Remember kids, reading is cool, but book clubs are cooler! Book club tonight at 8:00 pm! Be there. . . or don't.
Welcome to the first official Commentarama Book Club! Tonight's book is "The Looming Tower" by Lawrence Wright. It's about Al Qaeda and militant Islam. Feel free to drop by even if you haven't read the book.
Instructions: When the thread opens at 8:00 pm, just write your name and say hello. Then wait for us to approve you to comment. Once you get the approval, start a' commentin'!
[+] Read More...
Tuesday, February 9, 2010
Question: Second Worst/Best President?
Let's steal another question, this time from Jed. . . It was the best of Presidents, it was the worst of President. Other than Reagan who was the best President? Other than Obama or Carter, who was the worst President?
Reminder: The Book Club meets tonight at 8:00 pm EST. [+] Read More...
Reminder: The Book Club meets tonight at 8:00 pm EST. [+] Read More...
They're Not Going to Hock Illinois--For Now
Several of the Illinois political races are still up in the air, but Illinois is Illinois, so it's not going to be as simple as who wins. Aside from the Democrat winner whose family bank is going bust and is under federal investigation, the pawnbroker who won the Democrat slot for Lieutenant Governor has quit--during the Super Bowl halftime on Sunday.Scott Lee Cohen fooled the pundits, and took the Democratic nomination for the number two position in Illinois state government. During his campaign, Cohen had stated that an earlier domestic battery charge against him had been dismissed. Forgive and forget, right? Well, within minutes of his getting the nomination, it was revealed that the girlfriend who filed the charges was also a prostitute, and that the charges of Cohen holding a knife to her throat were dismissed because she was afraid to show up in court for the hearing on the charges. Quickly, more news showed up. Cohen also admitted to use of unprescribed steroids, and failed to pay child support at the same time he was pumping $2 million dollars into his own campaign.
Sounds like a typical Illinois politician to me, but apparently it was too much even for the Democrats who want desperately to elect their somewhat-cleaner gubernatorial candidate, Pat Quinn. This follows the statement of the spokesman for Illinois House Speaker Michael Madigan (who is also the state Democratic chairman) that the Speaker had asked Cohen to remove himself from the ticket. Cohen quickly complied, issuing a statement that he didn't "want to put the people of Illinois in jeopardy in any way. For the good of the people of the state of Illinois and for the Democratic Party, I will resign."
Cohen had at first refuted the criticisms, and called the allegations against him "overblown" while claiming he had been "transparent" in his disclosure of his past bad acts. We all know what transparency means for the friends of Obama in Illinois. It means "throw up a smoke-screen and pretend that you were fully honest about your past." It worked for the president, didn't it? He at first refused to consider resignation. Still, by Super Bowl weekend, the pressure from his fellow Democrats was becoming very serious.
So what happens now? Remember, this is Illinois we're talking about. No special election here. Even the common practice in other states for the gubernatorial candidate to tap a running-mate, who is then routinely approved by the appropriate authorities, is unavailable in Illinois. Using byzantine machine-politics procedures, the choice will now go to the thirty-eight member Democratic State Central Committee, which is comprised of one male and one female representative from each of the nineteen Congressional districts. So the committee that will determine who the state's lieutenant governor candidate will be is based on federal districts populated by representatives who must be rigidly one man, one woman.
Make note of the fact that the Central Committee is under no obligation whatsoever to choose one of the other candidates who lost to Cohen. Nevertheless, the Speaker's boy, State Representative Art Turner, came in second to Cohen, so he's a likely nominee. The Republican State Committee faced a similar decision in 2004, when their senatorial candidate, Jack Ryan, resigned from the nomination under the cloud of raunchy charges against him in his divorce proceedings. The Republicans took too much time to make the decision, and though there were several solid state candidates, they instead chose controversial candidate Alan Keyes, who lost handily to one Barack Obama. I remind you of the old saying that a camel is a horse put together by a committee.
Meanwhile Quinn, the Democratic governor who replaced scandal-ridden Rod Blagojevich, has at least the advantage of incumbency, but still drags the Blagojevich fiasco in his wake. Turner has stated that he is the best candidate to replace Cohen, but modestly states: "My second-place finish should not automatically give me the spot." Did you check that out with the Speaker, Mr. Turner? Republican insiders say that they are set to tie Quinn and the entire Democratic machine to the miserable conditions that are Illinois politics, and Turner would give them even more leverage. If you know Chicago politics more particularly, you'll know that Cohen was the candidate from the northside, where Turner and Speaker Madigan are south side. Although they usually link arms for a general election, this primary was bitter. Obama, by the way, is from the south side contingent, but easily got the north side's support.
The official announcement from Speaker Madigan's office says "The Speaker is prepared to work with the members of the [Democratic] Central Committee, Gov. Quinn and Senate President John Cullerton to work on selecting a replacement. We'll start with members of the Central Committee and work on ideas." I'll bet you will. Have you ever heard of John Cullerton. No? Well either has pretty much anyone else. This decision will be made by Madigan, probably with the assistance of Chicago Mayor Richard Daley. And the committee will accept the candidate--or else.
In keeping with the traditions of Chicago Democratic politics, Cohen announced his resignation at one of the largest pubs in the city, but did so from a private room set aside for honchos. The announcement was shown to the peasants at the pub on widescreen TVs located at strategic locations around the bar. Reactions among the patrons ranged from "who?" to "when does the second half start?"
[+] Read More...
Monday, February 8, 2010
As Pure As The Driven Snow
Have you ever picked up newly-driven snow, and compared it to a sheet of white paper? If not, you'd be surprised how impure driven snow really is. I purposely chose the picture to point that out. Ivory Snow took its name from that driven snow. It had a very famous series of ads and commercials featuring one Marilyn Chambers. Very pretty, very pure, and Marilyn was considered very pure herself, right up until it turned out she was a porn-flick star.OK, you say. He's gone nuts and has started fixating on porn stars and laundry detergent. This is a fringe, right-wing sleaze site after all. Sorry to disappoint, but that's not at all where I'm going with this post. The Republican National Committee recently rejected a "purity test" for vetting future candidates, and I applaud their decision. Though many will think it's a rejection of conservative viewpoints, or of Ronald Reagan's rule-of-thumb, I assure you that the RINOs haven't regained their control of the Republican National Committee.
Political naifs, all with good intentions I'm sure, tried to impose a purity test (in the form of but not the substance of Reagan's "80% rule") on the Republican Party, and the people who knew better defeated the move. Sometimes, cooler heads need to prevail, and those who believe that purity tests will ever work are going to do severe damage to the Republican Party. It is more than acceptable for genuine causes outside the party to have their own internal rules, and to attempt to make them part of the platform of major political parties. It is equally important to recognize that real politics and successful political parties are built in part on reasonable compromises.
Even the great Ronald Reagan himself espoused the "Eleventh Commandment (thou shalt not speak ill of a fellow Repubican)," but couldn't always be "pure" enough to adhere to it. He was donwright dismissive of Nelson Rockefeller and the "old guard" of the Republican Party. As for the "eighty percent rule," he routinely ignored it when political necessity called for it. He knew that guidelines and platforms are general rules of thumb, made most effective by their observance, but occasionally by their exceptions.
Ronald Reagan had a marvelous way of understanding conventional wisdom, and he most certainly understood the principle that "the perfect is the enemy of the good." A party platform which opposes abortion, for instance, should guide the candidate. But if that same candidate then found it necessary to argue for returning the issue to the power of the states, getting it out of the federal arena, he would appear to be deviating from the platform. But in fact, he would be setting the stage for abolishing abortion or greatly restricting it since the public will is clearly to eliminate "abortion on demand." That is more likely to happen at the state level than the federal. Has that candidate "abandoned principle," or actually advanced it with a sensible political compromise? In other words, is he pure enough on abortion?
Liberals in the mainstream media were quick to pick up on this misunderstanding of the issue. They essentially accused Reagan of political hypocrisy and the proponents of the purity move as ignorant fools. They got the best of both worlds--attack a great president and mock the right at the same time. But as Mr. Reagan said, "the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant, it's just that they know so much that isn't so." So why hand them the ammunition to shoot us with?
Unfortunately, the same can be said of some of our conservative friends. The Tea Party movement has its own agenda, much of which I agree with. But until it has a platform of its own and an agreed-upon leadership, I don't want it to control the Republican Party now, or perhaps ever. The very nature of the movement is a wonderful example of the people getting their message out to the politicians. But the moment it starts to attempt to dominate the actual political parties, I begin to have my doubts that it is still a popular movement with many points of view, most of which are common sense, conservative, or both. It will at that point have become a form of political party of its own, and that road leads to disaster for the Republican Party in particular, and the nation in general. You can't win the game if you lose sight of the ball.
Reagan was never able to get his social welfare cuts to go along with tax cuts. As a result, and facing a Democratic Congress, he did the best he could. It produced a new deficit, but it also produced the greatest peacetime boom in the economy in American history. Still, to emphasize my point, it didn't mean he didn't understand the Laffer Curve (the so-called trickle-down theory), he was just unable to get any of it done without compromise. Obama's "trickle-up" agenda shows what happens when a President doesn't understand the Laffer Curve and has large Democratic majorities to advance the damage done by his policies. Unlike Reagan (and contrary to his own words), he is unwilling to compromise. Speech: "I'll listen to the Republicans." Private message to the Democrats: "Ignore the Republicans, full speed ahead."
We have discussed the future of the Republican Party on this site almost since its beginning. One of the things we have suggested multiple times is that a political party needs a platform that it can stand on which doesn't build its own termites into the wood. Tea Party members, staunch conservatives, moderates and candidates can all rally around a platform that states the general principles of the party without agreeing that each candidate (or the party itself) must adhere 100% to rigid rules that prohibit reasonable compromise. A platform that is more "wish list" than bludgeon is called for. That leaves the local parties and movement activists free to hold their local candidates' feet to the fire without attempting to make it a "one size fits all" rigid purity test.
I guarantee you that the Republicans in Topeka have an entirely different view of purity from those in San Diego. A national purity test will accomplish chaos and/or defeat. An eighty-percent rule cannot be either firm or national, unless one small segment of the electorate gets control of the party, and that is a guarantee of defeat. Acceptance of general principles does not squelch our ability to continue to try to convince the majority of the rightness of our own specific agendas. A party that is perfectly pure by the standards of a small minority will remain a small vocal minority party while contemporaneously damaging the ability of the movement activists to get their agendas listened to over the broad spectrum of the American electorate. Each time the Republican Party goes down to defeat as the result of purity tests, it enables the RINOs to point fingers and say "see, conservative views just cost us another election."
Even Andrew Price and I don't agree on everything, and we couldn't produce a "purity test" that both could adhere to. But we agree on general conservative principles, and the necessity of the Republican Party to show national unity in the face of the leftist goals of the Democrats. Barry Goldwater's campaign in 1964 was a prime example of what I'm talking about. His principles were excellent, but his unwillingness to bend on anything the traditional Republicans proposed resulted in a landslide defeat and the re-emergence of the Nixon/Rockefeller/Ford wing of the party.
Ronald Reagan agreed with Goldwater's agenda, but changed the game entirely by including moderates and moderate-liberals in his efforts. He warned that the Ford presidency was the direct result of conservatives being too rigid. The hangover from Goldwater still kept him from defeating Ford in the primaries, but he won the ultimate victory after four years of Carter. Goldwater ideology combined with Reagan willingness to compromise produced a Republican landslide for the presidency by Reagan's second term. Reagan remained throughout the remainder of his life a conservative, but he was not "a lamb without blemish or spot." Anyone who believes that Reagan was a purist has a bad case of selective memory loss.
When viewing the political candidates and parties we will be faced with in the next two election cycles, I remind every conservative of the Bibilical admonition: "For all have sinned and come short of the glory of God." St. Paul and St. Peter couldn't even agree on whether gentiles could ever become Christians because they were not Jews. So which of those two saints fails the "purity test?" And if one of them fails, does that mean his words should not be listened to, or that his stature should be reduced by the proportion of his failure?
For all these reasons, and many more, I believe the Republican National Committee made exactly the right decision. Now it's time for them to start preparing those general principles which will evolve into the national Republican platform. If the principles are too liberal, they will fail. If the principles are moderate-conservative, they will succeed. But if they are entirely "pure," it will be a disaster of epic proportions. The left knows that and encourages it, even as it derides purity in order to whip up the ultraconservatives and Tea Party members. It's time for conservatives to wake up to the same reality.
The next time you view the driven snow, enjoy its beauty, but don't count on its purity.
[+] Read More...
Captioning: IQ Testing For Dummies
Before making his recent politically-incorrect point, Rahm Emanuel quizzed each member of the cabinet to test their ability to count to seven without the benefit of their second hands. Seen here, Timmay Geithner fails the test.
[+] Read More...
[+] Read More...
Obama Lays A Health Care Trap
Obama said this weekend that he wants to meet with the Republicans in a televised negotiation to discuss health care. As a lawyer, I know what he’s doing, and the Republicans need to be very, very careful. This is a trap.Many years ago, I was involved in a trial in federal court. I had a co-counsel with me at the time because we represented multiple plaintiffs. By our agreement, I did most of the trial, including the opening, and he handled some of the cross examinations and the closing. A closing is the argument that takes place at the end of the trial. The plaintiff’s attorney always goes first, with the defense attorney following. After that, the plaintiff’s attorney gets to present a rebuttal closing, but this is limited to responding to the points made by the defense.
What I didn’t know until after the trial began was that my co-counsel, who had only done defense work before, couldn’t frame an argument to save his life. . . his strength lay in tearing down the other guy’s argument. Unfortunately, since we represented the plaintiffs, we had to go first. That meant he had to put together an argument that told the jury why we had met the burden of proof.
As the time of the closing approached, it was obvious that he couldn’t do it. But I knew something about the defense attorney. I knew his type. He was a typical big firm attorney, which meant that he had an excellent pedigree, looked great in the suit, but was absolutely out of his league once the trial began. It also meant that he would methodically lay out his case in his closing, no matter what we did in our closing.
Hence, I told my co-counsel to forget the closing: “Just give a short, simple statement, and sit down. Let the other guy give his closing, let him lay out his case, and then get up and tear his presentation apart in the rebuttal closing.” He did, and it took less than twenty minutes for the jury to come back in our favor.
The reason this worked so well was that by focusing the entire closing on attacking the defense case, we subtly shifted the burden of proof onto the defense. In so doing, we basically led the jury to believe that they should rule in our favor if they didn’t find the defense’s case persuasive. Thus, even though the law said that we had to prove that we were right, the jury came to believe that we only had to show that the defense was wrong.
This may sound like an esoteric point or a distinction without a difference, but I assure it’s not. There are very powerful psychological forces at work when humans assess who has the burden of proof. We instinctively demand greater proof from the person who we view as needing to prove their case, and we demand significantly less from the person who appears to be arguing for leaving things as they are. By making it appear that the defense was the one trying to convince the jury, we made ourselves into the party asking the jury to “leave things as they are,” even though we weren’t.
To put this into non-legal terms, think about it this way. When your friends present you with a choice of “let’s go to restaurant X unless you disagree,” you are much more likely to end up at restaurant X than if they said “would you prefer restaurant X or Y,” and far more likely than if they said “let’s go to Y unless you really want to go to X.” This is because there is a human bias that favors leaving things as they are.
This is exactly what Obama is trying to exploit. He’s tried everything he can think of to sell his health care plan, and none of it worked. He talked about the need to cover the uninsured. . . no takers. He claimed it would save us billions of dollars in health care costs. . . no takers. He talked about history. . . no takers. He blasted the evil insurers and greedy doctors. . . no takers.
So now he is trying to shift the burden of proof to the Republicans. If he can get them to put forward their own plan, then he can poke holes in that plan and he can argue to the public that the Republicans have failed to present an adequate alternative. If he does this right, then he can frame the Republicans as the ones wanting a change and his plan as representing leaving things as they are. He will have done to the Republicans what we did to the defense attorney. Hence, this is a trap for the Republicans.
So how do the Republicans avoid the trap? First, they should have rejected his invitation:
But they already agreed. So now they need to focus on avoiding giving him a target. One thing they could do would be to present a list of general principles rather than any specific ideas. For example:“If Obama isn’t willing to start from scratch in a bipartisan manner, to do this right, then we aren’t going to provide him political cover as he crams a horrifically destructive bill down the throats of the American taxpayer.”
But this runs the risk of looking like obstructionism. Thus, what I would recommend would be to prepare a list of specific proposals that few would object to. I would test these through a series of trial balloons to warm up the public before they are introduced and to weed out any that might cause a public backlash. Here are my suggestions:“We need a plan that lowers the cost of health care for all Americans, that protects the uninsurable, and doesn’t harm our world class health care system, doesn’t drive doctors out of the profession, doesn’t close hospitals, and doesn’t leave millions of seniors out in the cold.”
And if they need something “to save Medicare,” talk about possibly raising the qualification age for Medicare benefits to 70 in some number of years. But don't talk about anything painful or unpopular at this time, because that's what Obama needs.• Granting a federal medical license to let doctors practice in any state.
• Allowing insurers to offer insurance across state lines.
• Increasing the size of medical savings accounts.
• Malpractice reform (as we outlined in CommentaramaCare) to cut medical costs.
• Allowing doctors to operate fixed price medical plans, like I mention in CommentaramaCare.
• Eliminating overlapping federal bureaucracy.
Finally, whatever they do, they need to do two things. First, they need to repeatedly make it clear that Obama has the burden, and they need to emphasize that the third choice is to do nothing. . . to leave things as they are. I would recommend this:
Secondly, they need to pound home in every sentence they say during this conference (no matter how rude it may seem) the words “Obama deficit” and “Democratic deficit,” and they must never let the public forget for even a minute that they have been called in to help clean up a Democratic mess.“We should not do something that will destroy our medical system, raise all of our costs, wipe out Medicare, and bankrupt America just because the Democrats want to get a plan done before the election. We need to take our time and do this right.”
That’s how I see it.
[+] Read More...
Sunday, February 7, 2010
The NFL: An Abject Lesson For America
With everyone watching the Super Bowl (me included), I’m probably talking to myself. But here goes. . . Football truly is America’s game. Indeed, it is a microcosm of America itself. Yet, over the past 20 years, with the growth of the NFL, the game has changed significantly for the worse. In that change lies a warning to America itself.The game of football uniquely represents American values. Like America itself, it is a game that requires a constant mix of team work and individual talent -- as compared to games like soccer where individual talent is almost meaningless. It is a game that lets you succeed in any number of ways, from strength to speed to specialized skills or brains, just like the American dream offers many paths to success. In America, anyone can succeed, whether they are smart, strong, skillful, or simply hard working. Football also prizes hard work and rewards risk taking, just like America.What Football Was
Moreover, there is a psychological aspect of football that seems uniquely American. In other sports, scoring is about exploiting a weakness in your opponent; you find the hole in your opponent’s defense and sneak through it to score. That’s not football. Football is about making your own opportunities, about seizing control from the other team and establishing your own destiny.
There are other aspects of football that mirror America as well. . . at least, there used to be. It was one of the first sports to integrate because it didn’t care what you were, so long as you could play. It was also a game that anyone could play regardless of class. You didn’t need to be rich to learn the basic skills (like golf), nor did you need to live in the right part of the country (as you did with hockey because you needed ice), nor did you need to be born into a football family or learn to play from birth. Nor did you need to be born with certain skills (like pitchers) or with certain physical traits (like basketball requires abnormal height); indeed, football uniquely offers a position for anyone to play. In that way, football is like achieving the American dream, anyone could become a great football player so long as they have the drive to succeed.
Thus, football was the epitome of the American dream. Anyone, from anywhere, could learn to play, and they could succeed in any number of ways so long as they worked hard to make themselves into a success. But that was then . . .
Over the past 20 plus years, football has changed dramatically, and for the worse. As the NFL grew, the focus of the game shifted to money. Teams became worth billions of dollars and profit became all that mattered. Indeed, football stopped being about the sport entirely. It became a business. . . the biggest of big businesses.The NFL Changes Football
Today, the NFL is driven entirely by the profit motive. Owners hire teams of consultants and lawyers to exploit everything they can touch. They hold up cities for stadiums, not to benefit the fans or make the game better, but to squeeze an extra few million out of luxury boxes. Historic jerseys are changed, not because it is something the team or the players or the fans want, but because Nike tells the owners that they can make more money by changing their jerseys. The NFL has become a political lobbying machine, owning more than a few politicians. Few regular fans can now attend the Super Bowl because corporate America has turned the game and the week around it into a retreat for the elite.
The players have changed too. They’ve gone from guys who played because they loved the game to selfish, drug addicted creatures who play for money first, second and third. Did you know there is a strike looming in 2011 because the billionaire owners can’t get along with the millionaire players?
At the same time, the NFL has changed the game itself. When football began, it was a game with a small rule book. It allowed creativity, and the referees really couldn’t determine the outcome. But over the past twenty years, the rule book has grown to epic proportions. It’s become legalistic. Changes where made to placate unions, to satisfy the television contracts, and to try to make the product (formerly known as “the game”) more exciting to a television audience. Did you know that a visiting football team can only bring 43 players to the game, while the home team can brings full compliment? Why would something as stupid as this end up in the rule book? Because it was included in the union contract to reduce payroll costs.
These days, the game is highly regulated. The referees are deciding more and more games. Not a week goes by without the league office handing out fines for player conduct, regulating their speech and conduct. The NFL employs people to walk the sidelines of games and remove or cover up any brands that don’t have a contract with the NFL. The NFL even regulates what coaches can wear on the sidelines.
Along with the legalistic environment, the “technicalities problems” have come en mass. Players can only be discipline as allowed by the union contract, and discipline can be appealed. Want to bench a trouble maker? Better lawyer up. Payroll issues now decide rosters. Even race has returned to plague the NFL after decades of relative racial harmony. It is virtually impossible to criticize black quarterbacks without being called racist. And the NFL has a rule requiring teams to conduct at least one (sham) interview with a “minority” (read: black) applicant before they can hire a new coach. Not to mention the constant complaining from black groups that there aren’t enough black head coaches.
Why? Because the monetary stakes of the game have risen so much that it’s worth fighting about these things.
And this is all flowing down to the lower levels. Do you recall William “the Fridge” Perry? He weighed just over 300 pounds when he played in the 1980s and people were shocked. But his success meant that people had to get bigger and stronger to compete. Today, there almost isn’t a lineman in the league that doesn’t weigh 60 pounds more than that. Indeed, there are NFL quarterbacks today who are larger and heavier than every player in the NFL in the 1920-1970s. What’s worse, this is now becoming the norm at the high school level. I know a coach at a high school team who told me that in his city of 18,000 people all six high school teams have at least five 300 pound kids each on their offense lines -- that’s 30 kids larger than Perry.
How is this happening? With the ridiculous sums of money being thrown at athletes, kids are taking (and some parents are letting them take) steroids and human growth hormone. I’ve read stories of parents who hold their kids back 1-2 years in grade school so that they will be larger than the other kids and get a chance to excel in high school. "School shopping" for guaranteed starting positions is now common for high school players. If you want to be an NFL quarterback, your father better be your high school coach. If you want to coach, your father better have been an NFL coach.
What does all this mean? It means the game no longer invites all comers, it has become a game for professionals only -- from high school to college to the NFL. You now need to be born into a football family. You need to meet certain physical requirements that you can’t achieve without drugs. You need agents and trainers and PR reps. And like all “special people,” the rules no longer apply to these athletes. They can commit crimes and throw public tantrums, but their schools, their employers and their sponsors stick with them. They are forgiven instantly by the system without asking for forgiveness so long as they have talent. Even the law looks the other way. They have become the ancient royalty of old Europe, capable of no act which cannot be ignored.
There is a lesson in all of this for America. We have allowed our government to grow too large. It is packed with heredity princes like the Kennedy’s and family dynasties like the Bushes, who are above the law. It regulates everything, and it sells its power to regulate to the biggest of big businesses so that they can squeeze their competitors, exploit taxpayers and consumers, and impose a new order on American society that is exclusive and runs contrary to everything that made America great.The Warning To America
It’s time we put an end to this, before big business does to the American dream what the NFL has done to football. Otherwise, there will come a day when the only way to succeed in the United States will be to be born into the right families, to get the right pedigree, and to follow the only allowed path to the top. We will become what Europe was in the 18th Century and has largely become again today.
That is our destiny if we continue to travel down a path of over-regulation, of turning all disputes into legal matters, of corrupt government selling its influence and power to its friends, of family dynasties in politics, of the revolving door between business and government. It’s time the government represented the people again, not just the most important people.
[+] Read More...
I Take Full Responsibility--Sort Of
After weeks of public outrage (not to mention a blog on this site), someone has finally taken responsibility for the idiotic decision to provide civil trials for terrorists, and more specifically, to Mirandize the Christmas underwear bomber. At long last we have an official announcement. Attorney General Eric Holder took full responsibility. Or did he?In a formal letter addressing the pants-on-fire Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab affair, Holder responded to Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell's demand to know who made the decision. In the letter, Holder takes responsibility, and proceeds to justify the idiocy and blame everybody and everything except himself for the "necessity of his having to make the decision." During this written song and dance routine, Holder points the finger at the real culprit--"The Process." Holder is spinning, spinning, spinning--spinning like a spinning top.
