW nominated them, so i don't want 'em", isn't enough IMO.

[Troubleshooter]

...having seen Ep III last night.

Political commentary much?

[lookout123]

i haven't seen it yet, so no spoilers... but was it good?

[Troubleshooter]

http://movies.msn.com/news/article.a...s=191342&mpc=1

I agree with the review but give it 3/3.5 stars.

It's easily the best of the second batch but it still doesn't measure up to the first series.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by lookout123

i'm not sure, but i thought that was how it worked. the president nominates, the senate confirms or denies based on qualifications.

Maybe ideally, but in reality, you could put "whim" in instead of qualifications, for both sides - especially during and before Clinton, where all it took was one senator from the nominee's home state to nix a nomination, no questions asked. So no, there's no long and glorious tradition of up or down votes.

If your Nelson quote is accurate, then he's an idiot, as are the Republicans who don't bother to research the nominations and just support them because Bush made them. Because there are problems with the few judges that the Democrats are blocking, whether or not Nelson knows them - only ten out of over 200 nominations were blocked. One, Priscilla Owen, is so right wing that Alberto Gonzalez called her a judicial activist several times when they served together.

However, the particular reasons for the filibusters aren't as important in terms of the Star Wars/end of a republic/rise of an empire issue as is the method by which the Republicans are trying to block the filibusters. They are attempting to change the Senate rules in order to increase their party's control of government in the long term. Unfortunately for them, it takes a two-thirds vote to change Senate rules, so they are going to bypass that rule in order to change another. Their bypass is to claim that judicial filibusters are unconstitutional, which nobody believes but many are willing to pretend, thus bringing down the hurdle to 51 votes including Cheney. The Senate Parliamentarian ( ie, the guy whose job it is to interpret Senate rules ) says this is not legal, so they are ignoring him. All this to ensure that Bush gets a 100% nomination approval rate instead of 95%.

[glatt]

What's amazing to me is that the GOP talks about the courts like they are this bastion of Liberalism. Currently, 60% of the judges were appointed by the GOP. Once Bush's nominations are confirmed, 85% of the federal judges will have been appointed by the GOP. Hardly a reflection of the make up of this country.