Already smarting from the reaction to the decision to try Khalid Sheikh Muhammed in New York City and having his butt handed to him, Holder still manages to take "credit" for that decision as well as that of the Christmas bomber, while continuing to support civilian trials for terrorists and claiming that his action incomprehensibly led Abdulutallab to continue talking, after a brief hiatus for Miranda of course. If this is "taking responsibility," I'd hate to see "deflecting criticism."
Holder's admission is a refreshing change from the usual stonewalling from the Obamists, but as one delves into it, it seems much more apoplexy than apologia. "I made the decision, and here's why it's not my fault." Or words to that effect. As to Abdulmutallab, he actually says (and I'm not kidding you here), "the criminal-justice system has been vindicated because the terrorist is talking again." No mention of any special deals or transportation of the suspect's family to the interrogation room at the public's expense which had to be done to get him to start talking again.
There's one small flaw in Holder's logic (I'm addressing only the logic, not the outright lies). It merely repeats, in sugar-coated form, the ongoing illogic of the Obama administration's position on treating foreign terrorists as if they were simple American criminal-citizens. So the assumption is that there is no war, and then follows it down that primrose path by eliminating the commander-in-chief as a responsible party in the decision-making process. Who needs a commander-in-chief when dealing with civilian criminals?
So according to Holder, even if he did make the decision to Mirandize, it would have been made anyway (by whom, God only knows). Here's the explanation from the great legal scholar: "When an arrest happens (happens?), government officials automatically employ long-established and publicly-known policies and practices." Get it? It doesn't matter what the act is, or the status of the person committing it, or where it happens, the procedure is automatically the same. Even though it's a foreign passenger, on a plane still in the air, arriving from Copenhagen on a watch-list after a sojourn in Yemen, with an incendiary/explosive device in his pants, "Miranda warnings are given, lawyers are interposed, charges are filed, and trials are conducted." Notice the use of the passive voice. None of these things are actually decided-upon by human beings, nor does anyone actually do them. They just kinda happen.
Holder relies for his defense on the notion that procedures have eliminated the need for anyone of any importance to make a decision. Once there's a procedure, everything else just "happens." And those procedures must always be followed. Says who? FDR certainly didn't follow them in the Nazi saboteur cases (and some of them were actually American citizens). In each of the many terrorist cases currently in limbo, many are not going to go to civilian trials, and many will result in indeterminate detention without any trial at all. Somebody has to make those decisions, because there is more than one type of case, and there is more than one type of procedure. Blaming "procedure" is the coward's way out.
Holder claims that the FBI followed its standard protocols in the Abdulmutallab matter. No kidding? What else were they expected to do, since somebody made a decision awhile back that this is the standard protocol. The FBI didn't make that decision. Someone, somewhere in the Obama administration made that decision, and the FBI followed it. He also claims that nobody in any other agency objected to his decision on Abdulmutallab. We have only his word for that, and as I pointed out in the earlier post, it is clear that the Department of Defense wasn't consulted at all.
No matter how much Holder would like you to believe that his non-decision decision was his alone, sole executive power resides in one man only--the president. Nice head-fake, Holder, but I'm not buying it. He then goes on to say, boldly, that his decision follows the exact same procedure as every prior administration, without a single exception. Two words, Mr. Attorney General--Jose Padilla--who was an American citizen, designated an enemy combatant, and held without trial after being arrested within the United States. Ditto for one Ali al-Marri, although he wasn't an American citizen.
Holder denies a fact, then proceeds to prove that he is himself wrong. Later in the letter, Holder mentions both the Padilla and al-Marri exceptions (which two paragraphs earlier didn't exist) then says that he is right once again because they did ultimately get civilian trials. True enough, mon general, but only after more than a year of unimpeded, un-Mirandized interrogation. So Holder goes on to defend his decision once again by saying that the Second Circuit Court of Appeal invalidated the unlawful detention of the two terrorists. Did you forget to mention something, Mr. Holder? The Supreme Court reversed the Second Circuit, and held the year-long detention and interrogation to be constitutionally permissible. It's bad form to lie by omission.
Holder devotes considerable space to precedent, but ignores a simple fact. Precedent in the courts or the Congress exists tangentially to the precedent set by the president acting upon his own executive powers. Obama loves civilian trials for terrorists, therefore Holder loves civilian trials for terrorists, therefore a new precedent has been established. Funny how precedent takes on a different meaning depending on whose precedent you're defending or attacking.
In addition, several material witnesses and suspected terrorists have been provided lawyers and the opportunity to refuse to answer questions, but that is not in any way required, as even the liberal Judge Mukasey stated in the Padilla matter. Babbling on about how "the widespread experience of law enforcement agencies including the FBI is that many defendants will talk and cooperate after receiving Miranda warnings, he fails to mention that a great many more clam up, and stay that way, absent incentives such as those mentioned above in the Abdulmutallab matter. And it still doesn't explain why it is necessary to follow Miranda in the first place, unless it's already an administration policy. Even if a number of arrested terrorists do talk eventually even after Miranda warnings, does it not occur to Holder that time is of the essence, and information on pending terrorist attacks could very well reveal attacks which are merely hours away? A one-day delay could be one day too many. This delay lasted nearly five weeks.
It is also interesting that after a year of campaigning followed by a year in office during which Obama attacked the inconsistencies in terror arrests and prosecutions of the prior administration, Holder is suddenly caught citing Bush-era decisions as precedent for his own actions. Even Holder's agonized late decision to Mirandize Abdulmutallab is a half-truth. His actual decision on the matter was already foretold by his administration's policies and procedures, and the FBI had no choice but to make the decision on the spot according to the Holder-Obama rules. They were obligated to Mirandize Abdulmutallab with or without the Attorney General's direct order. Not as an outgrowth of either prevailing law or the Constitution, but rather as an outgrowth of Obama policy.
Now, in order to justify their inaction, bad decision-making, and failure to protect national security, the Obama administration is attempting to prove the efficacy of their agenda by informing the public that Abdumutallab is talking again. Not only that, they're giving us hints at what he's telling the interrogators. Why not cut out the middle man and send the information straight to Al Qaeda? By mentioning that Abdulmutallab has connections with Al Qaeda and is providing information, the administration is sending a message to the enemy: Close your cells, delete all e-mails, move your leaders and the terrorist camps, hustle your imams and cadre leaders out of their current locations (such as Yemen?) and re-group knowing that panty-boy is revealing your secrets. Discovering secret enemy plans does no good if the enemy has been forewarned to change all those plans.
Here's my assessment. Holder actually admitted to nothing and took responsibility for nothing. He just danced, figuratively I assume. So let's mix a couple of metaphors. When the rubber meets the road, the buck merely rests momentarily on the Attorney General's shoulders. It eventually, invevitably, and by design stops "here" (picture Harry Truman's desk at the White House). No policies, no procedures, and no phony precedents can alter that fact.
[+] Read More...
Open Thread -- Vox Populi
"Nobody in football should be called a genius. A genius is a guy like Norman Einstein."
-- Joe Theismann
P.S. Don't forget to check out our post on the changes to the commenting system: Read Me
[+] Read More...
Saturday, February 6, 2010
New York State of Mind
Things are really heating up in NY these days. Well not the weather, but politically speaking we are heading into some really hot weather ahead…
Normally, I would give you rundown on what is happening in New York. But, as was reported earlier by our crack team of political analysts at Commentarama, the races for the open seats in NY are wide open. And I thought I would fill you in with a little more detail.
First off, you should know that our State Primary will not be held until September 14, 2010, so we have a long way to go before we actually know who is really running against whom. But here are the players so far:
Governor
David Patterson, technically the incumbent, is facing a strong challenge from his own party. The state Democratic Party leadership and President Obama have been trying for months to convince Gov. Patterson NOT to run. His numbers are very low and he is unlikely to win against anyone running against him. And it is really embarrassing for party leadership when they have to tell a candidate openly that he is not wanted. He actually hasn’t been that bad of a Governor.
Challenge from the Left - Andrew Cuomo, current AG and scion of NY Democratic royalty. His father is Mario Cuomo, the former Governor from 1983 to 1994. You could say that the Cuomos are the Kennedys of New York. As a matter of fact, Andrew is the ex- husband of Kathleen Kennedy, daughter of Robert Kennedy. He is a tough AG and a formidable opponent for Patterson. He has not formally thrown his hat in the ring, but has announced that he will make his announcement in April.
Challenge from the Right - Rick Lazio –former four term US Congressman for District 2 in NY in the ‘90’s. Republican from Manhattan and Long Island, Lazio ran as a relative unknown against Hillary Clinton in her 2002 successful bid for Senator in NY. He was a late comer to that race replacing Rudy Giuliani at the last minute when Rudy dropped out for “health reasons”. Though Lazio lost by a wide margin, he held his own against a much better known candidate in Clinton. So far, Lazio is the only Republican who has indicated any interest in running for Governor. Currently he is a Managing director of J.P. Morgan Chase.
U.S. Senate #1
Because of the nomination of Hillary Clinton to Secretary of State, we are in the unusual position of having to elect both of our Senators
Kirsten Gillibrand was appointed by Patterson to replace Clinton as Senator of New York. Before her appointment to the Senate, she served barely two terms as Congresswoman from the 20th Congressional District, a largely rural district in eastern New York. Considered a “Blue Dog” Democrat in the House, she has since done an about face and now does whatever Senator Charles Schumer tells her to do. So much does she do Schumer’s bidding that she has earned the nickname Schumer’s “Tweety Bird”.
Challenger from the Left – Harold Ford, former four term Congressman and erstwhile “carpet bagger” from Tennessee. He has already had an unsuccessful bid for the Senate against Bill Frist in Tennessee. All the State Democrats including Schumer are bent out of shape that this young upstart has decided to challenge Gillibrand. Fortunately for him, the Democrats can’t openly call him a “carpet bagger” without sounding a bit hypocritical. They vehemently defended Hillary Clinton against attacks for her carpet baggerness. At this point Gillibrand in leading in the polls , but Ford has just begun his tour of the state. He is currently the most evil of beings –a Wall Street Investment Banker.
Challenges from the Right - There are several Republicans making noise about running against Gillibrand since she is the most vulnerable:
George Pataki, former three term Governor (1994 to 2008). Our 9/11 Governor and generally liked. Though like any three term Governor, his popularity grew thin at the end.
Pete King, current Congressman from 3rd Congressional District in Nassau County on Long Island since 1993. He is one of the two Republican Congressmen who represents New York and he has also been the earliest and most vocal opponent of the KSM trials in NYC and in Civil court.
Marc Mukasey, son of former US AG Michael Mukasey and partner in Rudy Giuliani’s law firm. I don’t know much about him. According to the New York Post, he is a” former prosecutor who has represented a string of high-profile people, including an official with Bernie Madoff’s Ponzi scheme-running company and Democratic fund-raiser Hassan Namazee.”
All have flip-flopped several times about running, so it’s still wide open.
Senate #2
Sen. Charles “Chuck” Schumer so far is facing no opposition from either side. However (and this is a BIG however) recent polls shows that his popularity has shrunk considerably in the last few months. He now commands only 47% approval rating in the latest Marist Poll and that number is shrinking fast. Where no one thought that Schumer was beatable, there is a very outside chance that he could be if challenged by a really formidable opponent. Rudy Giuliani might have been that opponent, but he has already state emphatically that he will not run.
Other Race to follow
Charles “Charlie” Rangel is up for re-election and for the first time in many years may be facing a serious challenger. His former campaign director Vince Morgan has decided to challenge him in the primary, though there are no polls yet that indicate which way this could go. As I have discussed before, Rangel is up to his eyebrows in unresolved tax issues and his constituents are getting restless. Especially since it came to light that Rangel is spending all of his campaign money on legal fees.
As of now there are no Republicans or any other conservative challengers for Rangel and I doubt that there will ever be.
We are very early in the process in New York, but I will keep you apprised of any new developments…
[+] Read More...
Film School Follies: Part 13 – The Worst of Times
By ScottDS
During the making of our 35mm films, we were encouraged to keep journals. Needless to say, I was one of the few students who took this advice to heart and, inspired by the calamitous events that befell us during the making of our film, my journal grew to a nice and healthy 40-something pages. I will be including excerpts along the way, edited for clarity and corrected for grammar and punctuation. A couple of names have been changed to protect both the innocent and the guilty. (I don’t come across in the best light either.) I’ve also gone and edited out most of the profanity – I don’t curse very often but this journal is replete with the F-word in all its diversity. Beware...
A Total Waste of Time
We took two classes for 35mm along with a business course that was taught by the (now ex-) wife of our DC instructor – her name was Windy. Pre-Production and Casting (PPC) was taught by a guy named Mike though we were told to address him by his nickname, “Spoon.” Feature Filmmaking (FFM) was taught by a cool guy named Rob along with his associate, Disco. Rob was great – one of the best teachers we had at Full Sail, if not the best, period. Disco was a bit of a hard-ass but, in hindsight, he was one of those guys whose respect you just want to earn. I had my moments with him but he graded my journal and said it was one of the best he had ever read. By the time we graduated, all was copacetic. Spoon was a nice guy and certainly meant well but I’d say half of what we learned in his class was either: a.) completely redundant (like storyboarding and making shot lists), or b.) a total waste of time. Windy was a very nice lady and helped us with resumes, business cards, networking and interviewing skills, and the timeless art of the elevator pitch.
We’d all sit in rapt attention during Rob’s classes (he had no problem cursing in front of us but promised a few students he wouldn’t use God’s name in vain), but during Spoon’s classes you could just feel the tension and restlessness. He had to tell us to be quiet... repeatedly. Rob never did. When Spoon would call attendance, I remember some students giving him Top Gun nicknames (“Call me Iceman!”). One day, he had some students from the Paul Mitchell School (they were all dressed in black, like a group of fascist hipsters) do a presentation on hair and make-up. That put half the class to sleep – not to mention they stole all of our desks! He gave us scripts and told us to split into groups, divide the scripts into scenes, and storyboard them using a special template. (We were given still cameras to use as well.) After we finished, he then went on to assemble every group’s storyboards into a 50-page book – each student received one of these monstrosities! The hallway after class looked like a white Christmas! Spoon used up a good acre of forest in ten minutes.
We also held a mock casting session in Spoon’s class, even though we had already held real ones just a few months earlier. This was a riot! Some students were assigned the role of “casting director” while others were assigned such roles as “nervous actor,” “egotistical actor,” etc. I loved this – in fact I had totally forgotten about it until now. I only wish I had it all on video. From looking at the class itinerary, we also viewed plenty of films, including 16mm instructor Jason’s short film (Post Human, which by this time we had heard about ad infinitum) from his time as a Full Sail student. We also viewed another Full Sail film titled Missing You along with a making-of documentary that some folks had put together called Missing Something. Very interesting and here I was sitting in class thinking, “Oh, none of that will happen to us. We’ll get along just fine!” We watched Lost in La Mancha, the darkly comic documentary about Terry Gilliam’s ill-fated attempt to make a Don Quixote movie. We also watched the Grand Guignol of documentaries: Hearts of Darkness: A Filmmaker’s Apocalypse which chronicles the making (and, on occasion, un-making) of Apocalypse Now and features an infamous quote from Francis Ford Coppola: “My movie is not about Vietnam. My movie is Vietnam.” We had guest lectures about merchandising, poster design, and shooting on location – a 35mm perk that intrigued many students.
In Rob’s class, we earned how to operate the ARRICAM 35mm camera. A nice lady named Mindy was one of our lab specialists and she was great. Of course, it would help if I remembered any of this: loading the mags, threading the film… again, I was hellbent on directing. Much of our FFM class was spent on the soundstage constructing our sets and sitting in on demonstrations: the crane, the jib, the dolly, etc. Meanwhile, in business class we had videotaped mock job interviews and worked on our cover letters and resumes. If you wanted a top position in 35mm, you actually had to apply the old-fashioned way, with a resume and cover letter addressed to Rob. You also had to put together a portfolio.
A Tale of Two Scripts
One day, Spoon (or possibly Rob) announced the three scripts that would be shot in 35mm. They were In the Nude, Shooting for the Moon, and Stepfather. In the Nude was the script that Mike and I wrote for screenwriting class. (Please note: this Mike and the Mike who worked on Sanguinity are different people. The latter will now be referred to as Mike #2.) It had a “good buzz” as they say and many people thought it would be selected for 35mm from day 1. And best of all, people actually wanted to work on it!
Natural Born Canadians was written by a nice guy named Ryan who worked with us on Sanguinity. I remember spying over his shoulder when he was working on it and thinking, “What a piece of crap!” Canadians (a.k.a. NBC) told the story of industrial espionage at a Canadian corporation: the boss attempts to frame the lone American employee by refusing to flush the toilet. Don’t bother to analyze it (please… don’t). I’m sure there was some anti-corporate message buried in the subtext but at the time I wasn’t cognizant of such things, though there’s a joke in the finished film about moving to Canada “for the free healthcare.” NBC was ostensibly a comedy though it was never that funny on the page. At one point, there was a chance it might’ve been shot in DC. Even though Panic was a complete clusterfrak, shooting NBC in that class – with classmates playing Canadian corporate lackeys – might’ve been fun!
And Then There Was Katie
Each 35mm film would get a faculty producer. A guy named John was assigned to Moon and a nice lady named Debbie (who trained me and Steve in the fine art of script supervision for 16mm) was assigned to Nude. (Disco later helped out as well.) Producing our little Canadian adventure would be Katie. As I mentioned above, Katie walked onto our set in 16mm and promptly damaged one of the overhead bins – the one that our dolly shot started on! I got a bad feeling at the time and when she walked into the classroom, I couldn’t believe my eyes: “She works here!?” To add insult to injury, Canadians would be shooting first: pre-light on July 1st, blocking on the 12th, and principal photography from the 13th to the 16th. We had less than a month to revise the script (which was in desperate need of a revision), design and construct sets, scout for locations, cast actors… you name it. Immediately after class, we had a read-through of the script – you could hear a pin drop. Ryan, Jerrod, and I decided to meet at Ryan’s place to iron out any issues: no idea is too stupid; just throw everything on the wall and see what sticks.
[+] Read More...
During the making of our 35mm films, we were encouraged to keep journals. Needless to say, I was one of the few students who took this advice to heart and, inspired by the calamitous events that befell us during the making of our film, my journal grew to a nice and healthy 40-something pages. I will be including excerpts along the way, edited for clarity and corrected for grammar and punctuation. A couple of names have been changed to protect both the innocent and the guilty. (I don’t come across in the best light either.) I’ve also gone and edited out most of the profanity – I don’t curse very often but this journal is replete with the F-word in all its diversity. Beware...
A Total Waste of Time
We took two classes for 35mm along with a business course that was taught by the (now ex-) wife of our DC instructor – her name was Windy. Pre-Production and Casting (PPC) was taught by a guy named Mike though we were told to address him by his nickname, “Spoon.” Feature Filmmaking (FFM) was taught by a cool guy named Rob along with his associate, Disco. Rob was great – one of the best teachers we had at Full Sail, if not the best, period. Disco was a bit of a hard-ass but, in hindsight, he was one of those guys whose respect you just want to earn. I had my moments with him but he graded my journal and said it was one of the best he had ever read. By the time we graduated, all was copacetic. Spoon was a nice guy and certainly meant well but I’d say half of what we learned in his class was either: a.) completely redundant (like storyboarding and making shot lists), or b.) a total waste of time. Windy was a very nice lady and helped us with resumes, business cards, networking and interviewing skills, and the timeless art of the elevator pitch.
We’d all sit in rapt attention during Rob’s classes (he had no problem cursing in front of us but promised a few students he wouldn’t use God’s name in vain), but during Spoon’s classes you could just feel the tension and restlessness. He had to tell us to be quiet... repeatedly. Rob never did. When Spoon would call attendance, I remember some students giving him Top Gun nicknames (“Call me Iceman!”). One day, he had some students from the Paul Mitchell School (they were all dressed in black, like a group of fascist hipsters) do a presentation on hair and make-up. That put half the class to sleep – not to mention they stole all of our desks! He gave us scripts and told us to split into groups, divide the scripts into scenes, and storyboard them using a special template. (We were given still cameras to use as well.) After we finished, he then went on to assemble every group’s storyboards into a 50-page book – each student received one of these monstrosities! The hallway after class looked like a white Christmas! Spoon used up a good acre of forest in ten minutes.
We also held a mock casting session in Spoon’s class, even though we had already held real ones just a few months earlier. This was a riot! Some students were assigned the role of “casting director” while others were assigned such roles as “nervous actor,” “egotistical actor,” etc. I loved this – in fact I had totally forgotten about it until now. I only wish I had it all on video. From looking at the class itinerary, we also viewed plenty of films, including 16mm instructor Jason’s short film (Post Human, which by this time we had heard about ad infinitum) from his time as a Full Sail student. We also viewed another Full Sail film titled Missing You along with a making-of documentary that some folks had put together called Missing Something. Very interesting and here I was sitting in class thinking, “Oh, none of that will happen to us. We’ll get along just fine!” We watched Lost in La Mancha, the darkly comic documentary about Terry Gilliam’s ill-fated attempt to make a Don Quixote movie. We also watched the Grand Guignol of documentaries: Hearts of Darkness: A Filmmaker’s Apocalypse which chronicles the making (and, on occasion, un-making) of Apocalypse Now and features an infamous quote from Francis Ford Coppola: “My movie is not about Vietnam. My movie is Vietnam.” We had guest lectures about merchandising, poster design, and shooting on location – a 35mm perk that intrigued many students.
In Rob’s class, we earned how to operate the ARRICAM 35mm camera. A nice lady named Mindy was one of our lab specialists and she was great. Of course, it would help if I remembered any of this: loading the mags, threading the film… again, I was hellbent on directing. Much of our FFM class was spent on the soundstage constructing our sets and sitting in on demonstrations: the crane, the jib, the dolly, etc. Meanwhile, in business class we had videotaped mock job interviews and worked on our cover letters and resumes. If you wanted a top position in 35mm, you actually had to apply the old-fashioned way, with a resume and cover letter addressed to Rob. You also had to put together a portfolio.
A Tale of Two Scripts
One day, Spoon (or possibly Rob) announced the three scripts that would be shot in 35mm. They were In the Nude, Shooting for the Moon, and Stepfather. In the Nude was the script that Mike and I wrote for screenwriting class. (Please note: this Mike and the Mike who worked on Sanguinity are different people. The latter will now be referred to as Mike #2.) It had a “good buzz” as they say and many people thought it would be selected for 35mm from day 1. And best of all, people actually wanted to work on it!
June 1st, 2004. And then Rob introduced us to [producer] Katie. I remember when she walked onto the soundstage in 16mm. She seemed like a nice gal but I had no idea she worked here. I thought she was someone’s girlfriend. I also think she f---ed up one of our overhead bins since they all worked and, after she left, one always seemed to jam.Mike and I had finished it for a grade in screenwriting class, and then forgot about it. During 16mm, our friendship became somewhat strained due in no small part to my huge ego. By this time, I can only assume we were peachy. And of course, Spoon had printed the script incorrectly, leaving off the final page that featured the big “comedic twist.” Shooting for the Moon told the story of a kid who wanted to move out of his house where he lived with his (I assume) overbearing parents and become an astronaut. I think... I’m actually not sure what it was about. I don’t remember Stepfather at all and my copy of the script has unfortunately been misplaced.
[After prolonging the suspense], they read off who was working on what. Canadians was up first. Unit production manager is Bill. No surprise there. I know he had wanted to work on In the Nude just a few weeks earlier but when Ryan’s script for Natural Born Canadians was thrown into the ring at the expense of Joey’s Stepfather script (poor Joey, though I must confess I only read the first page and everyone I asked said the script was s---... think Panic: Part 2), it made things a little more complicated. You see, everyone we liked (Mike and I) wanted to work on In the Nude, which we co-wrote. That was great. Not only would we get the best crew […] but also it was just great to be a part of something popular that people liked. After working on a story about a paranoid schizophrenic in DC and four semi-serious (in content, not in form) films in 16mm, I think most of us just wanted to work on something that would make us laugh and for all the right reasons.
June 1st, 2004. Then Bill [and possibly others] had to complain to Rob and Co. so they came into business class and gave us a little spiel. Rob had told us some people complained about Shooting for the Moon. Surprisingly (or not depending on who you ask), Stepfather was out and Natural Born Canadians was in. Uh-oh. What would this mean for In the Nude? Well, half of our Sanguinity crew switched sides, including dear sweet Gema who I thought would stick with our script. Claudia, Chris, Bill, and Dave... they all went to the proverbial dark side. Grant and Paul wanted to work on Shooting for the Moon, which Paul wrote. Steve wanted to work on In the Nude as did Mike #2. Me? My dream was to write a script and direct it (or co-direct it but that’s a rant for another time). However, I realized that what I really wanted to do was make a great movie and have fun in the process so I switched over to Canadians. I figured Mike would want to direct In the Nude so at least one of us would have a hand in the [film]. I wanted to work with my 16mm crew.I’m really not sure what happened. One student might’ve played the religion card, saying he thought Stepfather was offensive. Maybe it was, maybe it wasn’t. It’s still a mystery.
Natural Born Canadians was written by a nice guy named Ryan who worked with us on Sanguinity. I remember spying over his shoulder when he was working on it and thinking, “What a piece of crap!” Canadians (a.k.a. NBC) told the story of industrial espionage at a Canadian corporation: the boss attempts to frame the lone American employee by refusing to flush the toilet. Don’t bother to analyze it (please… don’t). I’m sure there was some anti-corporate message buried in the subtext but at the time I wasn’t cognizant of such things, though there’s a joke in the finished film about moving to Canada “for the free healthcare.” NBC was ostensibly a comedy though it was never that funny on the page. At one point, there was a chance it might’ve been shot in DC. Even though Panic was a complete clusterfrak, shooting NBC in that class – with classmates playing Canadian corporate lackeys – might’ve been fun!
June 8th, 2004. Flash forward many moons later and Bill decides that, since he wants to work on a comedy, he’ll pimp for Ryan’s script in 35, after it was passed over in DC (probably for the best) and 16mm. Ryan’s script never went through the usual process. And guess what. It’s still not funny as it could or should be. Ryan has his ideas. Jerrod has his ideas. I have mine. I also wish I had a time machine so I could go back to December and help Ryan with the script, knowing that I’d be co-directing it later.At this point, I still wasn’t sure which film I wanted to direct: Nude or NBC. With Nude, I was afraid of possibly losing my objectivity. A writer/director can only wear one hat at a time. Besides, Mike can be a larger than life character sometimes whereas I can be a manipulative little bastard. The skeptic in me said it wouldn’t have been a good combination: Mike and I co-directing from our own script. (Even in 35mm, Full Sail was big on multiple directors.) I ended up producing a portfolio for both films. Director portfolios needed to include the following: pitch, script breakdown, storyboards of a pivotal scene (our choice), character breakdowns, and character/transition questions. I produced two of each. In addition, I applied to be script supervisor so I also had to include a lined script for each film. Ryan had since written a revised draft so I lined three scripts: one for Nude and two for NBC. I also applied to be in the art department on either film: not production designer but just… there. I gathered some research and reference photos, including a spiffy diagram of a Mountie uniform.
June 1st, 2004. I had spent a week and several Tylenol gel caps working on the portfolio. Mine might be the biggest but Henderson (I think) submitted his in what looked like a large wooden box. I don’t know the guy and I have nothing against him personally but, considering his work on Taste of the Past, it’s probably safe to say the box is full of either: a.) a few stray moths or b.) lots and lots of money. Mike was right. Mine was the biggest, not counting any artwork that our prospective production designers and art directors might have handed in. [...] I should tell you that I used a 1-inch Avery presentation binder and, when I was finished, the front cover was perfectly parallel with the back cover. I don’t think it’s my best work ever but it’s detailed, thorough, and there was not one spelling or grammatical error.Rob and Disco announced the crew rosters for each film. Mike became co-director on In the Nude along with another guy named Ryan (a different one). Nude also got Chris (the genius) as production designer, Steve as script supervisor, and Dave as production coordinator. Damn! For Canadians, the directors would be Ryan, me, and another classmate named Jerrod. And in addition to Bill as UPM...
June 1st, 2004. Our production coordinator is Will. One of the Sanguinity guys. Great guy but what happened to Dave?? I know he went out for the job and you can’t separate him and Bill. Directors are Ryan, Jerrod, and me. No surprise there but who the hell is Jerrod? First assistant directors are Jeremy and Chris [a different one]. Who is Chris? He raises his hand, I turn around. Oh, that’s Chris. He’s an okay guy and it’ll be nice for Jeremy to have some help. Jeremy was [an] A.D. on Sanguinity and I think he might have stressed out just a tad. Director of photography is Matt. This will be interesting. He and Ryan are roommates. [Matt wasn’t the easiest person to get along with though I was usually sympathetic.]There were a few other grip and electric positions that were filled plus we’d have student volunteers, both from our class and others. We had most of the Sanguinity crew but not everyone. Then something interesting happened. Our script supervisor (Zeb) left to work on Shooting for the Moon. Dave, sensing an opening, came aboard as his replacement. This left In the Nude without a production coordinator but with a very pissed off Mike.
Production designer is Claudia. Yes!!! Not only is she great to work with but I also have a bit of a thing for her. Art director is Jor’El, son of... oh forget it. I’ve never worked with him so I can’t really say anything. It’s just surprising to see him get art director. I had no idea he was interested in the area. I just hope Claudia can work with him. That’s all. [...]Casting director is Demitris. I’ve never worked with him either. Well, I did mic him for his scene in Panic that was cut out of the (crappy) version they put on the DVD. He seemed like a nice guy. Assistant casting is Ashley. [...] Script supervisor is Zeb. I’ve never worked with him or even spoken to him but I’ve heard nothing but good things.
The camera department consists of Dan, Billy [not the same person as Bill or Will], Gema, Kit, Dennis, and Geraud. I worked with Gema and Kit on Sanguinity. No complaints. Dan [...] I didn’t get anything out of him one way or the other. Dennis is cool. I’ve said maybe two or three things to him but I’ve heard nothing but good things. He was in the Man-Pampers commercial back in DC. He was very good. I really felt for him. I’ve never worked with Billy and Geraud is new. We’ll see what happens. I just have to keep an open mind.
Sound department is Derek, Josh, and Andrea. Derek I like. He showed up both days to be an extra on our film in 16mm. I respect him for that and it was much appreciated. Josh is okay. Andrea is nice. In every teen movie, you have the hot cheerleader who every guy wants and the cheerleader’s cute best friend. Claudia’s the cheerleader (just much smarter) and Andrea’s the friend. Gaffer is [the other] Scott. Yes! He’s a nice guy and he knows his s---. In fact, in 16mm, he was our original production designer but was tempted to take a leave of absence (he never did) and Bill and Dave knew they couldn’t trust a guy who had his heart and mind elsewhere. They made me production designer and I found them a plane. It’s funny how these things happen. Scott ended up staying. At the wrap party, he congratulated me on a job well done.
And Then There Was Katie
Each 35mm film would get a faculty producer. A guy named John was assigned to Moon and a nice lady named Debbie (who trained me and Steve in the fine art of script supervision for 16mm) was assigned to Nude. (Disco later helped out as well.) Producing our little Canadian adventure would be Katie. As I mentioned above, Katie walked onto our set in 16mm and promptly damaged one of the overhead bins – the one that our dolly shot started on! I got a bad feeling at the time and when she walked into the classroom, I couldn’t believe my eyes: “She works here!?” To add insult to injury, Canadians would be shooting first: pre-light on July 1st, blocking on the 12th, and principal photography from the 13th to the 16th. We had less than a month to revise the script (which was in desperate need of a revision), design and construct sets, scout for locations, cast actors… you name it. Immediately after class, we had a read-through of the script – you could hear a pin drop. Ryan, Jerrod, and I decided to meet at Ryan’s place to iron out any issues: no idea is too stupid; just throw everything on the wall and see what sticks.
June 2nd, 2004. Ryan, Jerrod, and I had our first meeting. I really wish they gave us our jobs last week so we could have had the slightly extended Memorial Day weekend to iron out script issues. Oh well. Technically, this isn’t a meeting; it’s an informal get-together. I figure we can just go over the characters and get a general idea about the tone of the film. I’m leaning more towards The Office. Ryan is leaning more towards Coen brothers. In any case, these are two kinds of comedies that most people don’t laugh out loud at, or even find funny at all. It’s the kind of humor that will have maybe five people in the back of the room laughing and the rest shaking their heads. I hope we’re able to convey that feeling to the rest of the group (yeah, right). We also have slightly different ideas about the characterizations. Jerrod by the way is surprising me. I’ve never heard him say two words and then we get put together on an assignment and, as luck would have it, he’s a semi-talkative guy. I’m probably the most verbal (no [kidding]) but it’s nice to have someone to spar with. Ryan is somewhere in the middle. He’s assertive at times but, if time has taught us anything, it’s that he’s usually the most laconic one in the room. He’s going to have to speak up here. Sooner or later, we’re all gonna have to.The characters included Stanley, the boss; Steven, the beleaguered middle-manager; Nathan, the lone Yank; Michael, the new guy; and Officer St. Pierre, the Mountie who’s called in to investigate the toilet situation. We also had a female co-worker with two lines and a few spots for classmates who wanted to be extras.
June 2nd, 2004. We have to iron out the characters before anything else. We have to compromise on things. Ryan saw St. Pierre as Wilson from Home Improvement. I saw him as Joe Friday from Dragnet. We sort of agree on the Joe Friday angle. However, being the diplomat that I am [ha!], I had to give up one of my ideas. Ryan’s idea for Nathan Miles was that he was hand-picked by the Board to work for the Company. Literally just flown in from NYC. The fact that he probably ended up with some poor Canadian schmuck’s job is what irks Stanley. My idea was that Stanley had to hire an American because of affirmative action. I loved the idea but I knew I had to compromise.So far so good, but the following week would mark the beginning of one of the most depressing periods on my life. Tears (not mine), secret meetings, and a script that would prove to be our Sword of Damocles. Stay tuned...
[+] Read More...
Site Changes Coming... Tomorrow!
We're going to become a porn site. . . just kidding. But we are changing the way comments will work. After extensive experimentation (and a few disasters) we've finally figured out how to add the IntenseDebate comment system to our site. Here is a pre-FAQ.
1. Is the website address changing?
No. Just come to the same place you always have. . . right here.
2. Do I need to sign up for IntenseDebate to comment?
No. You will have several options for commenting. First, you can sign up for IntenseDebate. Secondly, you can just write your name into the "commenter name" space without signing up. Third, you can write your name and turn that into a link to your site.
That said, signing up for IntenseDebate will make it easier to use your avatar -- plus you can link to your own blog or website, and once you are signed in, you shouldn't need to sign in or enter your name again.
3. Can I still read the articles on Google Reader?
Yes. The only thing that will change are the comments. Everything else will continue to work the same.
4. How do I sign up for IntenseDebate?
You will have an option to sign up when you go to make a comment. Otherwise, you can go directly to IntenseDebate to sign up.
5. Is this the same IntenseDebate used by Big Hollywood?
Yes. And any comments you make here will appear on your dashboard in ID, just like your comments at BH.
6. Can I thumb people up (down)?
Yes. In fact, we encourage you to thumb each other up just to show you liked the comments. It only takes a second and it's kind of nice.
7. When is this going to happen?
We're planning to start tomorrow, if all goes according to plan.
8. Why are you doing this to me?
Several reasons really. First, we know that many of you come from Big Hollywood, and this should make it more convenient for you to leave comments. Secondly, several of you have mentioned that you like the way the ID system lets you respond directly to someone else's comment. This will let you do that. In fact, we want to encourage you to talk to each other -- converse, discuss. . . that's why we're here!
And don't worry, we've set it up to keep the threads open so you won't need to open each thread to see the responses. (Although if we ever hit 100 comments in any one article, they may collapse automatically in that article.)
Finally, here is a link to a site we've set up to show you how the comments will look: TEST SITE. Please take a look. If you have any questions or concerns or you have problems signing in with Intense Debate, please let us know.
** Update ** We may delayed a day or two as we sort something out with ID about signing up our site.
[+] Read More...
1. Is the website address changing?
No. Just come to the same place you always have. . . right here.
2. Do I need to sign up for IntenseDebate to comment?
No. You will have several options for commenting. First, you can sign up for IntenseDebate. Secondly, you can just write your name into the "commenter name" space without signing up. Third, you can write your name and turn that into a link to your site.
That said, signing up for IntenseDebate will make it easier to use your avatar -- plus you can link to your own blog or website, and once you are signed in, you shouldn't need to sign in or enter your name again.
3. Can I still read the articles on Google Reader?
Yes. The only thing that will change are the comments. Everything else will continue to work the same.
4. How do I sign up for IntenseDebate?
You will have an option to sign up when you go to make a comment. Otherwise, you can go directly to IntenseDebate to sign up.
5. Is this the same IntenseDebate used by Big Hollywood?
Yes. And any comments you make here will appear on your dashboard in ID, just like your comments at BH.
6. Can I thumb people up (down)?
Yes. In fact, we encourage you to thumb each other up just to show you liked the comments. It only takes a second and it's kind of nice.
7. When is this going to happen?
We're planning to start tomorrow, if all goes according to plan.
8. Why are you doing this to me?
Several reasons really. First, we know that many of you come from Big Hollywood, and this should make it more convenient for you to leave comments. Secondly, several of you have mentioned that you like the way the ID system lets you respond directly to someone else's comment. This will let you do that. In fact, we want to encourage you to talk to each other -- converse, discuss. . . that's why we're here!
And don't worry, we've set it up to keep the threads open so you won't need to open each thread to see the responses. (Although if we ever hit 100 comments in any one article, they may collapse automatically in that article.)
Finally, here is a link to a site we've set up to show you how the comments will look: TEST SITE. Please take a look. If you have any questions or concerns or you have problems signing in with Intense Debate, please let us know.
** Update ** We may delayed a day or two as we sort something out with ID about signing up our site.
[+] Read More...
Once There Was A President
Though not exactly in a log cabin, on this day in 1911, Nelle Reagan gave birth to a future President on the second floor of a commercial building in Tampico, Illinois. I take no small (and undeserved) pride in the fact that the future President was born in my birth state and moved on to the White House in the Sky after an illustrious career built in my adopted state.This post will not be a biography of the great Ronald Reagan, nor will it be some sort of detailed analysis of his entire life, complete with pithy comments on his predecessors and successors. It will instead be a personal view of my long-distance "relationship" with one of the most important politicians and statesmen of the twentieth century.
I first came to know a little about Ronald Reagan as a small child seeing the movie classic (?) Bedtime for Bonzo, and later as a young adult watching him as the host of TV's Death Valley Days. Frankly, I found him a little wooden and ordinary, and didn't give him any more thought, although I also saw him later in a couple of movie revivals in which I saw a very fine actor who was neither wooden nor ordinary.
It wasn't until I left home, went off to the university, and became a member of the Berzekeley Brigade (aka, the Cal Crazies) that I started taking notice of the up-and-coming leader of the armies of the enemy--the conservatives. I remember having a poster on my dorm wall, with Ronald Reagan in a wig, bearing the legend "Ronald Reagan is Ayn Rand in drag." As a proud member of the "new left," I abhorred Reagan's speechifying about how out-of-control we were. I was particularly contemptuous of anyone who would desert his Democratic roots and become (shudder) a Republican. How could such a man be trusted?
By the time he ran for the job as Governor of California, we lefties were in full-throated rebellion against the entire "establishment." And he had run on two recurring themes: "Send the welfare bums back to work, and clean up the mess at Berkeley." What mess?," I thought. He's trying to suppress our freedom of speech (but deep down inside I was beginning to wonder if he was really only trying to suppress our right to riot). As the antiwar demonstrations became more pointedly anti-American and anti-military, I was already beginning to drift away from my angry rhetoric and back toward my family's patriotic roots. But still, this guy's picking on us. Phooey.
By his second term as governor, and first toe into presidential politics, I was starting to listen more and more to what he had to say. By then I was married, had a baby on the way (we subsequently had two more--a total of girl-boy-girl), we had just bought our first home, and I was working my way up in corporate management. After finishing at Cal, I moved my studies over to San Francisco State, where the student demonstrations took on a much broader and sinister tone, particularly the Black Students Rebellion (which ultimately resulted in the first Black studies curriculum in the nation). I was trying to study political science, and one of my professors (later the chairman of the SF State history department) had dropped a bomb that got me thinking about both Reagan and the course education was taking. Said professor Arthur Mejia, "and now let's move on to the deaf, dumb and blind Don Quixote of the twentieth century--Woodrow Wilson." Not only did that run counter to the progressive view endemic already in academia, but it seemed to echo some thoughts I had had years earlier, and sounded a bit like some of the things Reagan was saying.
But I was not yet ready to surrender, even though I had to admit to myself that when Reagan announced of our demonstrations "if they want a bloodbath, let's give them a blood bath," I was impressed. Hmmm, I think he's talking about us, and despite all logic, I began to think "in another context, I think I might really like this guy." I wouldn't consider voting for a Republican (or even a moderate Democrat), but something about the man kept me listening to him. In his second run for governor, he defeated machine politician and manipulator extraordinaire Jesse Unruh (known to political buffs as "Big Daddy"). I had developed a disgust for the Democratic machine, and after voting for Unruh, I left radical politics permanently. Reagan finished his second term as governor, and for awhile dropped out of the public eye while he consolidated his troops within the Republican Party. Since I would never be a Republican, I gave him no further thought, even though I sort of missed his speeches.
By 1976, Reagan was back in the public fray. He had been very anti-Nixon, and from my viewpoint, that meant he couldn't be all bad. He challenged Gerald Ford for the Republican nomination, and advanced the agenda of one of my other former hate-objects, Barry Goldwater. Considering the drubbing Goldwater had suffered at the hands of Lyndon Johnson, I figured the challenge was going nowhere. Little did I know. But Reagan lost the nomination, and once again I gave him little thought, particularly since I was fooled by Carter's pretensions and anti-establishment campaign. "Well," I thought, "the Democratic Party can be saved after all." It didn't take long for me to realize that we had replaced the weak Gerald Ford with the even weaker Jimmy Carter. I began to look for solid American leadership within the Democratic Party, and never found it.
When Reagan secured the Republican nomination in 1980, I found myself at a crossroad. The Democratic Party had continued to drift left, while I was continuing to drift toward the center. The President has one job, and only one that matters--to lead. Jimmy Carter couldn't lead a horse to water, and that left only one other prominent Democrat for the nomination--Teddy Kennedy. Sensing that I had the choice between no leadership and horrific leadership, I voted for Carter in the primary. But I knew I was about to find myself doing something I swore I would never do--vote across party lines. To my mild irritation, Reagan was amazing during the campaign. Regardless of whatever else I might think, it was clear the Republicans had nominated a man who was self-confidently a leader. During the presidential debates, I waited for him to do that said shaking of his head, followed by "there you go again." I asked God for forgiveness, went into the ballot booth, and voted for Reagan.
I was right in doing so, even though I voted for the Democrat in the next three presidential cycles (I guess I figured Reagan had brought us back from the brink, so it was safe to vote for a Democrat again). But during both of his presidential terms, I constantly found myself defending or praising him to my Democrat buddies. When he was ruthlessly mocked for calling the Soviet Union "the evil empire," my vocal reaction was always the same: "Well, they are evil, and they are a communist empire, so they're an evil empire. What's so hard to understand about that?"
Even his own speechwriters cringed when Reagan would take a speech away from them and insert his own words. Scrapping their words, Reagan stood at the Berlin Wall and demanded "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!" Now that's leadership. He announced "Star Wars," again to great ridicule from the left, and I saw the wisdom in it. We can win the cold war without firing a shot, and look like the good guys while doing it. Call it the Strategic Defense Initiative, and then offer the technology to the enemy, since it's solely for defense, right? The Soviet Union was in complete disarray, people were lined up for blocks in Moscow to buy a loaf of bread that wouldn't be there by the time they got to the head of the line, most of the Soviet money had already been spent on multiple redundant weapons of war, and now Reagan was proposing to hand them a very, very, very expensive defense technology. All they had to do was pay for it out of non-existent Soviet money. It was the beginning of the end for the Soviet Union, and I couldn't have been happier.
Ignoring massive demonstrations throughout Europe, Reagan put cruise missiles in place on their territory (on US bases, of course). He regularly threw American politicians completely for a loop. He outraged rightists by making nice with Gorbachev, then outraged the left by defying him. He made peace overtures at just the right time, and rattled the sabers at just the right time, usually defying conventional wisdom in both cases. That's what true leaders do. Ignore the flak, and destroy the enemy's home bases (politically speaking, I should add). As one of the mourners said at Reagan's funeral, "I doubt that we will see his like again in our lifetimes."
By the time he stood his ground on supply-side economics and restored America's belief in itself as the economic engine that powered the world, I was fully aboard intellectually. Still, it took one more political promise from a Democratic president in 1992 that was tossed out the window by 1994 for my final conversion to the Republican Party. I haven't voted for a Democrat since, and I doubt I ever will. As the great man himself said, "I didn't leave the Democratic Party, it left me."
So amid the many blogs and news items that will do honor to him today, I simply want to say a very personal "Thank you, Mr. President, for making my conversion as painless as possible." Without him, I doubt that any politician could ever have effected that subtle but ongoing change in my political beliefs. I had long since begun practicing law, and taught constitutional law, but it took a Reagan to make me see that it wasn't just an intellectual exercise. I truly cling to the Constitution and the greatness of the Founders. He made me feel the strength of America rather than just thinking about it. And if the recent election results are any indication, it is as he said, "morning in America" once again.
No President in my lifetime has ever been the leader and inspiration that was Ronald Reagan. He was "American" in every way, and apologized to nobody for it. Sure his views were too conservative for my tastes those many years ago, and by my current standards, frequently too moderate or liberal. But he knew the goal. Restore America to its rightful place at the top of the heap, and do it in a manner that recognizes political realities without surrendering the goals of the Founders. Listen to the voice of the people, not to the talking-heads or pollsters. Make a mistake, admit it and correct it. Be willing to admit that a personal political view might detour the ship of state, and adjust. Risk the displeasure of the political establishment and the mainstream media. It's all leadership, and boy, what a leader he was.
I apologize for the length if this article, but it is hard to express the admiration I have for a former political enemy who was instrumental in my long transition from scruffy student political agitator to reasonable America-loving grandfather of eight. God bless Ronald Reagan and his beloved United States of America.
[+] Read More...
Friday, February 5, 2010
TV Review: Caprica (2010)
Set 58 years before the remake of Battlestar Galactica (“BSG”), Caprica is the story of two families. One is the Adama family, with the focus being on Joseph Adama (Esai Morales), the father of future Galactica commander William Adama -- William is a young boy at this point. The Graystones are the other family. Daniel Graystone (Eric Stoltz) is the inventor of the Cylons. All in all, I’m not thrilled with the show and I think it has serious problems going forward.** spoiler alert **
The story begins with the death of Graystone’s daughter and Adama’s wife and daughter in a terrorist bombing on a train. The terrorists are a militant religious fringe that believe in “the one true god” instead of the pantheon of gods that are generally accepted (though largely ignored) by the vast, vast majority of people in the colonies, of which Caprica is a member planet.
After losing his daughter Zoe (Alessandra Torresani), Graystone, a talented cyberneticist with a huge military contract to build the first combat robot, inserts an avatar of his daughter (kind of a mental imprint) into his robot’s meta-cognitive processor. This robot, a “cybernetic life form node”. . . “Cylon” for short, becomes the first Cylon. Because of this blending of Zoe and robot, the show intersperses images of the Cylon robot and Zoe, and we watch her reaction as lab techs respond to the robot, unaware of her presence. From there, wackiness ensues.
At this point, in the interest of full disclosure, I should point out that I do not like or respect Ronald Moore, the show’s creator. The man has serious issues. In several interviews, he’s stated that he believes characters should suffer and he would never allow characters to redeem themselves with their actions or to have happy endings (excepting, of course, studio demands). This was on full display in early BSG, where his characters entered a downward spiral with no end -- a downward spiral completely inconsistent with the human experience apart from a few true, manic depressives. Also on display in BSG was his creepy relationship with women. He claims to like “strong” female characters, but they always seem to end up cruel if not sadistic, corrupt, and with strong hints of lesbianism. His male characters fare no better, tending to be self-absorbed, pathetic alcoholics and whiny, über-wimps.I also do not respect the way he used cheap marketing tactics to gin up interest in BSG -- he has admitted since the show ended that the changes he made to character races and genders were done purely to outrage fans of the original show so they would tune in. What’s worse, as a story teller, I think he’s a coward. I will admit that he flashed moments of brilliance in BSG, but he was always too afraid to take those moments as far as they should go. For example, (1) he started to toy with the idea that the Cylons, who are extremely religious, were the good guys; (2) he gave us a Starbuck who came back from the dead, (4) he gave us terrorists, out of control death squads, and a mutiny, and (5) he gave us Baltar, who started building a massive, twisted cult. Each of these was a moment of brilliance. Yet, in each instance, he dropped the story lines right before the hard choices had to be made, often relying on the age old hack-writer's tool of des ex machina to solve his storyline problems.
Yet, BSG had several things going for it. The first season was virtually unwatchable with the characters basically running around whining and acting like depressives at a two-drink minimum funeral, as they re-enacted each of the original BSG episodes while Moore did interviews disparaging the original show. But over time, he stumbled into ideas that gave the story interest: the realization that some of the humans were actually Cylon agents, the discovery that there were hidden Cylons (who did not know they were Cylons), the discovery that Ellen Tigh was not human, the discovery of Earth. These moments of brilliance and the tension they created made up for the whiny moralizing (like BSGs thinly veiled support for the Iraqi insurgency against US troops), the failing story arcs and the unrealistic, unpleasant characters.
Further, BSG benefited from some great acting: Edward James Olmos, Mary McDonnell, Grace Park, James Callis, and Michael Hogan all turned in stellar performances. And, most importantly, Tricia Helfer gave us a Number Six who was dangerously psychotic, wildly passionate, and absolutely compelling.
Why do I bring this up? Because Caprica has none of these benefits. In place of the compelling, manipulative and unpredictable Number Six, we have Zoe (Torresani), an erratic, monotone, dark-haired version of “save-the-cheerleader” Hayden Panettiere. She’s a poor replacement because her character just doesn’t have the range that Number Six did, nor am I convinced that Torresani can hold a candle to Helfer screen presence. By the same token, Eric Stoltz (Pulp Fiction) just doesn’t have the ability to carry off either a believable scientific genius or a grieving father. He’s more of a moody lab tech. The subplot involving young William Adama’s indoctrination into the mafia doesn’t seem all that interesting either: "gee kid, here's how you break a window. . . ho hum." As for Joseph Adama, Esai Morales is a weak trade for Edward James Olmos, and his character seems to have little more to offer than being the hot-blooded foil to Stoltz’s Doctor Thorazine. . . if they ever end up on screen together.I am concerned about the plot as well. Whereas BSG was able to offer all kinds of mysteries and surprises, all central to the plot, Caprica seems more like a show that gave away the big surprise in the opening act and is now scrambling to remind you how surprised you were. What is left to reveal or to present a mystery? Nor are the intrafamily or interfamily dynamics very interesting. The show is set up to create tension between the two families and within the families, but the families don’t seem to be on an equal footing, they are bound together only by the thinnest of bonds, and they don’t necessarily interact. And the intrafamily relationships seem non-existent -- apparently, some of the characters are married, though you'd be hard-pressed to tell which. So while this is where the writers will likely look for drama, it seems like it’s going to be a stretch.
The world they’ve created isn’t all that exciting either. Whereas BSG followed the golden rule of unveiling slowly and keeping people wanting more, Caprica showed us their entire world right out of the gates. . . and it wasn’t all that interesting. Indeed, their world seems like a stylized 1950s with an incongruent mix of 1990s technology and far future technology, with a few taboos thrown in to shock the audience (like the nod to Hollywood’s new cause du jour polygamy).
Right now, I just don’t see the compelling characters. I see no story arcs that will keep you guessing. I see no drama or twists that will keep you on the edge of your seat. And I see little else to satisfy your sense of wonder. The themes are well trodden (racism, the pros and cons of religious extremism, power corrupts) and, even worse, the writers don’t seem to be offering anything new.
There are also strange moments you need to overlook to enjoy the show. For example, how does the Cylon, an eight foot tall multi-ton robot, escape the lab and go visit a friend of Zoe’s without anyone noticing? And why don’t the lab assistants seem to care that the robot appears to be psychotic and out of control?
Now, I could be wrong? It could be that the writers have something very different planned than what they’ve shown so far, but based on what I’ve seen at this point, Caprica made an ok short story, but has little to offer going forward as a series.
I guess we’ll see.
[+] Read More...
Open Thread -- Vox Populi
"A hunch is creativity trying to tell you something."
--Frank Capra
[+] Read More...
Scott Brown In Another Race
By the time this article posts, Scott Brown will likely already have been certified and sworn in for his seat in the Senate. Still, Brown had to push hard for the certification and subsequent confirmation so that he could participate in the debates over several issues, not the least of which is the nomination of Craig Becker as the new member of the National Labor Relations Board NLRB).The Senate hearings on Becker have been scheduled for Thursday, but may go forward as late as this post. He was approved by the Senate Labor Committee by a 15-8 vote a few months ago, and he has become a sticking point for Republicans and moderate Democrats. There has been much discussion over the past few days on the blogs over this nomination, but one issue of paramount importance has been largely ignored.
Becker's radical views aside for a moment, the real reason behind the rush to get Brown into the Senate and another voice in opposition is the following: There are over 400 NLRB decisions at issue in which less than the full Board issued rulings which have not yet been implemented. Two federal appeals in two separate federal districts were filed requesting that the courts determine if such decisions are binding. The two courts reached exactly opposite conclusions, which means the cases, as they currently stand, are on their way to the United States Supreme Court.
Becker's qualifications and radical political views will remain at issue if he is subsequently confirmed despite Brown's input and vote. But if Brown and Republicans are unable to defeat the nomination, the real reason behind the Brown confirmation rush will become abundantly clear. All that will be required to fend off a possible Supreme Court decision is for the Board to take another vote on the 400+ decisions which are currently in limbo, and they become binding with no further word from the Supreme Court necessary. The litigation, as we say in the law, is rendered moot by the full Board votes. Note that this does not determine the facial constitutionality of each decision, only the need for the Supreme Court to render a decision on the earlier issue.
Now for the reasons Becker must be rejected by the Senate, if at all possible. Those new votes, with Becker as a sitting member of the Board, will go from their current moderately pro-business thrust to a radical left, pro-union vote overnight. There are two Democrats and two Republicans now sitting on the Board. Becker would make the third Democrat, and thereby supply not only a Democrat take on all the pending (and future) decisions, but a far left, pro-union, progressive wing vote as well. Becker is not a traditional union-friendly Democrat, he is a radical unionist.
As I'm sure you all know, "card check" is currently an issue facing Congress. Many Democrats favor it, but Becker believes it's not even an issue for debate. He believes that every business should be unionized, and the only choice should be which union the worker will be forced to join. So something as basic as card check versus democratic secret ballots isn't even on Becker's radar. Card check for him is simply a more streamlined way of insuring that unions represent every worker in the United States. He believes in this so strongly that he has indicated that regardless of what the Congress decides, he will use his regulatory power to ensure that card check will become the rule anyway. All the better to eat you with, my dear.
When Becker was first nominated, The Wall Street Journal called him "labor's secret weapon." A WSJ columnist also referred to Becker as "Andy Stern's go-to guy." And indeed, Becker has been the SEIU's lead counsel, as well as counsel for the AFL-CIO. They quoted him as saying "all workplaces should be unionized, and the only choice is which union." He has been the happy warrior for unions in the single most radical left-wing union in the nation.
In a 1993 Minnesota Law Review article, which Becker wrote as a UCLA professor of law, he argued that "traditional notions of democracy should not apply in union elections." He went on to argue that those pesky employers who pay the bills should be barred from attending NLRB hearings about elections, and from challenging election results even amid strong evidence of union misconduct. He believes that in already-established union shops, internal elections should be held far from the work-site and held on "neutral grounds" and/or by mail-in ballots. I am personally familiar with the opportunity for fraud in that suggestion since I represented a major retailer in San Francisco who had photos of the winning union candidates taking the ballots boxes home, unsupervised, in the trunks of their personal automobiles. I lost the argument at the leftist-dominated California Labor Board, and the retailer decided not to appeal, opting instead to get its revenge at the next contract negotiations (I can proudly say that I gleefully watched the company getting that revenge).
Becker has said bluntly that he is willing to push NLRB discretion as far as possible, and way beyond its current limits, to tilt today's labor rules in favor of easy unionization followed by determining that all employer input disagreeing with any act of those unions is an unfair labor practice (the "catch-all" charge against employers). Becker doesn't want to mute employer rights and opinions, he wants to eliminate them entirely.
If card check is not approved by Congress as a solo issue, they have a backup. The alternative legislation appears on its face to be slightly less pro-labor than simple card check, but it is equally insidious and with Becker on the Board, all decisions would be favorable to a very dangerous exercise in regulatory power. Under the proposed law, the procedure for contract negotiations would be altered drastically. If a contract negotiation doesn't work out well now, both parties have equal access to the Board, and if there has been an agreement to extend negotiations past the expiration of the contract, both sides are free to declare the negotiations to be fruitless and submit the issue to the Board for determination of whether a strike will be allowed under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA).
The proposal changes this arrangement so that after 90 days of negotiations in which the union makes increasingly outrageous demands that the company rejects, the Board can impose its own version of the contract on the parties without the input of either the company or the vote of the rank-and-file membership of the union. With Becker on the Board, the union bosses will always be right, and the Board's undemocratic contract will always be just perfect. Both the company and the rank-and-file will take it in the shorts, and the union bosses will get exactly what they want every time. With a new, less aggressive moderate Democrat on the Board, the current law would leave it up to the Board to decide both whether a strike is yet in order, and/or if the proposed contract truly represents the will of the rank-and-file.
But in no event under current law can the Board simply write its own contract. It can propose, but it can't impose. It can cajole, and even threaten, but it can't write the contract. The backup legislation destroys this relationship. Becker's declared intention to use the NLRB to advance his radical agenda guarantees that the result will always be in favor of the union and the union bosses and that the contract will always be the one written by government bureaucrats. It would also remove any incentive whatsoever for the union bosses to negotiate in good faith, defeating the very purpose for which the NLRA was written in the first place.
Scott Brown has stated his opposition to the appointment, and wishes to follow the advice of The Journal and the National Right to Work Foundation by asking in the public hearings "why someone who wants to rig the rules to favor unionization should sit on a panel that is supposed to enforce fairness in union elections." Let us hope that he will have arrived in full Senatorial mode in time and in sufficient strength to turn back the tide of a favorable Senate vote on the nomination. His demand that the Democrats in Massachusetts get off their duffs and certify him to the Senate is meet and proper, and I hope that by the time you read this, he will already be in the Senate, in full battle armor.
[+] Read More...
Thursday, February 4, 2010
Commentarama Poll Analyzed
As you may recall, we recently ran our second quarterly Commentarama Poll to grade Obama and the Republicans. . . which sounds like a bad fairy tale, or a fifties rock band. Seventy-eight of you answered, and the results are interesting. Let’s discuss.
If I could use only one word to sum up the changes in the recent poll from the first quarterly Commentarama Poll (here and here), I would say “pessimism.” As a group, you seem even less enamored of Obama, and you think he is less likely to achieve his goals. You are more positive on the Republicans than you were, but you clearly aren’t anywhere near sold yet.
What was more interesting was the drop in support among the 15% of you who approve of Obama (15%. . . see, I told you not everyone who reads Commentarama is a conservative). In our first poll, 1% gave him an A, 7% gave him a B and 7% gave him a C. But 4% of you have now dropped you grade from B to C, with 11% giving him a C and only 3% now giving him a B. If we assume that you are representative of liberals at large -- and, yes, I do recognize that you aren’t for many reasons, e.g. you read this site and our poll isn’t statistically significant -- but if we assume that you are, then your downgrading him represents a drop in support among his supporters of 27%. If that translates into lost intensity, then the Democrats are in serious trouble.
By the way, if you gave Obama an A, I would sincerely like to hear your reasoning, as I would have assumed that you would be upset that he hasn’t managed to achieve his goals?
If we leave you out for the moment, then Obama’s best result came in health care where 80% of you claimed to understand his goals, though this is down from 92% in our prior poll. Of the seven goals we listed, this was the only one to exceed 50%. His next two best understood goals were environmental policy, down from 56% to 45%, and foreign policy, which was the only goal to go up -- from 39% to 47%. None of that speaks well for Obama's ability to communicate his goals.
But it gets worse. If we factor in the non-voters as a “none of the above” vote, the number of people claiming to understand Obama’s policies gets downright horrible:
According to Commentarama readers, the goal he is most likely to obtain is financial regulation, with 38% of you saying he will get that. The second most achievable goal is some face saving version of ObamaCare at 30%. But this is down from 66% last time! Indeed, in each area, you are now much more pessimistic about his chances. Take a look at the percentage point drop for each:
All of this translates into a dramatic drop in how you grade his ability to achieve his goals. None of you gave him an A in that regard, only 2 percent gave a B, and only 9% gave him a C. The other 89% gave him a D or an F. If we compare this to how you rated his efforts in October assuming you were one of his supporters, this again represents a significant drop both among supporters and non-supporters. At that point, 28% gave him an A, B or C, with 6% actually giving him an A.
Thus, not only do you not understand what he wants to achieve, but you are increasingly likely to think he can’t get what he wants. If I were Obama, I would repackage my agenda to something smaller, easier to grasp, and easier to obtain. Success breeds success, failure breeds failure.
Interestingly, the other issues didn’t resonate nearly as much. Only 10% of you named Copenhagen, showing that you don’t see his environmental failure as that embarrassing. Another 10% of you mentioned his retreats on ObamaCare. And only 5% named China (none said Honduras), leading me to conclude that foreign policy remains the red-headed step child unless a war goes wrong.
Thus, if I were a Republican looking to heat up the base, I would certainly not forget to mention his appointments along with his economic problems, but I would probably skip the foreign policy stuff, the environmental stuff, and I would attack ObamaCare as a tax increase rather than pointing out his inability to stand by any part of it.
You are also more positive that the Republicans will retake some parts of the government in November. Indeed, when we asked in October, 27% of you thought the Republicans wouldn’t get either the House or the Senate. This number has now fallen to 14%. Combining the other numbers, 44% of you think the Republicans will take the Senate and 76% think the Republicans will retake the House. A full 36% of you believe the Republicans will get both the House and Senate.
What this tells me is that the Republicans still need to close the deal. I would recommend something that allows them to break from the past, like a short simple ten point platform that defines who they want to be. . . and I would make it very attractive to the Tea Party people.
[+] Read More...
If I could use only one word to sum up the changes in the recent poll from the first quarterly Commentarama Poll (here and here), I would say “pessimism.” As a group, you seem even less enamored of Obama, and you think he is less likely to achieve his goals. You are more positive on the Republicans than you were, but you clearly aren’t anywhere near sold yet.
We began by asking you to grade Obama on the typical A-F scale. Fifty-eight percent of you gave him an F, which is slightly more than the 55% who did last time. Those extra three percent came from the group that gave him a D last time. Combined 83% of you gave him a D or an F in both polls.Grading Obama
What was more interesting was the drop in support among the 15% of you who approve of Obama (15%. . . see, I told you not everyone who reads Commentarama is a conservative). In our first poll, 1% gave him an A, 7% gave him a B and 7% gave him a C. But 4% of you have now dropped you grade from B to C, with 11% giving him a C and only 3% now giving him a B. If we assume that you are representative of liberals at large -- and, yes, I do recognize that you aren’t for many reasons, e.g. you read this site and our poll isn’t statistically significant -- but if we assume that you are, then your downgrading him represents a drop in support among his supporters of 27%. If that translates into lost intensity, then the Democrats are in serious trouble.
By the way, if you gave Obama an A, I would sincerely like to hear your reasoning, as I would have assumed that you would be upset that he hasn’t managed to achieve his goals?
Along with Obama’s fall in popularity, Commentarama readers now report being even less sure of what exactly Obama wants to achieve. We asked you to tell us in which areas you thought you understood what Obama’s policy goals are. Many of you noticed that we did not include a “none of the above” option. We did that because it would have been too easy for people to just check that box. Soooooo, like you did with the first poll, you made your own "none of the above" option by not voting. Indeed, 32 of you chose not to answer.Understanding Obama
If we leave you out for the moment, then Obama’s best result came in health care where 80% of you claimed to understand his goals, though this is down from 92% in our prior poll. Of the seven goals we listed, this was the only one to exceed 50%. His next two best understood goals were environmental policy, down from 56% to 45%, and foreign policy, which was the only goal to go up -- from 39% to 47%. None of that speaks well for Obama's ability to communicate his goals.
But it gets worse. If we factor in the non-voters as a “none of the above” vote, the number of people claiming to understand Obama’s policies gets downright horrible:
What we have here is a failure to communicate! Actually, I don’t think so. I’ve outlined several of these areas now in the Obama Agenda posts, not to mention in our regular articles. Thus, if it was just a simple matter of understanding his agenda, these numbers should be a lot higher. But they aren’t. Plus, take a look at these changes from last time:48% Health Care Reform
28% Foreign Policy
27% Environmental Protection
20% Fixing the Economy/Job Creation
18% Deficit Reduction
16% Education
Why would your knowledge of his agenda fall over time if this was just a failure of communication? It shouldn’t. I suspect the problem is more likely that Obama’s actions have not been consistent with his words and this is leaving people confused about what he wants to achieve. I further suspect that his constant retreats aren’t helping.+8% Foreign Policy
-11% Environmental Protection
-11% Fixing the Economy/Job Creation
-12% Health Care Reform
-12% Education
You are also significantly less positive about Obama’s ability to achieve his goals. In October, only 18% of you felt that Obama wouldn’t achieve any of the goals we identified by 2012. That number has now risen to 44%!!!Obama’s Chance of Success
According to Commentarama readers, the goal he is most likely to obtain is financial regulation, with 38% of you saying he will get that. The second most achievable goal is some face saving version of ObamaCare at 30%. But this is down from 66% last time! Indeed, in each area, you are now much more pessimistic about his chances. Take a look at the percentage point drop for each:
And only 7% of you thought he could achieve any sort of debt reduction (which wasn’t on the original poll).-36% A face saving version of ObamaCare (66% to 30%)
-18% Cap and Trade (22% to 4%)
-9% An immigration amnesty (26% to 17%)
-7% An assault weapon’s ban (18% to 11%)
-6% Card check for the unions (18% to 12%
-3% ObamaCare (5% to 2%)
All of this translates into a dramatic drop in how you grade his ability to achieve his goals. None of you gave him an A in that regard, only 2 percent gave a B, and only 9% gave him a C. The other 89% gave him a D or an F. If we compare this to how you rated his efforts in October assuming you were one of his supporters, this again represents a significant drop both among supporters and non-supporters. At that point, 28% gave him an A, B or C, with 6% actually giving him an A.
Thus, not only do you not understand what he wants to achieve, but you are increasingly likely to think he can’t get what he wants. If I were Obama, I would repackage my agenda to something smaller, easier to grasp, and easier to obtain. Success breeds success, failure breeds failure.
We also asked you to rate what you though was Obama’s most embarrassing failure to date. The winner, at 34%, was his missteps with his appointments. But economic matters actually came in a little higher when they were combined: combining the 22% who chose the deficit and the 17% who said jobs, economic concerns came in at 39%.Obama’s Blunders
Interestingly, the other issues didn’t resonate nearly as much. Only 10% of you named Copenhagen, showing that you don’t see his environmental failure as that embarrassing. Another 10% of you mentioned his retreats on ObamaCare. And only 5% named China (none said Honduras), leading me to conclude that foreign policy remains the red-headed step child unless a war goes wrong.
Thus, if I were a Republican looking to heat up the base, I would certainly not forget to mention his appointments along with his economic problems, but I would probably skip the foreign policy stuff, the environmental stuff, and I would attack ObamaCare as a tax increase rather than pointing out his inability to stand by any part of it.
The Republican leadership improved dramatically in your eyes since October, though they still have a long way to go. When we asked you to grade them, only 5% of you gave them passing marks and another 66% felt they were starting to get it. Twenty-eight percent of you felt they were hopeless. That number has now dropped to 20% and the number of A’s has increased to 18%. Within the “starting to get it” category, we added an intermediate level -- “almost there.” Twenty-one percent of you chose that. This means that 39% of you now say that they are there or almost there, with another 39% of you saying they’re getting there. Those aren’t great numbers yet, but they are marked improvement.The Republicans
You are also more positive that the Republicans will retake some parts of the government in November. Indeed, when we asked in October, 27% of you thought the Republicans wouldn’t get either the House or the Senate. This number has now fallen to 14%. Combining the other numbers, 44% of you think the Republicans will take the Senate and 76% think the Republicans will retake the House. A full 36% of you believe the Republicans will get both the House and Senate.
What this tells me is that the Republicans still need to close the deal. I would recommend something that allows them to break from the past, like a short simple ten point platform that defines who they want to be. . . and I would make it very attractive to the Tea Party people.
[+] Read More...
Discussion: Misplaced Childhood
Now where did I put my youth. . . hmm, it was around here somewhere. . . Let's take Bev's question from yesterday. What did you do as a kid that you miss doing as an adult? Or, what was the best part of being a kid?
[+] Read More...
San Francisco Diary--Journal Of An Exile
I'm sure that some of my readers think I've become obsessed with photos of courthouses lately, but I assure you, it's pure coincidence. And believe it or not, that photo is the San Francisco Federal Building in which the Prop 8 trial (like many famous trials before it) is taking place. It is perhaps the ugliest building in San Francisco. Well, wait. The new Federal Building (no courts) does look faintly like a giant Crosley radio, circa 1959, but that's another story.San Francisco is a city of many beautiful structures and architectural wonders, but the federal buildings are definitely not among them. It's as if the people in D.C. figure that they already have San Francisco in their hip-pocket, so they can assign their novice architects to design the cracker-boxes that pass for architecture and impose them on The City. I'm old enough and have lived here long enough to remember when they built the one in the picture. San Franciscans were spontaneously walking around the building with picket-signs that read, simply: "This is an ugly building." It hasn't gotten any prettier with time. On the other hand, maybe the architecture is just symbolic of how ugly the whole federal government is.
NOTE: Mark Leno, former San Francisco Supervisor and current State Senator, has introduced legislation to allay the concerns of those who oppose gay marriage in California. The proposed legislation purports to exempt clergy from possible litigation in the event that Prop 8 should be struck down by the federal courts as unconstitutional, or some new popular initiative should supersede Prop 8 if the current state decision is upheld at the federal level. Although it appears to address one of my objections, it is a long way from solving them.
Think of it this way. Prop 8 is currently a part of the state constitution, which has preeminence over any state law which might conflict with it. Leno is proposing a measure passed by the legislature which at best would muddy the legal waters, and at worst, conflict with the California constitution. If Prop 8 is upheld, the measure would be mere surplusage, since gay marriage would not be legal in any event. If Prop 8 is stricken by the federal courts, then the measure may not have legal sufficiency to protect the clergy under multiple "hate crimes" laws and the whole plethora of "civil rights" statutes.
Oddly, the main thrust of the proposed legislation addresses the tax-exempt status of religious institutions which refuse to perform gay marriages. Leno wants to guarantee that there will be no tax consequences in such matters. OK, good. But what difference does that make if the institutions have had their pastors or rabbis jailed, or muzzled, or their congregations crippled by civil rights lawsuits? The whole issue here revolves around religious freedom, not tax laws. And the question remains, can a legislative act prohibit litigation filed under other portions of state law or the state constitution? I think the answer is a resounding "no," and I can't support this move.
If gay marriage proponents ever want to convince the People of the State of California to tolerate gay marriage, it will still need to be done in the form of a new gay marriage amendment to the state constitution, passed by the people by a larger margin than Prop 8, and thereby superseding Prop 8. And such a measure would necessarily have to include all the guarantees that Leno left out in a mere legislative act. If Prop 8 is upheld, Leno's proposal would logically have to be re-introduced as a future ballot measure (a "referendum" from the legislature to the people, rather than the Prop 8 "initiative" which came from public sources, not from the legislature). In its present form, Leno's proposal is completely inadequate and would most likely fail if presented directly to the people.
NOTE: Speaking of Prop 8, the evidentiary and testimony portion of the trial ended last week. Nothing new to report on that. Closing arguments will come next month, and if there's anything of genuine importance, that's where it will take place. Then it will come down to just how pro-plaintiff the judge's decision will be. So far, he has shown no interest in much of anything the defense has produced, interrupting the attorneys on multiple occasions to ask "questions" which clearly favor the anti-Prop 8 side.
But wait, there's more! You all thought that the trial would not show up on film. You would be wrong. The trial is being televised, but not the way you might think. A group has gotten together to present the trial for YouTube, but it won't be the actual lawyers and litigants. Instead it will be a twelve-part reenactment, starring Adrienne Barbeau (Swamp Thing, Cannibal Women in the Avocado Jungle of Death) and Tess Harper (Ishtar, Starflight: The Plane That Couldn't Land). It's nice to know that if San Francisco couldn't produce either light or heat out of this boring trial, at least Hollywood can, and at the same time provide work for underemployed "stars." Frankly, I can't wait. Adrienne Barbeau has always been a favorite of mine, ever since she came out of that swamp, rather scantily clad. And who wouldn't love a woman who had twin boys at age 51? She remarked that she was the only woman in the maternity ward who was also a member of AARP.
NOTE: San Francisco's anti-blight law directed at landowners appears to be having next-to-no success. First, it requires those who own abandoned property to pay a $765 annual fee to register their vacant buildings with the city government. The vast majority of those owners have simply ignored the law. Those who have registered remain almost entirely non-compliant with the provisions of the ordinance. Director of the Department of Building Inspection (yep, they have a whole department) says "It's frustrating. The goal is to use government regulation to return the buildings to their intended uses as housing, shops and offices. We want them to benefit neighborhoods, not bring them down." It all goes to prove the inefficacy of government control of nearly everything. The City has imposed such horrendous controls on prices, rentals, businesses and individuals, that the landowners have nearly no incentive to do anything much with their properties.
Of course, "blight" is in the eye of the beholder. You're picturing squatter-occupied tenements and falling-down factories. Fair enough. But where have the largest number of complaints come from? The swells in Pacific Heights (think Beverly Hills, with real hills). The horrified residents of the area near Webster and Broadway awoke one day to find that one of their residents had exited town and left a blighted property behind. Horrors! The defect? A brick missing from one of the house's several chimneys, and a lone broken window, visible only from very close since the crack is on a side, back, second-story window. Since San Fran Nan and several bigwig politicos live nearby, I'm sure this ghastly problem will be remedied very soon.
NOTE: There has been an interesting development in the upcoming trial of Johannes Mehserle, the BART cop who shot and killed thug Oscar Grant during an attempted detention and arrest on the Oakland side of the Bay. Several friends of Grant have volunteered to testify--for the defense. One told police in a taped statement that Mehserle hadn't cursed or used racial slurs against African-American victim Grant during the incident. Another stated that he had also been detained with Grant, and was two feet away when the shooting occurred. He said that he heard Mehserle warn Grant that if he didn't quit resisting arrest, he would tase him. This is vital to the defense, which claims that Mehserle was an inexperienced rookie who intended to tase Grant, and grabbed his service weapon accidentally. It's hardly a perfect defense to homicide, but it substantiates Mehserle's own statement, and could reduce the final verdict from murder to negligent homicide.
NOTE: A rally/party for the "peaceful protestors" who occupied buildings at San Francisco State University and UC Berkeley last month turned, well, violent. (I had nothing to do with this, folks, even though I have radical credentials from both universities) Last Sunday, the police were called to the scene of a party gone wild that had spilled out into the streets, and which produced loud, drunken behavior and an occasional fist-fight. The conclusion that can be drawn is that the original protestors were fighting increased UC and State University student fees, and the partiers were protesting the police. The first arrest was that of Jared Aldrich, a 32 year-old "student" at Laney College in Oakland (which has no connection whatsoever to the university system). Needless to say, the party-goers are blaming the police (how unusual) for causing the whole problem. Multiple charges of public drunkenness, unlawful assembly, and resisting arrest have been filed. Can civil suits for police brutality and civil rights violations be far behind? Ah, San Francisco.
[+] Read More...
Wednesday, February 3, 2010
Commentarama: Fringe Sleaze?
The other day, I was checking around the internet to see where Commentarama’s name might come up. Within a few minutes I’d found a mention of our humble site in the comments at Slate -- a run-of-the-mill leftist e-rag. The comment, made by someone I shall call “Idiot Girl,” described our site as a “fringe sleaze site.” Hmm. We’ve been many things, from a Nigerian bank to a dispenser of invisible t-shirts, but we’ve never been about sleaze. And we certainly aren’t about the fringe either.Much of the blogosphere, left or right, is about following the crowd and posting a link to some well known article along with a couple sentences that say: “I’m hopping mad about ___. Isn’t ___ a jerk.” But that’s not us. We do our best to provide original content everyday. And even when we do hit a popular topic, we always try to give you more than you’ll find anywhere else (sometimes with a little humor tossed in). We like to think of ourselves as more of a magazine than a blog.
Our goal at Commentarama is to provide you with a fair analysis of issues that we see, in the hopes that this will challenge your views and get you to understand your own beliefs more clearly (plus, we like to hear ourselves talk!). Thus, we try to present you with the facts and the arguments of both sides, and we give you our honest opinions -- not the opinions we think you want to hear. Nor do we repeat right-wing talking points, or left-wing talking points, or anyone’s talking points.
Indeed, you’ve seen us take many stances that ran counter to the rest of the right-wing blogosphere. Take, for example, my article on leaving Afghanistan. Or consider our CommentaramaCare plan that doesn’t fit cleanly on either ideological spectrum. Nor do we refrain from criticizing the right when they are wrong, nor do we withhold our contempt for corrupt Republicans any more than we withhold our contempt for corrupt Democrats. We believe in principle above party, and truth and logic above all else.
All told, we think that’s helped separate us from the rest of the blogosphere pretty well. For example, we told you that Obama was failing (here, here, and here) long before anyone else did, way back when everyone else was still screaming that he was an evil genius working according to a secret master plan that would guarantee him permanent power. We told you (here and here) what was happening in Honduras a few days before even the Wall Street Journal became “the first” to figure it out. And we continued to walk you through Obama's surrenders in Honduras step by step, when others were merely screaming about his love of dictators (here, here, and here). We showed you how Investor’s Business Daily was wrong about ObamaCare, when everyone else was running around feeling outraged by IBD's incorrect conclusion. And in other instances too, we gave you the actual analysis while others merely ran with the most extreme rumors they could find -- Climategate, ObamaCare, the economy, Copenhagen, China and its dangers (here and here) but also that we shouldn’t overstate China's powers, cap and trade, etc.
In none of these instances, did we act like a fringe site. Yes, we weren’t particularly flattering to Obama and the left, but that’s because they did not deserve to be flattered. There is a difference between being fair and uncritically accepting the arguments of both sides. We are more than willing to identify those instances where we agree with the left, or where they have valid points -- even if we don’t share their views, or where we think the right is simply wrong. But when history has shown that a particular policy has failed repeatedly, or when something is illogical or just plain stupid, or someone is lying, we will call them on it. In other words, expect us to be fair, but don’t expect us to be patsies.
So what I’m trying to say is that we do our best to be accurate. When we aren’t, call us on it. If you disagree with us or you hold a different opinion, speak up. We won’t be offended. We want to hear from each of you -- not just the conservatives (and yes, I know some liberals read this site. . . I can name a couple of you).
So make Commentarama your daily read, and feel free to participate. And if you ever run across something you want us to talk about, just ask -- we’ve probably got an opinion about it.
In the meantime, if you run into Idiot Girl, tell her that if she thinks that we are a fringe site, then maybe she should consider that she’s the one on the fringe. And as for “sleaze”. . . tell her to get her mind out of the gutter.
Thanks for listening!
[+] Read More...
Question: Who Questions The Questioner?
What question would you ask if we threw this open for you to write the questions? Would your question be questionable? Would you question authority? Would you question reality? Or would you question everything? What's on your mind?
[+] Read More...
Why I Oppose Gay Marriage
Gay marriage is one of the most complex issues of the past twenty years. It is an issue that transcends ideology, despite the media’s attempt to paint this as the “intolerant right” versus the “victim left.” In fact, I know some of you favor allowing gay marriage. It is also one of the most contentious issues of our time because most of the arguments made are emotional in nature. I do not support gay marriage. Here is why.Let me start by saying that I have nothing against gays. You can’t live in Washington, D.C. without meeting a good number and I’ve found most of them to be pleasant, decent people. But this issue isn’t about “like.” I like eight year olds and puppies too, but that doesn’t mean I think they should be allowed to marry. See, this issue isn’t about what I think or who I like, it isn’t about whether or not something is a sin, or my definition of morality, or whether or not it’s good for society or whether or not it’s been accepted historically. Those may sound like valid reasons for deciding this issue, but they aren’t. They are, in fact, entirely irrelevant. Because we are a constitutional democracy, the only thing that matters is the law.
Unlike other countries, the United States was formed by the consent of its citizens. The left likes to claim this is a difference without a distinction, but they are wrong. It matters very much. In other countries, the government can change the law as it sees fit. But in the United States, the powers of the government are expressly limited to those granted to it by the Constitution. All other powers are retained by the citizens.The Law
Why does this matter? After all, aren’t we only talking about giving some people new legal rights? Well, it matters because law is what is called a “zero-sum game.” That means you cannot give a right to one person without taking a right from another -- every right given to one under the law imposes an equal restriction on another.Note: This is not to say the Constitution can’t be changed. It can, but it must be done through the amendment process, with the consent of the public, not by simple fiat.
In the case of gay marriage, the deprivation includes depriving others of the right to refuse to recognize the relationship and all that is associated with that. This would include, for example, (1) employers, who would become legally obligated to extend partnership benefits to gay couples, (2) churches, which could no longer refuse to recognize such marriages, and (3) taxpayers, who would be forced to bear the burden of subsidizing these new marriages through the government benefits that become available to married couples.
Whether or not you like those rights is irrelevant (there are many rights people have that I don’t like and if you want to start playing the game of letting government take away rights because we don’t approve of them, expect to have no rights very quickly). The fact is these are rights, and before the government can take them away on behalf of gay marriage advocates, those advocates must show that their right to marry is legally superior to the rights of the people to refuse to recognize those marriages. They have yet to meet that burden.
Gay groups generally make two kinds of arguments for gay marriage. First, they argue that they are a distinct social group akin to blacks or women, who should be given “equal protection” under the law. Secondly, they argue that it is improper for the government to grant heterosexuals the privilege of marriage, but to deny it to them. Neither argument has merit.Why Pro-Gay Marriage Arguments Fail
The primary argument made by advocates of gay marriage is that they are a distinct minority social group akin to blacks. Thus, they argue that having a right to gay marriage is a civil right akin to ending legal discrimination against blacks. But the two groups are not comparable.Gays Are Not Like Other Minorities
First, there is a key difference between “blackness” and “gayness.” Being gay requires action -- engaging in homosexual activity. Being black does not. Our Constitution has never recognized a minority based on behavior rather than status. The reasons are obvious. If we were to start creating minorities based on behavior, anyone could claim minority status -- gays, people with any number of sexual fetishes, hunters, meat eaters, fight-club members, etc. This would make an unworkable mockery of the law.
And while gays will argue that they are like blacks because “they were born that way,” that assertion does nothing to change this analysis. For example, allowing self-report to form the basis for awarding minority status would open the door for anyone to claim minority status by making a similar claim. In that regard, serial killers, pedophiles, addicts, shoplifters and thrill seekers all already claim to be “born that way.” Does that mean they deserve legally protected status? If it doesn’t, why should gays be different?
Moreover, the mindset of the minority group has never been the relevant factor in deciding whether or not to grant legally protected status -- it is the ability of others to identify them that matters. In other words, we don’t extend legal protections to blacks because they feel that they are black, we extend legal protections to blacks because others can spot them instantly and single them out.
Further, under our legal system, we only extend such protections to groups that were historically legally discriminated against. Blacks were once held as slaves, were denied the right to vote and hold property, and have been systematically excluded from the economy through a series of laws like the Jim Crow laws. The same is true for women. But none of this is true for gays. Sure, you can find some laws that prohibited gay sex, but that is no different than laws that prohibit unlicensed people from practicing medicine or driving. The point is that there were no laws to deprive gays of their property or their legal rights like there were with protected minorities. And before you tell me that people informally discriminated against gays, consider that people discriminate against slobs today -- does that make them a protected group? It is prior legal discrimination that matters.
Thus, the reasons put forth for granting gays protected status simply don’t justify the granting of such a status.
The other argument gay groups make is that because marriage discriminates by providing benefits that singles cannot get, and the government may not discriminate in handing out privileges, the government cannot allow heterosexual marriage without also allowing gay marriage. But this argument ignores the fact that the government can discriminate where it has a sufficient justification, which it does in this case.Heterosexual Marriage Is Justified, Gay Marriage Is Not
Contrary to what gay groups argue, the government can discriminate in handing out privileges. It does this every time it denies a 12 year old a drivers license, every time it requires a license to enter a profession, and every time it means-tests benefits. The question is whether or not the government has a sufficient public interest in allowing the discrimination. In the case of heterosexual marriage, it does.
To understand this point, one must first understand the reason the government became involved in recognizing marriages in the first place. Marriage began as a religious institution, but was quickly adopted by the state as a means of handling inheritance. When Napoleon ushered in the era of nation states, with their massive citizen armies rather than small professional armies, marriage because a way to encourage “child production.” Toward the modern era, marriage became a way of protecting women at a time when women had few legal rights outside of marriage. For example, despite feminists' claims to the contrary, marriage allowed the state to protect women from men who would marry them for their money and then run away (polygamy and adultery laws), protect women from sexual abuse (sodomy laws and later laws against marital rape), protect women from their husband’s creditors, and finally protect women from being left without support following a divorce.
These reasons constitute the state’s interest in maintain the institution of marriage despite its discriminatory effects. But none of these justifies extending marriage to gays. Inheritance can be handled outside of marriage now. Gays do not produce children. Nor is marriage needed to protect gays. Thus, this argument fails as well.
Moreover, even if gays were right about their assumption that there is no special justification for allowing heterosexual marriage, that argument still would not justify extending marriage to gays. Instead, it would only justify getting the government back out of the marriage business. You don’t correct discrimination by adding new members to the discriminating class.
All in all, gay marriage advocates have been unable to show that they deserve protected status or that it is improper to allow heterosexual marriage without also allowing gay marriage. Thus, there is no legal justification for allowing gay marriage. And under our system it is simply not proper to give a legal right just because we like that right.Conclusion
Since allowing gay marriage would require the government to force millions of people to extend benefits against their will, act against their religious beliefs or pay more in taxes to support something they oppose, I cannot support such an extension given the lack of a compelling legal justification for giving gays such legal rights.
Moreover, at each turn, I find myself facing the troubling aspect that all of the arguments made by gay advocates leave me wondering why those arguments should apply only to gays. Why couldn’t groups of three or four or ten adults make the exact same arguments? Why couldn’t children make the same arguments? Or bothers and sisters who wanted to marry? Or what about people who want to marry their pets? And why can’t these same arguments be used to expand legal rights well beyond marriage? If these are valid arguments, what right do gays have to say, “they apply to us, but won’t apply to anyone else,” and what right do we have to accept that reason for gays, but not others?
Ultimately, accepting these arguments is truly the slippery slope that leads to legal chaos. Not to mention the practical problems. Heck, how do you even know if someone is gay? What’s to keep a couple friends from using such a law to take advantage of the system? You would be a fool not to be “married” to someone if this becomes law. . . a whole world of benefits, from health insurance to pension plans to per diems on travel awaits.
That’s why I oppose gay marriage.
[+] Read More...
Tuesday, February 2, 2010
Let The Finger-Pointing Begin
Nounfinger-pointing:
The making of accusations, the assigning of blame.
So--who's responsible for the bright idea of Mirandizing the Christmas underwear bomber, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, less than an hour into questioning him about his Al Qaeda and Yemeni connections?
She did. No, he did. No, they did. No, you did. And the blame game goes on at the White House and the Department of Justice. This whole finger-pointing thing is an integral part of politics, but the Obamists have taken it to high art. In order to send up test balloons, they come up with absolutely crazed ideas then slip them out to the public just to see if the public will accept them. Obama went all his predecessors one better by appointing more insane political czars than they had in all of Russian history. If the plan plays badly, there's always the bus to throw them under. This issue, though, affects the highest levels of government, and undoubtedly includes the Attorney General and perhaps the President himself.
Even though the ultimate decision rests with Obama and Holder, it is now coming out that at least four agencies participated in this circular firing-squad, and each seems to have a representative pointing the finger at the others. Along with Justice, there was a teleconference that included the FBI, the State Department, and the CIA. I'm still waiting to find out if anyone thought to invite the Department of Defense to this little chat.
They all got their heads together (figuratively, of course) and decided on a common course as well as a story to tell the press. The unanimity of the story began to come unglued shortly after the public reaction was angrily negative. So instead of all of them being responsible, the game is to determine whom they can successfully play "tag" with. The original cooked-up story goes somewhat like this: The bomber was taken into custody and he voluntarily stated that "others were following me." He also revealed some other information, some of which remains appropriately classified. When the doctors treating his flamed-out crotch insisted that they had to treat him right away, the questioning stopped.
And then the story starts to go a little cuckoo. Given that the doctors have a duty to render medical aid at the earliest possible time, this doesn't explain why the questioning didn't continue after the underwear hottie had been treated. One source says "the questioning stopped when doctors said they needed to sedate Abdulmutallab to treat his injuries. At that point, the agents backed off." Another says "the two agents who interviewed him are very experienced counter-terrorism agents. They've been around a long time and have traveled internationally. And the Detroit area has the largest Muslim community in the country (emphasis added)." What that latter part of the statement means is up to the reader, but I certainly have my own opinion.
An unnamed source said "When Abdulmutallab awakened, a second team of FBI agents was sent in. Authorities thought he might be willing to say even more to the second set of agents." Still another unnamed source added: "We had to see if he was still willing to talk." Well, he wasn't. And somebody decided that when it became apparent that the bomber was unwilling [only at that point, mind you], the decision was made to go ahead and Mirandize him. Since when is the decision to Mirandize or not made on the basis of an obviously not-too-bright non-citizen terrorist deciding that he didn't want to talk any more? Isn't it possible that his reluctance to continue talking at that moment was outweighed by the immediate concerns of the passengers of the flight who were almost murdered en masse along with several thousand Detroit citizens on the ground below?
Tellingly, one of the unnamed sources said "We had already talked to him for almost an hour and he provided a lot of information." I might be a little naive here, but it seems that if in that short period of time the bomber provided a lot of information, he just might have a whole lot more information if the questioning went on. Instead, the consensus seemed to be that they had gotten enough information, so it was time to start treating him like an ordinary American citizen-criminal instead of the foreign belligerent terrorist bomber he had chosen to be.
And now the game begins. Director of National Intelligence Dennis C. Blair flatly said in a Senate Committee hearing: "The decision to read Abdulmutallab his rights was a mistake." That directly contravenes the testimony of FBI Director Robert S. Mueller that "the decision was, I believe, very appropriate, given the situation." OK, it seems like Mueller might be ready to fall on his sword but then he quickly obscures the situation by saying "I'm not fully familiar with who talked to whom on the afternoon." That sounds like a setup for future excuses that he had been misinformed by the mystery people he talked to.
That leads us back to Obama and Holder. Before the public outcry, the decision to stop questioning and start Mirandizing was driven from the very top. Even if they gave no direct orders to anyone on the scene of the underwear bomber interrogation, their policy of awarding constitutional protections to all terrorism suspects just as they would to American citizens left the interrogators on the scene with little choice. Who are they going to blame for that idiotic policy?
Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) said in an interview that "President Obama's policy of taking terrorism suspects to court rather than military tribunals [and further interrogation] was carried over from political promises made on the campaign trail." That certainly seems a plausible explanation for the outrageously misplaced decision regarding the underwear bomber and the trial of the 9-11 terrorists in a civilian court in New York City (official word on that still pending). The question remains of how long Obama and Holder can continue to hold that view, given the national outrage over the whole concept. And the companion question is "who will they point the finger at when a name (or names) is required to go with each of the individual decisions?"
Even RINO Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME) said that the nation's top intelligence officials were not consulted about the Miranda warning. If they had been "they would have explained the importance of gathering all possible intelligence about Yemen, where there is a serious threat from terrorists whose sights are trained on this nation. They would have explained the critical nature of learning all we could from Abdulmutallab." The "authorities" who made the on-the-spot decision to Mirandize the underwear bomber said that they had already determined from the interrogation that he had links to Al Qaeda and had lived in Yemen during his radicalization training.
One final note regarding the underwear bomber situation and the complete lack of need for Miranda warnings. Even if the trial were to go forward in a civilian court (a ludicrous concept, but still possible with Obama and Holder in charge), the interrogation could have continued and a conviction obtained anyway. This low-life's conviction could proceed quite nicely without invoking the "fruit of the poisonous tree" doctrine. There were plenty of witnesses on the plane who could provide the testimony necessary to convict, along with gobs of forensic evidence. Nothing Abdulmutallab said before or during the early interrogation (or anything he might have said if Miranda hadn't been invoked) would be necessary to convict him solely of the attempted mass-murder over Detroit. Miranda would only affect a later decision to try him on separate charges unrelated to the Detroit terrorist act. In other words, if he later revealed, un-Mirandized, that he and Osama bin Laden conspired together to bomb Detroit (or New York, or Chicago), those words could not be used against him in a later civilian trial, nor could the prosecution use any subsequently-discovered evidence resulting from his admissions (that would be the infamous "fruit of the poisonous tree.)"
[+] Read More...
Captioning: Put Down The Twinkie!
Michelle Obama ruthlessly mocks a husky fourth grader as part of her "shame a fat kid to stop eating" program, announced by President Obama during his awful state of the union.
[+] Read More...
[+] Read More...
Suggestions For Cutting The Deficit
With Obama producing a $3.8 trillion “budget” (the word is barely appropriate) with a $1.6 trillion deficit, and with 65% of voters saying that deficit reduction should be his highest priority, you’d think Obama could find a way to shave a few pennies here and there. You’d be wrong. Obama has no plan, no ability, and no will to reduce the deficit. So allow me to make some suggestions. . .• Cancel The “Stimulus”: The stimulus was a ridiculous idea from the get-go. It had nothing to do with “stimulating” the economy or it would have been spent in ways that at least had a chance to create jobs and stimulate the economy. Instead, it was just a give away to left-wing interest groups. Of the $787 billion allocated, $597 billion is supposedly still unspent. Throw away the checkbook immediately. Total Savings: $597 billionNon-Defense Discretionary Spending Cuts
• Cancel the TARP: The TARP was good money thrown after bad, given to people who didn’t need it, so they could pay out massive bonuses to people who didn’t deserve it. Of the $700 billion allocated, $200 billion was never spent. Another $92 billion has already been returned and another $364 billion is expected to be returned ($42 billion is considered lost). We should demand an immediate return of all TARP funds. Total Revenue Increase: $364 billion
• Cut Federal Employment & Salaries: The federal government employs approximately 2.73 million employees, who are paid $213 billion. I have direct experience with Club Fed and I can tell you that at least one-third of those employees could and should be terminated. If we cut the federal workforce by 10% (like a business might do in a recession) and cut pay 10% across the board for the rest, we could reduce the federal payroll by $40.6 billion. Total Savings: $40.6 billionNote: We should also put the kibosh to Obama’s plan to use the returned TARP money for other purposes. Though this doesn’t represent savings we can count, because it isn't set to be spent yet, it’s still a good idea.
• Discretionary Spending “Freeze”: When Bush came to office, non-defense discretionary spending was $262 billion. Despite there being almost no inflation between 2000 and the present, discretionary spending increased to $420 billion before Bush left office. In Obama’s first year, it increased to $699 billion, in large part because of the $190 billion spent on the stimulus. Even without that, non-defense discretionary spending still increased to $509 billion. Leaving aside the stimulus, a 20% cut on that $509 billion would result in $408 billion, less than a 3% cut from Bush’s last budget just over a year ago. Yet, this would save another $101 billion. Total Savings: $101 billion
At this point, without touching defense spending or entitlements, we could save $1.1 trillion, reducing Obama’s $1.6 trillion deficit to $500 billion. But we’re not done there. Look at defense:Defense Spending Cuts
• Defense: The 2010 Defense budget is $663.8 billion, with $130 billion going to overseas operations (including Afghanistan and Iraq) and the remaining $533.8 billion going to fund “base defense programs.” This represents a 4% increase for “in-country spending” over 2009. Simply freezing that portion of the budget at 2009 levels would save $20.5 billion, without even looking at programs the Defense Department doesn't want but Congress won't quit. Total Savings: $20.5 billion
Finally, let’s get a bit more speculative. Let’s talk about entitlement reform and energy independence.Entitlement Reform & Economic Investment
• Entitlement Reform: CommentaramaCare: Without repeating the finer points of CommentaramaCare, we very conservatively calculated that the reforms proposed could save the government $245.7 billion per year just by bringing the cost of Medicare closer to the cost of private insurance. Total Savings: $245.7 billion
• Energy Independence: I wouldn’t normally suggest spending money to save money, but there is one area where this might work (though the reasons will need to wait for a future post): energy. Last year, the United States bought $470 billion in imported oil -- about half came from countries we don’t like, the rest came from places like Canada and Mexico. If we opened off-shore drilling and invested in the conversion from an oil-based economy to a natural gas-based economy, we could send about half of the money we spend in places like Saudi Arabia to places like Arkansas, Florida, California and the Dakotas instead. At a minimum, this would represent $235 billion in additional taxable sales in the United States. But let’s think like Keynes, because there is some truth to his theories. This $235 billion flowing through the economy could result in as much as $1.2 trillion in additional economic activity. If you take 28% of that in tax (the percentage of the U.S. economy that was taken in taxes last year), that would result in $329 billion in additional tax revenue. Total Increase Revenue: $329 billion
Totaling these amounts, we have $1.1 trillion in savings without touching defense spending or entitlements. We could get another $20.5 billion from the defense budget without a single cut. We could get another $245.7 billion from reforming our health care system. And we could get as much as $329 billion by buying our fossil fuels from domestic sources instead of the Middle East and Venezuela. This results in a total potential reduction to the budget of $1.7 trillion dollars. In other words, we could eliminate Obama’s deficit and achieve a $100 billion surplus instead. And none of these cuts would be all that painful to the economy or the ability of the federal government to carry on working.Conclusion
Yet, Obama can’t find a single one of these? What does that tell you about the sincerity of his pledge to reduce the deficit?
[+] Read More...
Monday, February 1, 2010
Obama: Trust Thee Not
Obama has lost the public trust. The State of the Union was supposed to be his reset button with the public. But as I outlined in my analysis of his speech, he blew it big time. His speech had nothing to assuage the public or to regain their trust. Instead, it was a laundry list of handouts to leftist special interests. Recent polling backs that up, it also shows just how big Obama’s trust problem has become.Let’s begin with the bad news for Obama. He got virtually no bounce from the speech. In fact, his bounce from the State of the Union was around 2-3%, right in line with the other 3% fast-fading bounces that have become his trademark for his many “speech of his administration” speeches.
What’s worse, this bounce came entirely from Democrats. Indeed, according to Rasmussen, Obama’s approval among Democrats increased from 81% before the speech to 90% after the speech, whereas his approval among Republicans and independent didn’t budge a millimeter.
This is doubly bad for Obama. First, while you might think that Obama would be happy to get 90% of the Lemming-flavored Kool-Aid brigade that has become the Democratic Party, the reality is a little different. With Obama already getting 90% support among Democrats, there is no reservoir of dissatisfied Democrats that he can tap into to raise his re-election chances. And since his approval ratings stand at only 47% right now, that means he cannot win an election with only Democratic support. . . he needs to attract moderates. Yet, that brings up problem number two.
The fact that Obama wasn't able to get a single additional point out of moderates or leftish Republicans tells us that he has lost them -- they are no longer interested in listening to him and they have stopped giving him the benefit of the doubt. Without those voters, he has no chance of re-election, and his ability to throw his weight around in Washington will be minimal.
So how bad has the relationship between Obama and independents become? Well, let’s look purely at the question of trust. . . the “do you believe Obama” questions:
That’s a lot of distrust. Not surprisingly, the public’s view of his policies treats him no better:• Obama told us that his administration cut taxes for 95% of Americans. But only 21% of voters believed that claim. Moreover, almost no Republicans or independents believed this (only 34% of Democrats believed it).
• Obama claimed that the economy is growing again because of his policies. But only 35% of voters even believe the economy is growing again. (70% of Republicans and 60% of independents called el toro kaka on this one -- most of the rest had no opinion.)
• Obama claimed to have created two million jobs for people “who would otherwise be unemployed” (read: “saved or created”). Only 27% of voters believed that one. (77% of Republicans and 59% of independents rejected this one -- most of the rest had no opinion).
• Obama claimed he made the country safer. He claimed he sorted out the mess Bush left in Afghanistan, Iraq, and in the fight against Islamic terrorism generally. The voters aren’t buying it. Only 38% believe we are winning against the Islamic terrorists. Only 36% of voters believe the U.S. is safer today than it was before 9/11, the lowest level of confidence ever measured.
Further, Obama has suffered a 13% drop since his Afghan speech on the question of whether or not Americans think Afghanistan will get better or worse. Only 21% of Americans think the situation in Afghanistan will get better, with 46% saying it will get worse. Similarly, only 29% now believe that Iraq will improve, with 30% saying it will worsen.
Finally, speaking of populism, let’s take a look at Obama’s new strategy. A great wave of seeming-populism is sweeping the country. Obama is trying to hook into that by demonizing banks and the rich. Yet, he’s misread this movement. He think the public’s dislike of big business will translate into support for increased government regulation and control. Yet the opposite is true.• Only 9% of voters think Obama’s freeze on discretionary spending will have an impact on the deficit. Making this even worse, 65% respond that cutting the deficit should be Obama’s number one priority. . . and 65% believe he will fail.
• Obama proposed new spending on a variety of programs (he turned over a $3.8 trillion dollar budget this week), yet 57% of voters want the government to cut spending -- only 12% favoring increased spending.
• Obama proposed giving preferential repayment terms to government workers with student loans, but 51% of the public thinks government workers are already over paid.
• While 69% of the public agrees with Obama's plan to tax large banks to get the bailout money back, the public actually view this differently than he does. Whereas Obama is selling this tax as populist revenge, the public sees this as getting their money back. Indeed, while Obama wants to target only big banks and to exclude Obama-friends Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, 72% of Americans want them taxed as part of this plan, as well as anyone who received a bailout.
For example, unlike Obama, the public lumps the government in with big business: 71% of voters think that government and big business work together to harm consumers and investors. Another 57% say the political system is corrupt and that it favors donors, with 59% saying that members of Congress meet with regulators to “help their friends and hurt their political opponents.” This translates into an extreme distrust of the relationship between government and big business. Thus, it is not surprising that 66% of Americans want smaller government and lower taxes, and that 76% prefer a free-market economy over one that is government managed. . . the exact opposite of the goals Obama is trying to achieve.
This lack of trust is reflected in the rest of Obama’s numbers as well. Only 27% trust Obama’s economic plan. A full 72% say that he is too liberal. Only 44% think he views society as fair, i.e. he doesn’t like us, and only 29% rate him as particularly ethical.
My how the mighty have fallen. . .
[+] Read More...
Pelosi's Taxpayer Booze Bash. . .
If you haven't heard yet about Pelosi's taxpayer sponsored boozefest ($1,000 a week for the last two years) while flying on Air Force planes, check out Writer X's take on it today! Click me. . .
[+] Read More...
The Virgin Mary Loves Burqas
And now, the latest in silly debates, brought to you courtesy of France. France recently took a bold step that our politically-correct powers-that-be are only just having to deal with. The French authorities banned the wearing of the burqa, chador, or any other Islamic garb which covers a female's face so as to make it invisible to others or which indicates a "hostile or belligerent" attitude toward secular government or other religions.Here in the good old USA, we are only now having to come to terms with the genuine dichotomy between freedom and security which the burqa et al aggravate. RealID acts require a photo ID, and a burqa could (and has) obscured the face of many beautiful women, not to mention the beautiful faces of several male terrorists as they tried to skitter away from our military before being captured. Several states have already denied driver's licenses to women who refuse to remove the facial covering, flying in the face of federal touchy-feely guidelines. Who's driving that car--the Phantom? It has long been a rule that masks (and these items are most certainly masks) are forbidden to be worn in public except for "celebratory purposes" such as Halloween, and still must be removed at the lawful request of a peace officer.
So--what's the debate in France? Well, a major well-publicized figure who supports the wearing of the Burqa has announced that the Blessed Mother Mary would disapprove of banning of the strict Islamic garb. As a Lutheran, I very much revere the Virgin Mary, but I had to speak to my devout Catholic friends to see if this sounded as bogus to them as it did to me. After all, we rejected the Marian Doctrine about six hundred years ago, so I'm no expert.
On BBC (perhaps French TV wasn't entirely safe), Chrystelle Khedrouche, who is a 36 year-old French convert to Islam declared: "When God (Allah?) ordered that women be veiled we know that they were already veiled. Look at the mother of Jesus, Mary, she wore a veil and I have never seen an image of her where she is not veiled (uh, see accompanying image). So we know that women were veiled at that time, and if God ordered that women be veiled, it was to add something more to what there was already." I don't get the last part, but why quibble?
My best understanding of both the Bible and the Koran tells me that both books tell women to be "modest." Some reasonable interpretations of Islam which I have seen over the years, suggest that a veil would be a good way to preserve that modesty, but the Islamic scholars I've read unanimously agree that the Koran itself does not say that women must cover their entire heads and faces save only for a slit to keep from running into lamp-posts or falling into sewers.
As one wag has said [seriously] in jest, "Since Muslims also believe that Mary is the sister of Aaron and entirely confused about the body-double who replaced her Son on the cross, perhaps Chrystelle is now re-inventing Mary as an ardent supporter of Shari'a as well." Mary, Mary, quite contrary, how do your veils grow?
Khedrouche says "I'm not so surprised because the French like the idea of everyone being of the same mould and that mould must be ideal. Everything that is not part of their French ideal model doesn't suit them." OK, I'll drink to that, but how did the Virgin Mary get involved in French haute couture? Even French Catholics are known for being somewhat "loose" in their definition of modesty, so I don't see them as the well source that brought on this sudden and horrific attack on Muslim fashion. Furthermore, the French are about as irreligious as any people in Europe, making the Germans and Italians look like regular church-goers.
Her ire is not just aimed at the French infidels, though. Mary apparently doesn't much like Muslim women who merely cover their heads and still dare to show their hair or opt to show their full heads and wear no veil at all. Mary wouldn't like that because "that is not part of our religion. I find it very difficult becuse we know that the wives of the prophet were dressed like this (demonstrating her eyes and not much more), they were fully covered." Does that mean that Mary was one of the prophet's wives? If so, she must have been getting up there in years.
Now I gotta say that as a Protestant Christian I find this all a little hinky and a lot offensive. For those of you who are doing your Rosary while reading this article, I assume it is the same, only more so. Right? But if this debate is going on over French dress prohibitions, can Gary, Indiana be far behind? This is going to get messy, ladies and gentlemen, so I strongly recommend we all take a deep breath, consider the humility, forbearance and suffering of the Virgin Mary, and fight like crusaders to keep cuckoos like Khedrouche from determining what our respective religions and denominations say and believe, and by extension, what they will convince the legions of the politically-correct in the government to believe.
[+] Read More...
Sunday, January 31, 2010
I Just Had A Flashback
In my radical days back in the Sixties during the Vietnam War, one of the big debates was over the question of whether American could sustain supporting both guns and butter. Son of a gun, if the debate hasn't been rekindled. America's economy was in fairly decent shape back then, so I never quite understood the debate, even though I insisted we couldn't have both (I opted for butter).Unlike the mid-Sixties, the economy today is in dreadful shape, so the guns and butter debate seems much more interesting to me, and much more critical than it was lo those many years ago. Forty-plus years of family, businesses, and budgets have made me a lot more savvy about how money works, but I was still in the "America can afford anything" mode until the issue started popping up all over the net and the print world in modern dress.
It seems to me that the relevant question is not whether we can presently support both guns and butter, but more accurately, can we continue for long to maintain our defense responsibilities while at the same time supporting the welter of Bush and Obama entitlement and social programs? I say no, and if I'm right, then as they say, "something's gotta give." For the Obamists, that's the military (and I am fully aware that Obama said the opposite in the State of the Union address, but you all know my opinion of Obama's truthfulness). For conservatives, it's the social and welfare programs that have to go. Would that it were actually that simple.
A huge portion of the federal budget (perhaps as much as 60%) is already going to programs that long pre-date both Obama and Bush. Even if Social Security and Medicare were to be completely restructured or eliminated tomorrow, the need to protect those already stuck in the system would not change appreciably. Obama's suggestion (I certainly am nowhere near ready to call it a policy) of cutting expenditures across-the-boards while exempting the military defense budget is a good, if modest idea, but it barely scratches the surface. Furthermore, the liberal-progressive wing of the Democratic Party has already gone into open rebellion over the idea of "favoring the military."
Our foreign policy and economic policy are both in disastrous shape at the current time. Don't think of the two policies as separate issues. Those two are inextricably intertwined, and Obama's policies have only made them worse. Both directly affect our military capabilities. We are deep in debt to our so-called trading partner China. We have recognized the need to assist Taiwan militarily to protect itself from the Mainland. See the connection? Our resultant foreign policy is to talk tough but cave in. And that one's obvious. China has many more interests in derailing America than just Taiwan. They laugh at any suggestion we make about meaningful action against the murderous regime in Iran. Meanwhile, the Russians are boldly proceeding with their support of Iran while inexorably bringing Ukraine and Georgia back into the Russian empire.
The portion of the federal budget set aside for discretionary military spending has been rather small for nearly four decades. Yet now we are engaged in two wars that are costing us huge sums of money (if you prefer, you can call it one war with two fronts). We can handle that now, but two years from now, that is certainly not such a sure bet. Even a loyal and realistic military expert such as General Barry R. McCaffrey is unequivocal in his opinion that "we are unlikely to achieve our political and military goals in eighteen months." So even if there are no cuts to the current military budget at all, it will be insufficient to support future operations. The options are to put more money from a weak economy into the military, or "cut and run." Neither alternative is particularly attractive.
We are now at a crossroads. Simple "freezes" on domestic social programs are a band-aid on a quickly-spreading cancer. Massive government spending on government-run and government-owned enterprises are totally counterproductive from an economics standpoint. Green energy jobs have already proven to be disastrous to employment in Spain (9 jobs lost for every 2 jobs created). Current plans for health care from the administration, however toned down and unpopular, still loom. Dependence on foreign energy supplies while preventing domestic production of readily-available resources is another foreign policy/economic policy double-whammy directly affecting our ability to pay for military expenses. This horrible confluence of guns and butter programs is grossly exacerbating the creation of a basic and structural imbalance that will lead directly to fiscal hell.
Conservative economic historian Niall Ferguson says that "if the United States succumbs to a fiscal crisis, as an increasing number of economic experts fear it may, then the entire balance of global economic power could shift." Make no mistake, that includes military power, unless "volunteer army" means the soldiers are going to work for free.
Ferguson goes on: "We are, it seems, having the fiscal policy of a world war, without the war (the current deficit is only slightly larger in relative terms than the deficit in 1942). Total debt held by the public, excluding government agencies, but including foreigners, will rise from $5.8 trillion in 2008 to $14.3 trillion in 2019--from 41% of GDP to 68%. Projecting to 2039, the federal debt held by the public will reach 91% of GDP in the low-end estimates and 215% in the Congressional Budget Office's high-end one, more than double the annual output of the entire U. S. economy." Unsustainable is hardly the word for it.
If we continue on our present course, that inevitably leads to the conclusion that the relative share of national security in the federal budget is already built into the future actions of the federal government. Given the current military "real spending" estimates, it means that our military budget will drop from the current 4% of the total to 3.2% by 2015 and to 2.6% by 2029. That future is impossibly bleak, and would make the U.S. military forces about as effective as a counter-balance to worldwide terror and empire-builders as those of Belgium.
And so Obama and the progressives get their wish. We become more like Europe. The Wall Street Journal sums it up as follows: "Among the Western Europeans, only France and the U.K. spend more than 2% of GDP on defense, supposedly the NATO-mandated minimum. Nearly everyone else is below that. Germany, the continent's largest economy, stands at 1.3%. U.S. defense spending has been above 4% of GDP since 2004, having fallen to 3% after the Cold War ended. No amount of shaming has worked on the continentals." If America's military becomes a part-time, unionized, show-army, who will protect us from the Russians, the Chinese and the Islamofascists? Europe?
The American economy is not a sidenote to military and foreign policy. It is an integral part of them. G. Tracy Mehan III, an official in the Environmental Protection Agency during the administrations of both Presidents Bush, sums it up: "Something has got to give (sound familiar?). If you fail to rein in entitlements and other federal spending, you will either have to raise taxes, squeeze out military and other discretionary spending (no more EPA?), or pile up the debt on future generations. There are a number of alternative scenarios that can play themselves out. But, absent a turnaround on spending, both mandatory as well as discretionary, it is hard to see how military preparedness comes out the winner."
I agree. Give up the butter. Switch to Brand-X margarine. The military is critical to our foreign policy, and the economy fuels them both. We have to get our financial house back in order. We must protect military readiness expenditures and get them back to a reasonable 4% to 6% of our national budget, and I don't care if that means scrapping every single new social program from now until the year 2050. There are perfectly valid arguments at the fringes of how long we should stay in Afghanistan and Iraq, and what our military policy toward them and the entire Middle East should actually be. But the simple fact remains that our military is crucial to our future and we have no way of knowing what future 9-11s are already in the offing.
Social Security reform, Medicare reform, government giveaway programs, and all the plethora of social programs and government-owned and government-run schemes must be put on the line in order to protect our ability to defend our national security and to fight future wars. Otherwise, nothing matters, and you need to start polishing up your Chinese, Russian and Arabic language skills and sweeping out your cave.
[+] Read More...
Race for the Senate. . .
You may not know this, but 2010 is an election year. Seriously, I’m not making this up. In fact, 36 Senate seats are up for grabs. Of those, 18 are currently held by Republicans, the other 18 are held by Democrats. Those numbers are going to change. Here is your primer on each race.Safe Republican Incumbents
The following twelve seats have Republican incumbents and are considered safe at this point:
Both McCain and Bennett face difficult primary challenges, though neither seat is expected to fall to the Democrats, no matter how the primaries turn out.Richard C. Shelby -- Alabama
Lisa Murkowski -- Alaska
John McCain -- Arizona
Johnny Isakson -- Georgia
Michael D. Crapo -- Idaho
Charles E. Grassley -- Iowa
David Vitter -- Louisiana
Tom Coburn -- Oklahoma
Richard Burr -- North Carolina
Jim DeMint -- South Carolina
John Thune -- South Dakota
Robert F. Bennett -- Utah
Safe Republican Seats Without Incumbents
The following three seats were held by Republicans who are retiring. These are also considered safe.
In the race to replace George LeMieux, both Charlie Crist and Marco Rubio are well ahead of their Democratic opponents:Florida
While both Crist and Rubio are tied in current polls, Crist has been losing momentum. He lost ten points against Rubio from August to the present. Crist’s lead over Meek also has lost six points in that time.49% Marco Rubio (R)
35% Kendrick Meek (D)
42% Charlie Crist (R)
36% Kendrick Meek (D)
There are no polls from Kansas, where Republicans Jerry Moran and Todd Tiahrt are running to replace retiring Senator Sam Brownback, but the seat is not expected to fall into Democratic hands.Kansas
In the race to replace Jim Bunning, both Secretary of State Trey Grayson and Rand Paul, son of Ron Paul, are ahead of both possible Democratic opponents: Lt. Gov. Daniel Mongiardo and Attorney General Jack Conway.Kentucky
49% Rand Paul (R)
35% Daniel Mongiardo (D)
46% Rand Paul (R)
38% Jack Conway (D)
44% Trey Grayson (R)
37% Daniel Mongiardo (D)
45% Trey Grayson (R)
35% Jack Conway (D)
The Endangered Republican Seats
The following three seats are/were held by Republicans, and they are in the toss up category.
In the race to replace Kit Bond, Republican Congressman Roy Blunt has recently overtaken Democrat Robin Carnahan, the Missouri Secretary of State. Carnahan had a two point lead last month.Missouri
49% Roy Blunt (R)
43% Robin Carnahan (D)
In the race to replace Judd Gregg, Republican Kelly Ayotte, the former New Hampshire Secretary of State and likely nominee, leads Democratic Congressman Paul Hodes. But, two other potential Republican challengers, businessman Bill Binnie and perennial loser Ovide Lamontagne would lose fairly handily to Hodes.New Hampshire
In the race to replace George Voinovich, former Republican Congressman Rob Portman holds a slight lead over either Democratic challenger, Lt. Gov. Lee Fisher or Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner, though his lead is increasing.49% Kelly Ayotte (R)
40% Paul Hodes (D)
45% Paul Hodes (D)
38% Ovide Lamontagne (R)
43% Paul Hodes (D)
37% Bill Binnie (R)
Ohio
43% Rob Portman (R)
40% Jennifer Brunner (D)
44% Rob Portman (R)
37% Lee Fisher (D)
Safe Democratic Incumbents
The following six seats have Democratic incumbents and are considered safe at this point:
Daniel Inouye -- Hawaii
Barbara Mikulski -- Maryland
Chuck Schumer -- New York
Ron Wyden -- Oregon
Patrick Leahy -- Vermont
Patty Murray -- Washington
Safe Democratic Seats Without Incumbents
Chris Dodd is retiring in Connecticut. While he had been vulnerable to defeat, the new Democrat, Richard Blumenthal is likely to retain the seat for the Democrats.
58% Richard Blumenthal (D)
34% Linda McMahon (R)
56% Richard Blumenthal (D)
33% Rob Simmons (R)
The Endangered Democratic Seats
The following eleven seats are/were held by Democrats, and they are in the toss up category.
Democratic incumbent Blanche Lincoln would lose to each of her four challengers: State Senator Gilbert Baker, State Senate Minority Leader Kim Hendren, businessman Curtis Coleman, and Tom Cox, head of the Arkansas TEA party.Arkansas
Incumbent Democrat Barbara Boxer leads each of her likely opponents: former CEO Carly Fiorina, Assemblyman Chuck Devore, and ex-Congressman Tom Campbell, though it’s close.51% Gilbert Baker (R)
39% Blanche Lincoln (D)
47% Kim Hendren (R)
39% Blanche Lincoln (D)
48% Curtis Coleman (R)
38% Blanche Lincoln (D)
48% Tom Cox (R)
38% Blanche Lincoln (D)
California
Incumbent Michael Bennet is being destroyed by each of his three Republican challengers: former Lt. Gov. Jane Norton, State Senator Tom Wiens, and district attorney Ken Buck. However, he now faces a Democratic primary challenge from state House Speaker Andrew Romanoff, who also loses to the Republicans, but not as easily.46% Barbara Boxer (D)
43% Carly Fiorina (R)
46% Barbara Boxer (D)
42% Tom Campbell (R)
46% Barbara Boxer (D)
40% Chuck Devore (R)
Colorado
With little Beau Biden bailing out of the race to replace Lying Joe Biden, it appears that Republican Mike Castle will claim the seat. Even though no Democrats have announced that they will run, Castle handily beats the likely challenger New Castle County Executive Chris Coons.49% Jane Norton (R)
37% Michael Bennet (D)
44% Tom Wiens (R)
38% Michael Bennet (D)
43% Ken Buck (R)
38% Michael Bennet (D)
Delaware
In the race to claim Barack Obama’s seat, the likely Republican nominee, Congressman Ron Kirk, is slowly falling behind his likely competitor, Treasurer Alexi Giannoulias. However, he remains ahead of the two other potential Democratic candidates: Cheryle Jackson, president of the Chicago Urban League, and Chicago Inspector General David Hoffman.56% Mike Castle (R)
27% Chris Coons (D)
Illinois
Until this week, it appeared that Evan Bayh would have an easy re-election. But new polling by Rasmussen shows that Bayh has an uncomfortably small lead against former Congressman John Hostettler (Bayh actually loses 47% to 44% to Congressman Mike Pence, but he has declined to run). Bayh also leads freshman State Senator Marlin Stutzman.42% Alexi Giannoulias (D)
39% Ron Kirk (R)
42% Ron Kirk (R)
38% Cheryle Jackson (D)
42% Ron Kirk (R)
39% David Hoffman (D)
Indiana
Harry Reid is currently losing badly to each of his three possible challengers: Nevada Republican Party chairwoman Sue Lowden, businessman Danny Tarkanian, and Assemblywoman Sharron Angle. (Apparently, Nevada's Lt. Governor is now thinking of jumping into the race as well.)44% Evan Bayh (D)
41% John Hostettler (R)
45% Evan Bayh (D)
33% Marlin Stuzman (R)
Nevada
New York is a disappointment. Democratic incumbent Kirsten Gillibrand is unpopular and should be a ripe target for Republicans. But all of the Republicans who outpoll her have refused to run. Giuliani, for example, outpolls Gillibrand 53% to 40%, but he won’t run. Gillibrand also faces a primary challenge from Tennessean Harold Ford, though she is beating him easily. As it currently stands:50% Danny Tarkanian (R)
36% Harry Reid (D)
48% Sue Lowden (R)
36% Harry Reid (D)
44% Sharron Angle (R)
40% Harry Reid (D)
New York
Democratic Senator Byron Dorgan announced his retirement after polls showed him trailing Republican Jon Hoeven by 22 points (58% to 36%). With no other Democrat announcing, we don’t have any new polling yet, but this seat is expected by all sides to fall to the Republicans.39% Kirsten Gillibrand (D)
34% [insert Republican name here]
North Dakota
In Pennsylvania, lady’s man and turncoat Arlen Specter faces both a primary challenge from his left and a strong challenge from Republican Pat Toomey.Pennsylvania
Last week, Wisconsin was considered a safe seat but new polling by Rasmussen this week, shows incumbent Russ Feingold suddenly in serious trouble, as he now trails Republican challenger Tommy Thompson (if Thompson runs).49% Pat Toomey (R)
40% Arlen Specter (D)
Wisconsin
47% Tommy Thompson (R)
43% Russ Feingold (D)
Summary: The 2010 Elections
The Senate currently is set up as follows: 59 Democrats, 41 Republicans.
It the election were held today and the polls are accurate, the Republicans would pick up seven seats, making the new count: 52 Democrats, 48 Republicans. However, voter intensity could change these results in favor of the Republicans.
NOTE: According to Michael Barone, if independents turned out for Republicans in the same percentages as they did for Scott Brown, only districts which Obama carried by more than 64% would be safe for Democrats. That would mean that the Republicans could theoretically win 332 House seats, leaving only 103 “safe seats” for the Democrats. Right now, the House stands at 256 Democrats, 178 Republicans.
[+] Read More...
Open Thread -- Vox Populi
"Early in life I had to choose between honest arrogance and hypocritical humility. I chose the former and have seen no reason to change."
-- Frank Lloyd Wright
[+] Read More...
Saturday, January 30, 2010
Film School Follies: Part 12 – The Best of Times II
By ScottDS
In his audio commentary for Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan, director Nicholas Meyer remarks (I’m paraphrasing from memory): “One works by instinct and intuition. When people ask me why Khan only wears one glove, I tell them, ‘I don’t know. It seemed like the right idea at the time.’” This all leads me to my job as...
Director
There were nine directors on Sanguinity including me. In one of our pre-pro meetings, it was literally a case of, “Whoever wants to direct, raise your hand.” Naturally, mine shot up along with eight others. As I wrote in the comments last week, I sort of missed the forest for the trees and was so hellbent on directing that I missed other learning opportunities that were available. I never worked as a sound tech or camera assistant – two perfectly marketable skills in Hollywood and elsewhere. But to walk in and say you’re a director – “Oh yeah? Prove it!” As a crew, we were allowed two dolly shots (one per day, though I think we broke this rule), 18 shots per day (for a total of 36), eight camera setups a day (16 total). Each day would last for 11 hours with a call time of 7:30 a.m. Each director would only get a certain amount of time in the day in which to work: “time for each director = number of directors divided by 11 hours.” Fair enough.
With these limitations in mind, we all met for a “shot meeting” wherein we would determine how the movie would be filmed. I don’t recall the thought process that went into it but there’s really only one or two ways we could’ve shot the film. There needs to be a natural progression (shot A leads to B and so on) and since we were shooting in such a confined area, we couldn’t get too experimental with the blocking of the actors. Eventually, we divided the script into six scenes: three on the plane, two in the restaurant, and one in Peggy’s apartment. For the apartment scene (which we would see for only a moment in a brief montage), we used the set from another film titled Revenge Again that was shooting right behind us. For the plane, the camera would sit on a dolly track. Actually, I’m pretty sure the camera sat on the dolly track for both days, only being removed to film a shot of the airplane interior for the aforementioned montage.
Claudia (sigh...) was the casting director and she and her people supervised the casting sessions while the rest of us were in a meeting. This gave me butterflies – the thought of working with real actors. The auditions were videotaped and we all gathered at Bill’s apartment one night to watch them. Our wisecracks notwithstanding, there were some good people. Peggy would be played by a nice local actress named Cathi and Carl would be played by a local actor named Craig (who we later spied in some other film shot by Full Sail personnel around the same time). We also cast Peggy’s co-worker (this led to one of the lighting techs having to ask, “How do you light someone who’s, uh, dark-skinned?”) and an “arguing couple” for one of the plane scenes. The actors who played the couple (Ned and Heather) improvised their dialogue – we probably could’ve saved time by having classmates play the roles instead. Claudia also took the actors shopping for wardrobe (I abstained from this part). I made name badges for Peggy and her co-worker (Joanne) and one classmate managed to get some pilot wings during a flight home for spring break. At one point, Dave and I had actually visited a local uniform warehouse for authentic flight attendant outfits but there was no way we’d be able to: a.) get only two, and b.) get them for next to nothing. Thankfully, Claudia was more than up to the task. All of the airplane and restaurant extras would be played by classmates.
We had a table read and rehearsals with the actors. Maybe I was more comfortable because there were nine directors, though I don’t know how the actors felt about that. It was simply a matter of communication – answering their questions, understanding why the characters would perform action A and say line B. During the rehearsals, we’d go through the script in order line by line and each director would step in when it was his/her scene (or shot – some directors only had to film one shot before handing over the reins to the next person). The rehearsals must’ve gone well because we didn’t fire anybody (it’s happened)! I have to say, everyone loved the plane (there’s that ego again) but that sort of thing helps the actors and brings a nice sense of verisimilitude to the proceedings. We rehearsed both in a small room down the hall from the soundstage and on the sets where the actors were able to sit in their chairs, at the table, push the meal cart, etc.
Bill gave me the first two shots for day 1 and I was the only director (or possibly one of only two) allowed to shoot using two camera setups. Both of my shots were dolly shots (there would also be two dolly shots for the restaurant scene on day 2). The first shot starts with a passenger in the last seat of the airplane: he gets up, grabs his bag out of the overhead bin, and walks to the front of the plane where Peggy and Joanne are saying their good-byes to everyone. After the passenger deplanes, Peggy walks over to one of the overheads, closes it, and sits down. Joanne follows, sits down in the next seat, and they have a little chat about Carl. From looking at Steve’s notes, I shot four takes – on the first three, the camera operator accidentally got the stage wall in the shot. The final shot isn’t perfect – it features a jerky movement that shouldn’t be there – but such is life. We had to have the actors sit on apple boxes (wooden boxes used for just about anything) because they were too low in the seats and we couldn’t see their whole faces. We also had to weigh down the seats because every time an actor would sit down, the seat would jostle a little bit, exactly the way real airplane seats wouldn’t! This was all discovered on the first day of shooting – the kinds of things that don’t occur to you until after they happen.
Four takes later and I yelled, “Cut! Print!” The printed takes are circled on the paperwork and used for editing. We were shooting on Super 16mm film but, unlike our 35mm films, we weren’t limited in how much we could use. To give you an idea of how much film we might’ve used, eleven minutes equals roughly 400 feet of film in Super 16 format. We shot the film using an ARRI SR-3 16mm camera mounted on a Sachtler fluid head which itself was mounted on a Chapman-Leonard Super PeeWee dolly. To view the scene, I would simply stand at the monitor that was connected to the camera and mounted on a “beaver board” (basically a 1/8 apple box with a metal “baby plate” light mount attached to it), which was affixed to a C-stand. C-stands are all-purpose metal stands that can be seen on any film set. They are used to mount gels, flags, reflectors... anything a grip can think of. I’m not well-versed in lighting (which is why I skipped that particular blog entry) but most of the interior airplane lighting was provided by two Kino Flo fixtures. Kinos are fluorescent lights and very easy to set up. What was problematic was the lighting outside the plane. In still photos, it looks very good, with the windows properly blown out. Not so much in the finished film. The windows were lined with special material to diffuse the light but I guess they didn’t use enough.
For my second shot – a dolly shot starting from the front of the plane featuring Peggy and Joanne handing out snacks from the meal cart and passing by the bickering couple – I figured it would be easier but, after looking at Steve’s paperwork, I shot five (!) takes: two were good, an actress flubbed a line on one, both actresses started before I yelled “Action!” on another, and the camera was having gate trouble on yet another. I met the bickering couple just five minutes before shooting. I simply told them: “You’re having an argument. It’s serious but you’re in public so don’t make a scene. Improvise!” The script didn’t include any dialogue for them but they performed admirably. As for Peggy and Joanne, they had to push the meal cart from A to B and finish their lines before we ran out of dolly track. One thing we didn’t realize until it was time to shoot: they needed snacks to give out to the passengers! Someone rushed to the craft services table and brought back a bunch of water bottles, soda, and peanuts. Our airline serves Costco–brand water and Albertsons-brand soda! And no one thought to spray some WD-40 on the cart’s wheels so a couple guys had to lay down a blanket to absorb some of the noise.
My shots were filmed between 9:00 and 11:00 and 11:00 and 12:30, respectively, on May 5th, 2004. After lunch (Bill and Dave had taken care of that – catering by Roadhouse Grill!), classmate Ryan was up next – he shot the actress’ close-ups during their initial dialogue scene. He also added a shot at the last minute: Peggy closing the overhead bin from another angle. Bill was annoyed – we had a ticking clock and it would set a bad precedent. And I didn’t think it was necessary. I served as his first assistant director and had no idea what I was doing. I basically had to make sure everyone was where they needed to be and to help Ryan with anything he needed. The order is as follows: 1st A.D.: “Quiet, everyone!” and then “Roll sound!” Sound mixer: “Sound speed!” 1st A.D.: “Roll camera!” Camera operator: “Speed!” Camera assistant with clapper: “Marker!” 1st A.D.: “Background action!” Director: “Action!” and eventually “Cut!” Chris was up after Ryan and shot Peggy performing her routine tasks aboard the plane. Working independently, he produced an interesting sequence, blending four separate shots together, one dissolving into another, while artificially panning right and dissolving into the shot of Peggy in her apartment, sitting in a chair, eyeing her answering machine. Chris produced this on Adobe After Effects and even added in a blinking light for the machine.
Post-Production
For editing, we paired off. Steve and I (along with everyone else) edited the film on the Avid Xpress non-linear digital editing system. One reason why many films today seem so frenetic is that, in the old days, filmmakers manipulated actual film with their hands and had to be very judicious in their editing decisions. Today, one mouse click and you’re done. (I exaggerate, slightly.) Amazingly, Steven Spielberg and his long-time editor Michael Kahn still edit the old-fashioned way, on a flatbed machine with actual film. Our films were developed locally at Continental Film using the cheapest process available. At one point in class, we watched rough VHS edits of all four films. I’m proud to say our film received the least amount of laughter – I almost had a heart attack laughing at some of the other material!
Steve and I still think our edit is the best one, despite accidentally omitting an entire section of Peggy’s dialogue during the final restaurant scene! Very often, it was a matter of saying, “Cut the last two frames.” And it would work. (24 frames = one second.) Much of this is simply instinctual. Steve and I would take turns at the keyboard and I think the final edit is a pretty good reflection of our sensibilities (such as they are). We didn’t use any scoring, though I’m sure we could’ve paid some local musician to come up with something. For the restaurant scenes, we used Dean Martin’s “That’s Amore” (how original) and “Eh Cumpari” by Julius La Rosa. Steve contributed some soft rock for the opening titles and montage but I can’t recall what it was. For the end credits (which I typed up on the Avid), we used “Beyond the Sea” by Bobby Darin. A year later, I was browsing the CD selection at Barnes & Noble and realized, “Shit, we should’ve used Sinatra’s ‘Come Fly with Me’!” I also would’ve been partial to “It’s Nice to Go Trav’ling” which was used for the end credits of Executive Decision, one of my guilty pleasures. We also added ambient airplane and restaurant sound effects from a pre-existing effects library.
For the opening credits, Chris dug up some home movie footage of New York and put together (on his own time) a nice title sequence. I was very close to driving up to New York City with Chris and few others in tow. My plan was to shoot some random street scenes and an Italian restaurant exterior – literally spend a few hours in Manhattan and then leave. We’d be the first Full Sail film to shoot out of state! But this didn’t happen, though I was totally game. In fact, during pre-pro we had discussed the idea of shooting the opening plane scene with bluescreen behind the windows, then getting background plates from Orlando Airport and compositing that footage into the scene, so you would actually see the runway and ground crew in the shot. This didn’t happen either.
Epilogue
Our informal wrap party was held at a bar called Uptown just a few blocks from the school. We drank, even though many of us were under age (I had turned 21 just four months earlier). Steve even brought along his didgeridoo and a good time was had by all. Bill and Dave’s edit was selected for the class DVD and shown at our graduation film festival at the AMC Cineplex 20 at Universal CityWalk in Orlando. I enjoyed working on the film, despite being oblivious to the damage my ego was doing.
To briefly touch on the other films: Revenge Again was a black comedy about two sisters who avenge the death of their parents at the hands of one grouchy Nazi, Taste of the Past was a post-apocalyptic tale (to the extent that Full Sail could afford it), and Die Todes Groupe was the WW2 movie about ghost soldiers which was later re-shot on a weekend because some students were dissatisfied with the final product. The student who re-shot the film saw it as a metaphor for the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ and added some opening text to explain his point of view. I have no issue with his interpretation but I feel adding the text cheapened the work and would only invalidate anyone else’s idea of what the film might’ve represented.
For the plane set, I received the Course Director’s Award for Achievement in Set Design – surely proof that the Peter Principle exists! After the graduation ceremony, I told Chris that he deserved it, not just for his set design work in 35mm but for all of his computer-generated legerdemain. Part of me wonders if Chris, as a Christian, simply didn’t feel the need to brag about his accomplishments, unlike me. I saw him a few months ago (first time since 2004) and I told him I still refer to him as a genius. All he could do was shrug and thank me for mentioning him at all. He has a bright future ahead of him.
Sadly, a few months later we found out that another classmate of ours didn’t have a future at all...
[+] Read More...
In his audio commentary for Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan, director Nicholas Meyer remarks (I’m paraphrasing from memory): “One works by instinct and intuition. When people ask me why Khan only wears one glove, I tell them, ‘I don’t know. It seemed like the right idea at the time.’” This all leads me to my job as...
Director
There were nine directors on Sanguinity including me. In one of our pre-pro meetings, it was literally a case of, “Whoever wants to direct, raise your hand.” Naturally, mine shot up along with eight others. As I wrote in the comments last week, I sort of missed the forest for the trees and was so hellbent on directing that I missed other learning opportunities that were available. I never worked as a sound tech or camera assistant – two perfectly marketable skills in Hollywood and elsewhere. But to walk in and say you’re a director – “Oh yeah? Prove it!” As a crew, we were allowed two dolly shots (one per day, though I think we broke this rule), 18 shots per day (for a total of 36), eight camera setups a day (16 total). Each day would last for 11 hours with a call time of 7:30 a.m. Each director would only get a certain amount of time in the day in which to work: “time for each director = number of directors divided by 11 hours.” Fair enough.
With these limitations in mind, we all met for a “shot meeting” wherein we would determine how the movie would be filmed. I don’t recall the thought process that went into it but there’s really only one or two ways we could’ve shot the film. There needs to be a natural progression (shot A leads to B and so on) and since we were shooting in such a confined area, we couldn’t get too experimental with the blocking of the actors. Eventually, we divided the script into six scenes: three on the plane, two in the restaurant, and one in Peggy’s apartment. For the apartment scene (which we would see for only a moment in a brief montage), we used the set from another film titled Revenge Again that was shooting right behind us. For the plane, the camera would sit on a dolly track. Actually, I’m pretty sure the camera sat on the dolly track for both days, only being removed to film a shot of the airplane interior for the aforementioned montage.
Claudia (sigh...) was the casting director and she and her people supervised the casting sessions while the rest of us were in a meeting. This gave me butterflies – the thought of working with real actors. The auditions were videotaped and we all gathered at Bill’s apartment one night to watch them. Our wisecracks notwithstanding, there were some good people. Peggy would be played by a nice local actress named Cathi and Carl would be played by a local actor named Craig (who we later spied in some other film shot by Full Sail personnel around the same time). We also cast Peggy’s co-worker (this led to one of the lighting techs having to ask, “How do you light someone who’s, uh, dark-skinned?”) and an “arguing couple” for one of the plane scenes. The actors who played the couple (Ned and Heather) improvised their dialogue – we probably could’ve saved time by having classmates play the roles instead. Claudia also took the actors shopping for wardrobe (I abstained from this part). I made name badges for Peggy and her co-worker (Joanne) and one classmate managed to get some pilot wings during a flight home for spring break. At one point, Dave and I had actually visited a local uniform warehouse for authentic flight attendant outfits but there was no way we’d be able to: a.) get only two, and b.) get them for next to nothing. Thankfully, Claudia was more than up to the task. All of the airplane and restaurant extras would be played by classmates.
We had a table read and rehearsals with the actors. Maybe I was more comfortable because there were nine directors, though I don’t know how the actors felt about that. It was simply a matter of communication – answering their questions, understanding why the characters would perform action A and say line B. During the rehearsals, we’d go through the script in order line by line and each director would step in when it was his/her scene (or shot – some directors only had to film one shot before handing over the reins to the next person). The rehearsals must’ve gone well because we didn’t fire anybody (it’s happened)! I have to say, everyone loved the plane (there’s that ego again) but that sort of thing helps the actors and brings a nice sense of verisimilitude to the proceedings. We rehearsed both in a small room down the hall from the soundstage and on the sets where the actors were able to sit in their chairs, at the table, push the meal cart, etc.
Bill gave me the first two shots for day 1 and I was the only director (or possibly one of only two) allowed to shoot using two camera setups. Both of my shots were dolly shots (there would also be two dolly shots for the restaurant scene on day 2). The first shot starts with a passenger in the last seat of the airplane: he gets up, grabs his bag out of the overhead bin, and walks to the front of the plane where Peggy and Joanne are saying their good-byes to everyone. After the passenger deplanes, Peggy walks over to one of the overheads, closes it, and sits down. Joanne follows, sits down in the next seat, and they have a little chat about Carl. From looking at Steve’s notes, I shot four takes – on the first three, the camera operator accidentally got the stage wall in the shot. The final shot isn’t perfect – it features a jerky movement that shouldn’t be there – but such is life. We had to have the actors sit on apple boxes (wooden boxes used for just about anything) because they were too low in the seats and we couldn’t see their whole faces. We also had to weigh down the seats because every time an actor would sit down, the seat would jostle a little bit, exactly the way real airplane seats wouldn’t! This was all discovered on the first day of shooting – the kinds of things that don’t occur to you until after they happen.
Four takes later and I yelled, “Cut! Print!” The printed takes are circled on the paperwork and used for editing. We were shooting on Super 16mm film but, unlike our 35mm films, we weren’t limited in how much we could use. To give you an idea of how much film we might’ve used, eleven minutes equals roughly 400 feet of film in Super 16 format. We shot the film using an ARRI SR-3 16mm camera mounted on a Sachtler fluid head which itself was mounted on a Chapman-Leonard Super PeeWee dolly. To view the scene, I would simply stand at the monitor that was connected to the camera and mounted on a “beaver board” (basically a 1/8 apple box with a metal “baby plate” light mount attached to it), which was affixed to a C-stand. C-stands are all-purpose metal stands that can be seen on any film set. They are used to mount gels, flags, reflectors... anything a grip can think of. I’m not well-versed in lighting (which is why I skipped that particular blog entry) but most of the interior airplane lighting was provided by two Kino Flo fixtures. Kinos are fluorescent lights and very easy to set up. What was problematic was the lighting outside the plane. In still photos, it looks very good, with the windows properly blown out. Not so much in the finished film. The windows were lined with special material to diffuse the light but I guess they didn’t use enough.
For my second shot – a dolly shot starting from the front of the plane featuring Peggy and Joanne handing out snacks from the meal cart and passing by the bickering couple – I figured it would be easier but, after looking at Steve’s paperwork, I shot five (!) takes: two were good, an actress flubbed a line on one, both actresses started before I yelled “Action!” on another, and the camera was having gate trouble on yet another. I met the bickering couple just five minutes before shooting. I simply told them: “You’re having an argument. It’s serious but you’re in public so don’t make a scene. Improvise!” The script didn’t include any dialogue for them but they performed admirably. As for Peggy and Joanne, they had to push the meal cart from A to B and finish their lines before we ran out of dolly track. One thing we didn’t realize until it was time to shoot: they needed snacks to give out to the passengers! Someone rushed to the craft services table and brought back a bunch of water bottles, soda, and peanuts. Our airline serves Costco–brand water and Albertsons-brand soda! And no one thought to spray some WD-40 on the cart’s wheels so a couple guys had to lay down a blanket to absorb some of the noise.
My shots were filmed between 9:00 and 11:00 and 11:00 and 12:30, respectively, on May 5th, 2004. After lunch (Bill and Dave had taken care of that – catering by Roadhouse Grill!), classmate Ryan was up next – he shot the actress’ close-ups during their initial dialogue scene. He also added a shot at the last minute: Peggy closing the overhead bin from another angle. Bill was annoyed – we had a ticking clock and it would set a bad precedent. And I didn’t think it was necessary. I served as his first assistant director and had no idea what I was doing. I basically had to make sure everyone was where they needed to be and to help Ryan with anything he needed. The order is as follows: 1st A.D.: “Quiet, everyone!” and then “Roll sound!” Sound mixer: “Sound speed!” 1st A.D.: “Roll camera!” Camera operator: “Speed!” Camera assistant with clapper: “Marker!” 1st A.D.: “Background action!” Director: “Action!” and eventually “Cut!” Chris was up after Ryan and shot Peggy performing her routine tasks aboard the plane. Working independently, he produced an interesting sequence, blending four separate shots together, one dissolving into another, while artificially panning right and dissolving into the shot of Peggy in her apartment, sitting in a chair, eyeing her answering machine. Chris produced this on Adobe After Effects and even added in a blinking light for the machine.
Post-Production
For editing, we paired off. Steve and I (along with everyone else) edited the film on the Avid Xpress non-linear digital editing system. One reason why many films today seem so frenetic is that, in the old days, filmmakers manipulated actual film with their hands and had to be very judicious in their editing decisions. Today, one mouse click and you’re done. (I exaggerate, slightly.) Amazingly, Steven Spielberg and his long-time editor Michael Kahn still edit the old-fashioned way, on a flatbed machine with actual film. Our films were developed locally at Continental Film using the cheapest process available. At one point in class, we watched rough VHS edits of all four films. I’m proud to say our film received the least amount of laughter – I almost had a heart attack laughing at some of the other material!
Steve and I still think our edit is the best one, despite accidentally omitting an entire section of Peggy’s dialogue during the final restaurant scene! Very often, it was a matter of saying, “Cut the last two frames.” And it would work. (24 frames = one second.) Much of this is simply instinctual. Steve and I would take turns at the keyboard and I think the final edit is a pretty good reflection of our sensibilities (such as they are). We didn’t use any scoring, though I’m sure we could’ve paid some local musician to come up with something. For the restaurant scenes, we used Dean Martin’s “That’s Amore” (how original) and “Eh Cumpari” by Julius La Rosa. Steve contributed some soft rock for the opening titles and montage but I can’t recall what it was. For the end credits (which I typed up on the Avid), we used “Beyond the Sea” by Bobby Darin. A year later, I was browsing the CD selection at Barnes & Noble and realized, “Shit, we should’ve used Sinatra’s ‘Come Fly with Me’!” I also would’ve been partial to “It’s Nice to Go Trav’ling” which was used for the end credits of Executive Decision, one of my guilty pleasures. We also added ambient airplane and restaurant sound effects from a pre-existing effects library.
For the opening credits, Chris dug up some home movie footage of New York and put together (on his own time) a nice title sequence. I was very close to driving up to New York City with Chris and few others in tow. My plan was to shoot some random street scenes and an Italian restaurant exterior – literally spend a few hours in Manhattan and then leave. We’d be the first Full Sail film to shoot out of state! But this didn’t happen, though I was totally game. In fact, during pre-pro we had discussed the idea of shooting the opening plane scene with bluescreen behind the windows, then getting background plates from Orlando Airport and compositing that footage into the scene, so you would actually see the runway and ground crew in the shot. This didn’t happen either.
Epilogue
Our informal wrap party was held at a bar called Uptown just a few blocks from the school. We drank, even though many of us were under age (I had turned 21 just four months earlier). Steve even brought along his didgeridoo and a good time was had by all. Bill and Dave’s edit was selected for the class DVD and shown at our graduation film festival at the AMC Cineplex 20 at Universal CityWalk in Orlando. I enjoyed working on the film, despite being oblivious to the damage my ego was doing.
To briefly touch on the other films: Revenge Again was a black comedy about two sisters who avenge the death of their parents at the hands of one grouchy Nazi, Taste of the Past was a post-apocalyptic tale (to the extent that Full Sail could afford it), and Die Todes Groupe was the WW2 movie about ghost soldiers which was later re-shot on a weekend because some students were dissatisfied with the final product. The student who re-shot the film saw it as a metaphor for the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ and added some opening text to explain his point of view. I have no issue with his interpretation but I feel adding the text cheapened the work and would only invalidate anyone else’s idea of what the film might’ve represented.
For the plane set, I received the Course Director’s Award for Achievement in Set Design – surely proof that the Peter Principle exists! After the graduation ceremony, I told Chris that he deserved it, not just for his set design work in 35mm but for all of his computer-generated legerdemain. Part of me wonders if Chris, as a Christian, simply didn’t feel the need to brag about his accomplishments, unlike me. I saw him a few months ago (first time since 2004) and I told him I still refer to him as a genius. All he could do was shrug and thank me for mentioning him at all. He has a bright future ahead of him.
Sadly, a few months later we found out that another classmate of ours didn’t have a future at all...
[+] Read More...
Terrorism Comes To New York City--Again?
For those of you who are not familiar with the landscape in New York City, you are looking at Foley Square, the center of legal activity in The Big Apple. The building on the left is the United States Courthouse where the Obama administration wants to try terrorists from top Al-Qaeda leaders down to the level of the Detroit-bound underwear bomber. Beautiful, isn't it? But how beautiful will it be if those trials actually go forward?The Holder Justice Department is determined to hold the trials in New York City. Nobody can get a decent explanation of how this idiotic decision was made in the first place, but determined they are. Still, it ain't over 'til it's over. There has been a groundswell of public opinion against holding trials for mass murderers and wannabe murderers within walking distance of the hole in the ground that some of them created on September 11, 2001. And now, there is a growing rebellion against the plan in Congress.
John Boehner (R-OH), the House minority leader, on Wednesday announced that under no circumstances were the American people going to allow the terrorist trial to go forward in New York. "There is not going to be a trial in New York, I guarantee it. There is no appetite for the trials in Congress." He also made it clear that Republicans would make it a high-profile mid-term election issue, and that the people of the city of New York would not stand for it. Rep. Peter King (R-NY) has introduced a bill denying Congressional funding for civilian trials for 9-11 terrorists, and Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) has said he would introduce companion legislation in the Senate next week.
The nation is beginning to wake up to the issue that conservatives have been hammering at for a long time now. Why are terrorists being removed from Guantanamo at all, let alone removed from the jurisdiction of military detention and military courts and placed in the hands of civilian attorneys? At least part of this answer is attributable to Obama's campaign promise to close the Guantanamo detention facility, and he was still riding high on that promise when the decision was made. Since then, the idea of bringing terrorist defendants onto mainland American soil has lost considerable public favor. That was followed by the Christmas underwear bomber's failed attack on an airliner over Detroit, and finally by a miserable State of the Union Address.
Miranda rights, civilian courts, and terrorists in our midst by invitation of the government have lost their shine. Senate Republicans hammered Attorney General Holder during hearings on the Christmas bomber, and why after a half hour of successful interrogation, the terrorist was suddenly allowed to "lawyer up." Holder was simply unable to give the Senators a decent answer. The line from the Justice Department has always been that they can successfully prosecute terrorists in civilian courts (and point to the Moussaoui conviction as if that were the only consideration).
Terrorists should be held as long as necessary under the rules of war to obtain whatever information can be gotten from them, in as safe a place as possible (Guantanamo, perhaps?), and as far from urban civilian population centers as possible. They have no more legal status than any other prisoner of war, and less in that the Geneva Conventions don't apply to combatants in a battle zone who are armed and not in any recognizable uniform, whether caught fighting or not.
Once the decision has been made that the detainees are of no further use to intelligence services, and a trial becomes necessary, they are not entitled to anything other than a military tribunal, conducted under the rules of those courts (or the rules of the Nuremberg Trials, as far as I'm concerned), not the rules of civilian courts. In no way are they entitled to be brought into the United States proper for trial in a civilian court, whether the government believes it will gain a conviction or not.
The civilian concerns of the people are vastly more important than some political decision made by a very politicized Justice Department. Even if the Obama administration were justified in its decision, the United States, including its territories, is a very large country. Why New York City? Why hold the trial under the very noses of the friends and families of the 3000 innocent civilians who were murdered in the World Trade Center? Why invite the distinct possibility of further terrorist attacks by radical Muslims determined to stand up for their oppressed brethren? Why do it in the courthouse square of the city that is the heart of American commerce, so despised by the primitives? And why do it one of the most densely-populated cities in the world?
And even if moved from Guantanamo into the United States, we still have no legitimate answer for why the case is being taken out of military control and passed over to civilian control. There are military facilities all over the United States where the trials could take place. And if the Justice Department were to continue in its insistence on civilian trials, there is no reason to conduct it as a publicity stunt for Obama justice in New York City. Hold them in some far-flung village in the Nevada desert. Even Governor's Island in New York is not in the heart of urban New York City, and a temporary court could be set up there. There is no law requiring that trials be held in the traditional courthouse. I've conducted trials in makeshift temporary courts made from triple-wide house trailers.
Boehner's announcement came on the heels of a few very bad months for the Obama administration. The "Massachusetts miracle" cost Obama his supermajority in the Senate, and many blue dog Democrats are just as displeased about the Justice Department decision as are the Republicans. Statewide Democratic special election successes are going the way of the passenger pigeon. The House members are not unaware that this could happen to them next. Suddenly, a threat of Congressional action to halt the Holder/Obama decision becomes at least a serious threat rather than a mouse shaking its fist at the approaching eagle.
Though the Christmas bomber has now been Mirandized and placed under civilian rules, there is absolutely nothing to prevent the government from putting him right back into the custody of the Department of Defense as an unprivileged enemy belligerent. It's unlikely that Holder will do this easily or willingly, but now is facing that possibility because of the avalanche of criticism surrounding the earlier Justice Department civilian trial decisions. In fact, anyone who has been determined to be an Al Qaeda affiliate (like the Christmas bomber) has been specifically targeted by the Sessions Amendment to the federal law which makes it clear that any detainee who is "a part of Al Qaeda is automatically deemed an unprivileged combatant." The terrorists already scheduled to be moved to New York City have not yet been determined specifically to be Al Qaeda affiliates, but more than sufficient evidence of their terrorist activities doesn't require the niceties of the Sessions Amendment. The old law will do as well. Get them back to Guantanamo, where they belong, or at least keep them out of New York City.
Boehner's announcement now packs clout, particularly after the attempted Christmas airliner bombing, the Fort Hood massacre, and three three major Democratic electoral losses. The doctrinaire leftist Obama administration now meets public anger and serious political opposition. The very day of the State of the Union speech, Obama and his minions were rumored to be reconsidering their dangerous and mindless move. Though there are no substantiated rumors, particularly about transferring the terrorists back into military custody, there is at lest an inkling that the fools who consider terrorists to be simple criminals are considering conducting the trial(s) somewhere other than in a major urban center, and perhaps closer to a high-security prison.
UPDATE: Since the writing of this post, there has been a major development. New York Senator Chuck Schumer made a public announcement that the trial(s) would indeed be moved outside of New York City. The New York Daily News reports that the White House has "ordered" the Justice Department to find another venue. As is typical of the Obama administration, the White House has denied that it "ordered" the move, but rather that Senator Schumer and Mayor Bloomberg asked Obama to request the Holder Justice Department to move the trial. Who's in charge here? Nevertheless, the trial venue has not yet been officially moved, and the song-and-dance from the administration will undoubtedly still be going on at the time this post and update publish. If there is any change between now and then, I will do a second update. However, the main theme of the post hasn't changed, and it further emphasizes the point that Republicans, and the voices of the people most concerned with the original decision are no longer "irrelevant" to the decision-making process in Washington.
New York Mayor Bloomberg made a personal phone call to Holder, reversing his earlier agreement that New York could handle the trials, and six Senators from both parties have sent an urgent letter to Holder demanding that he seek an alternative. Even my own Senator Dianne Feinstein, not known for deviating from the party line, has joined in the protests. The New York Post on Friday also says the decision has been made, but still cites no specific White House or Justice Department official who is willing to go on the record. Rather, there seem to be admissions that they are (or may be) reconsidering their decision. This is the typical kind of affair that the Obamists like to drop on us on weekends when the press and TV are least likely to go on the attack.
[+] Read More...
Friday, January 29, 2010
Unprecedented
Barack Obama is the President of the United States and allegedly a constitutional law expert and former professor of law. He routinely throws the word "unprecedented" around whenever he doesn't like something a conservative does or says. But in the law, that word has meaning, and at the State of the Union Address, he used it again. And as so often happens, he was wrong.Contrary to where you think this post may be going, it's not going to be an in-depth discussion of precedent or the recent Supreme Court decision freeing unions and corporations to exercise their free speech rights without the constraints of portions of McCain-Feingold (which I find far more unconstitutional than did the Supremes).
What was utterly unprecedented was the President of the United States attacking a Supreme Court decision during a State of the Union Address. Even FDR, when preparing his court-packing scheme, didn't use his office to attack the Supreme Court during the annual address on the state of the nation. He made plenty of those speeches elsewhere, but not in the well of the United States Congress.
Worse than that, the president either lied, obfuscated, or simply got the whole issue in Citizens United wrong. If you're going to take the unprecedented step of attacking a Supreme Court decision on the issue of precedent, you ought at least to know what you're talking about. The annual event is one of those rare times when all three branches of the federal government are present. They are there to hear plans, hopes, an accurate but optimistic assessment of the nation's condition, and ideas for the future of the nation. They are not there to hear a political attack on a judicial decision.
For a more elaborate discussion of my opinion of Obama's ignorance of the law and history as it relates to this post, see my earlier article "Take A Look, Professor Obama", (January 25, below). I'll now add an expansion and a fact that wasn't in my original post, but is now more relevant after Obama's speech. The Citizens United case merely removed the restrictions on corporate and union issue and candidate advertising. It affirmed the legal and very much precedented prohibition on direct contributions that "intertwine" the campaigns and the entities supporting them.
The UAW can't actively coordinate an Obama candidacy with interlocking boards and funds with the Democratic Central Committee any more than General Electric can actively coordinate an anti-abortion election campaign with the Republican party in the same manner. The UAW is now simply free to publish its own "Vote for Obama" campaign, and GE is free to conduct its own anti-abortion campaign. As a side note, Obama was wrong about a related issue. Foreign nationals, including foreign corporations are excluded from participation in or contributions to federal, state and local elections activities under longstanding statues that have nothing to do with the case. If he wants to rid our system of foreign influence, he's got the wrong case.
As for history and precedent, the Supreme Court upset the precedent set in Austin (twenty years old) and McConnell (six years old), and held that ". . . stare decisis does not compel the continued acceptance of Austin and by incorporation, McConnell. The Government may regulate corporate political speech through disclaimer and disclosure requirements, but it may not suppress that speech altogether." So they reversed twenty years of questionable precedent by returning to precedent that went back to 1789. Justice Scalia added the telling comment that "the Supreme Court did not invalidate a federal law on First Amendment grounds until 1964." Precedent, therefore, is a very shaky ground to be criticizing the Supreme Court on in the first place when it comes to the current brouhaha.
That said, what really irritates me is that the left-leaning mainstream press and TV have found the event unprecedented as well. But not for the same reasons. It was just fine for Obama to politicize a judicial decision during the State of the Union Address (and get it wrong), but the liberal talking-heads and pundits are focusing on the brief shot of Justice Alito in the audience shaking his head and mouthing the words "not true." And what does the left call Justice Alito's reaction? You guessed it--unprecedented. How dare he show disapproval during The Great One's brilliant attack and misstatement of the law? Aw, gimme a break! I would have preferred him to have jumped up and shouted "liar," but that would have been very unjudicial. Alito merely indicated he thought the words were untrue, but he did not call the president a liar. I'll go him one better. The president is a liar, a notorious liar, a facile liar, and a dirty-rotten liar. Now I feel better.
[+] Read More...
Open Thread -- Vox Populi
"A film is - or should be - more like music than like fiction. It should be a progression of moods and feelings. The theme, what's behind the emotion, the meaning, all that comes later."
-- Stanley Kubrick
[+] Read More...
Top 25: Sci-Fi Films You Should Know
Science fiction is the most agile form of story telling because it allows you to present controversial and complex philosophical, ethical and political issues in ways that people can easily understand without feeling like they are sitting through a class on ethics, and without bringing their preconceived expectations and prejudices. It is also tailor-made for films. And since everybody loves lists. . .Below you will find a list of the top 25 science fiction movies you should know to be well versed in science fiction. These are not necessarily the best or most entertaining films, but they are the important ones. . . the ones that had the greatest impact on science fiction and on our culture. And don’t worry, unlike some people who toss together horrible lists and then try to claim that they were only hoping to “spark debate,” I stand by this list.
Oh, and if you’re one of those people who frets about the completely irrelevant distinction between “science fiction” and “sci-fi,” or who cries when people classify Star Wars as science fiction because “it’s fantasy set in space wah wah” then I have bad news for you. First, no one likes you. Secondly, sci-fi, science fiction, or whatever you want to call it, isn’t a real genre. . . it’s a setting. It needs to piggyback on some other genre -- drama, horror, romance, etc. So get over it.
Here we go:
1. Star Wars (1977): Star Wars is the greatest science fiction movie of all times by many measures. Star Wars made it acceptable for adults to admit publicly they enjoy science fiction, and it single-handedly created the merchandizing industry (plus it created Industrial Light and Magic, which dominates the special effects world). It was also the first film to introduce the public to the idea of “outer space” religions -- interestingly, “Jedi” was one of the top “religions” listed by respondents to the recent UK census. It also spawned numerous sequels and rip offs (including Battlestar Galactica). It’s impact on world culture cannot be over-stated. “Use the force Luke.”
2. Close Encounters of the Third Kind (1977): This movie tapped into the alien abduction mania of the 1970s and gave us the little gray men motif that has since become a staple for UFO believers. Prior to this movie, aliens were described differently in different parts of the world. Afterwards. . . nuthin' but gray butts and big eyes. Basically, this movie single-handedly homogenized the alien conspiracy theory world, and stoked the abduction mania that continues today. “You can’t fool us by agreeing with us.”
3. Blade Runner (1982): Discussing the question of “what makes us human,” this combination sci-fi and film noir single-handedly set the tone that science fiction would follow thereafter. Hard-boiled gun toting heroes hunting bad guys in dark, depressing and nihilistic landscapes has become the default for science fiction because of this film. The influence of Blade Runner on the science fiction world cannot be overstated. “I want more life f*cker.”
4. 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968): Ok, truthfully, 2001 stinks, especially the twenty minutes at the beginning and the end. BUT, 2001 redefined science fiction. Prior to 2001, science fiction had become the playground of children’s movies, with guys in rubber suits chasing teenagers. 2001 elevated science fiction by treating the subject matter seriously and introducing adult concepts like human evolution, artificial intelligence and the nature of extraterrestrial life, all done in a relatively scientifically-accurate setting. This movie spawned the realism phase of science fiction. “What do you think you’re doing Dave?”5. Metropolis (1927): Science fiction films got their start in Georges Melis’ 1902 A Trip To The Moon, but Friz Lang’s Metropolis became the real influence. It’s dystopian view of workers toiling away in a glittering city controlled by sentient machines set the foundations for almost every science fiction movie that followed.
6. Forbidden Planet (1956): Forbidden Planet was one of the first serious science fiction movies to speculate on how man would roam the stars in the future. This film specifically inspired Star Trek, the most significant science fiction television franchise of all time, and it established several motifs that dominate science fiction today, e.g. that spaceships would be military vessels, that scientists and military do not get along, the good scientist who goes too far, and the uneasy relationship between humans and their robot servants. “Monsters from the subconscious.”
7. Planet of the Apes (1968): The late 1960s saw science fiction begin to talk about social issues. From Soylent Green’s worry about over population to Westworld’s worry about our ability to control our mechanical creations. And the greatest of these was Planet of the Apes, which addressed a future in which mankind had blown themselves up and were reduced to serving as pets for intelligent apes. “You maniacs! You blew it up! Damn you! God damn you all to hell!”
8. Jurassic Park (1993): Jurassic Park spawned a special effects revolution that changed the movie industry as well as the way we watch documentaries. In place of hand drawings or claymation, Jurassic Park unleashed computer generated graphics into the world, allowing documentaries like Walking With Dinosaurs and leading to films like Lord of the Rings which Peter Jackson undertook after realizing from Jurassic Park what computers would let him do. “An Adventure 65 Million Years In The Making.”
9. The Day The Earth Stood Still (1951): In the 1950s, science fiction was relegated to children’s cinema. But among the fake robots and rubber-suited monsters, a few science fiction films tried their hand at adult drama. In the process, they opened the door to adding limited social commentary to science fiction. Of these, The Day The Earth Stood Still is the one that truly stands out. Warning us about man’s propensity to use violence to settle disagreements, this film reminded us that we might not be the most powerful creatures in the universe. “Klaatu barada nikto.” (Avoid the remake.)
10. The Time Machine (1960): Based on the book by H.G. Well, this film is the grandfather of all time travel films, which would become the most loved science fiction theme. “Which three books would you have taken?”
11. Alien (1979): Besides launching a thousand careers, Alien opened the door for mixing science fiction with modern (i.e. realistic) horror, and for women heroes. It also gave us a gritty realism that had been lacking in prior views of the human future, which were all jumpsuit and sterile soundstage. “In space, no one can hear you scream.”
12. Fahrenheit 451 (1966): Based on Ray Bradbury’s book, Fahrenheit 451 fits into the 1960s trend of social, political commentary. But unlike other films of the time, this one didn’t involve catastrophe, it involved people who thought they were perfectly happy. . . except for one man who wonders why books need to be burned. These would become common elements of science fiction: people who voluntarily submit to oppression, the gilded cage, mind control, group think, an oppressive regime, and a lone hero who wonders why. “Fahrenheit four-five-one is the temperature at which book paper catches fire and starts to burn.”13. The Matrix (1999): The Matrix is a theological/philosophical treatise disguised as a science fiction movie. Nothing you see in the film is there by accident, and everything has double and triple meanings. In many ways, The Matrix is the zenith of several key science fiction themes -- man v. machines, reality v. apparent reality, and the question of what makes us human. In terms of influence, The Matrix has become a code word for altered reality. It also introduced several new visual styles, such as “bullet time.” “What is the Matrix?”
14. War of the Worlds (1953): Based on H.G. Wells’ story, this cross between the adult science fiction of the 1950s and the kiddy stuff, gave us the idea that maybe aliens won’t wear jumpsuits and look like teenagers, and maybe they won’t think twice about exterminating us -- a point repeated recently by Stephen Hawking, who states that the interaction between two civilization of different technical prowess almost always ends poorly for the less advanced group. It also was the first film to posit that, just as ancient people were struck down by diseases from travelers to which they had no immunity, maybe the same would hold true with space creatures. Both themes have become common. “After all that men could do had failed, the Martians were destroyed and humanity was saved by the littlest things, which God, in his wisdom, had put upon this Earth.”
15. The Andromeda Strain (1971): From Michael Crichton’s book, this is one of a myriad of pandemic movies from the late 1960s and early 1970s. But whereas the others were typically more melodramatic, this film approached the idea with genuine interest in how science would stop a pandemic. Movies like Outbreak and The Stand trace their roots through this film. It is also likely that films like this contributed to the eventual banning of chemical and biological weapons. “Enemy? We did it to ourselves!”
16. Dune (1984): Dune is one of the most influential science fiction books of all time. The movie didn’t take with the public, and that actually hurt the industry for some time, but it has since become a cult hit. (I actually prefer the Alan Smithee version.) Dune introduces the idea of folding space, something scientists now consider possible. “Usul, we have worm sign the likes of which even God has never seen.”
17. Fifth Element (1987): Fifth Element stands as the only anti-Blade Runner which has found an audience. It presents a future that is actually quite positive, if a little odd. It’s also one of the few films to let its aliens develop personality and be anything other than wise or menacing. This is another cult movie that you must know. “Time is not important. Only life is important.”
18. Stargate (1994): This movie introduces the idea of traveling throughout space without a spaceship, and it provides an alternative history of our planet. It also spawned a massive industry of merchandise, television spin offs, games, and online fan fiction. “Give my regards to King Tut, as~hole.”
19. Capricorn One (1978): I want to rank this higher because I really like this film, but it just isn’t influential enough. As my review noted, this film is a cultural marker to the beginning of the “vast government conspiracy” movement of today. . . but it isn’t a driver of that movement, it just notes it. Still, you should know this movie. “There are people out there, ‘forces’ out there, who have a lot to lose.”
20. THX-1138 (1971): I debated putting Logan’s Run into this slot, but I decided THX 1138 is just more influential. This Lucas film depicts a world in which the population is controlled by faceless, android police officers and the mandatory use of drugs to suppress emotion and sexual desire -- with a stellar cast to boot. This movie is one of those that all science fiction fanatics have seen and can discuss, and references to it find their way into everything science fiction. “Blessings of the state, blessings of the masses.”
21. 12 Monkeys (1995): Terry Gilliam, Bruce Willis and Brad Pitt at their best remake the French short film La Jetée, a story about a man who makes his own future by interfering with his own past. With a plot that is heavily interlaced with multiple timelines and a rare moment of Gilliam-coherence, this is one of those films you need to know. “I'm looking for the Army of the Twelve Monkeys.”
22. E.T. (1982): Unfairly dismissed as a kids movie, E.T. presents a different view of aliens than we’d seen before. While they are not human, they also aren’t out to hurt us. Yet, while this movie was huge at the time, it ultimately was not very influential. Still, you should see it. “Phone home.”
23. The Terminator (1984): The Terminator’s influence was more cultural than in science fiction. Indeed, the movie was exceedingly popular, became a franchise, and got everyone mimicking its star for some time, but it had little new to offer the world of science fiction. Still, if you want to know science fiction, you must see this movie. “Sarah Connor?”
24. Tron (1982): Yes, Tron. This was the first film from a major studio (Disney) that used extensive computer graphics. And while this movie lacks the philosophical questions raised by its sibling The Black Hole, this film provides the first glimpse into how science fiction interprets the inner universe of a computer. “That’s Tron, he fights for the users.”25. Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan (1982): This is another film that added little to the science fiction world, but struck it big in the cultural reference department. I almost hesitate to mention it, and probably wouldn’t if it wasn’t part of the Star Trek franchise, but you should know it. “Khaaaaaan!”
There are many other science fiction films that I would suggest you watch: Cube, Robocop, The Satan Bug, Pitch Black, eXistenz, Dark City, Outland, The Abyss, The Black Hole, and Contact, just to name a few. But none of these are as important as the 25 listed above.
I take it you agree?
[+] Read More...
Thursday, January 28, 2010
SOTU: Why Obama Is Doomed
Last night, Obama gave the single worst State of the Union speech I’ve ever heard and the worst speech of his career. There was nothing inspiring or memorable. His canned applause lines stunk, his “off the cuff” jokes were poorly scripted, and the rest of the speech can be summed up thusly: anger, accusation, blame shifting, political payoffs to interest groups and “admissions” that everyone else has served him poorly. This speech was meant to hit the reset button. . . it missed. It also tells us that he is doomed to failure.Obama has a serious problem. Unlike other presidents whose approval ratings have risen and fallen with events, Obama’s have been on a steady downward course. This indicates a man who has lost the public. Thus, his objective last night was to reconnect with the public, to pull a mea culpa, to assure the public he will change, and to convince the public to give him a second chance. He failed. Instead, last night just highlighted why he lost the public in the first place.
Obama is a poor speaker and his speech writers stink. He has yet to give a memorable speech, and last night was no exception. There were no memorable quotes, no incredible moments of truth, no compelling arguments, and no moment where he made a genuine call for all of us to come together. Instead, his speech was bland, with angry emphasis substituting for passion, half-hearted praise for America substituting for inspiration, an abundance of “too-perfect-to-be-true” letters from widows and orphans that felt like blatant manipulation, and “I” substituting liberally for “we.” He was snide, unpleasant, insulting and combative. He read poorly. His self-deprecating jokes were all backhanded slaps at his opponents, and he just wasn’t presidential at any point.Technical Problems: Lack of Inspiration
The contrast with Virginia Governor McDonnell could not have been starker.
Obama’s failure, by the way, was obvious in two facts from last night. First, the leftists hired by CNN to act as analysts were amazingly subdued. “He did what he had to do” was about the highest praise they could muster (even David Axelrod was subdued). They questioned his priorities (or lack thereof) and even scoffed at some of what he said. Not one person suggested this was a great speech or a memorable speech or that he’d “hit a homerun.” When your own PR people can’t praise your speech, something is wrong. Secondly, CNN’s instant poll showed a 20% drop in the number of people who gave this speech high marks compared to last year. Given that this poll would likely include a higher proportion of Democrats than last year’s, this was a horrible result for Obama.
Aside from poor writing and delivery, the main reason Obama’s speech will not resonate with the public is that it ultimately was not meant for the public, it was aimed at his special interest. As I’ve said before, the Democratic Party is no longer a party, it has become an alliance of tribes, each of whom want their share. Last night, emphasized that:Political Payoff Smorgasbord
The middle class? You get to pay for these promises, and he repeated the silly plan I discussed the other day -- though he shifted the blame on that one to Biden. (FYI, that plan is actually aimed at feminists and college students and the poor, not the middle class.)• Unions: Obama promised a second stimulus, aimed at putting “America” back to work. . . targeted at unionized jobs. Further, while he seemed to talk about free trade last night with South Korea, Panama and Columbia, he never said he would push the free trade deals already negotiated with those countries that are languishing in Congress. Instead, he talked about “enforcement,” which is the same anti-free trade garbage his side has been spewing about imposing environmental and labor regulations on our trading partners.
• Environmentalists: Obama promised to get a carbon tax, i.e. cap and trade, even if he had to bribe a handful of Republicans (like Lindsey Graham) to get it, by offering to include subsidies for nuclear power and limited off-shore drilling.
• Gays: He promised to end “don’t ask, don’t tell,” and he promised “increased” civil rights office enforcement, i.e. more lawsuits.
• Feminists: He promised to fight for the feminist panacea “equal pay.”
• Blacks: He promised a national hate crimes law.
To cover his giveaways, he paid lip service to the public’s complaints. For example,
In other words, he paid lip service to the public’s concerns, and he showed that he refuses to accept any responsibility for the public’s concerns and he doesn’t intend to actually address them except with more lip service.• Obama’s Deficits: He acknowledged the deficit problem, by blaming it on Bush. He then promised a “total spending freeze.” What he did not say was that this would only cover 17% of spending and that Pelosi has already said it won’t get through the House. He then tried to make this sound impressive by talking about the savings this would generate over the next TWO decades. Wally from Dilbert tried this once, claiming his plan would save the company one million dollars. . . over a million years.
• Job Destruction: Obama acknowledged that people remain unemployed, a problem he blamed on Bush. First, he tried to lump the 6.3 million jobs that vanished under his policies on Bush by claiming that the economy had lost seven million jobs in the past two years. Then he blamed lobbyists (which made no sense). Then he bragged about his stimulus bill creating two million jobs -- a well documented lie. (See here and here.)
Now he’s promising targeted tax cuts for small business “for job creation.” No one has any idea what he’s talking about here -- he probably doesn’t even know himself -- but if this is nothing more than a “one time tax cut for hiring” (a new favorite among Democrats) then this is doomed to fail.
• Terrorism: Obama acknowledged that terrorism exists, a big step for him. But he blamed the failure to stop it on Bush, and he specifically blamed the Detroit near-bombing on policies put in place by Bush. Yet, while he acknowledged Bush’s failures he offered no plan to address terrorism other than more of the same. He then, amazingly, made the childish claim that he had “killed more terrorists” than Bush did in 2008. This brought near eye-rolls from the Joint Chiefs.
• Health Care: Obama also whined about the opposition to his health care bill, which he blamed on obstructionist Republicans, corrupt lobbyists, and cowardly Democrats who are worried about elections, i.e. public opinion. Then he said, “I’m no quitter” (another demonstrable falsehood). He then reformulated his plan as “health insurance reform” because no one likes insurance companies, and he challenged anyone who would oppose him to come up with their own plan -- something many have done, though he wouldn’t know that because he refuses to listen. But he waited 27 minutes into his speech to raise this issue, leading one CNN pundit to declare: “he won’t give up on health care, but he’s signaled that he won’t fight for it either.”
• Iran: He acknowledged that Iran hadn’t been fixed yet, which he blamed on the Iranians and prior administrations, i.e. Bush. He then swore that there would be real consequences if they didn’t comply this time. Of course, he couldn’t think of any consequence to mention, nor did he say who would bear them.
• Iraq: He promised again to bring home all of the (combat) troops from Iraq at some point in time, it’s just taking longer than expected because the “three” (formerly “two”) wars Bush left him were such disasters.
• Corruption: Recognizing that most polls put corruption at the top of the public’s concerns about his administration, he (1) promised “to fight corruption”. . . in Afghanistan, (2) he demonized lobbyists and claimed to have kicked them out of his administration -- another lie, (3) he talked about undoing the Supreme Court’s decision that allows corporations to donate money to causes, something recent polls show the public considers a matter of free speech, and (4) swore he would highlighting earmarks to the public. . . as compared to his campaign promise to stop them. He made no mention of his awarding a no-bid contract to a supporter (something he once called “corrupt”) or of the massive amounts of corruption in his administration and in Congress (see here, here and here).
Finally, we come to Obama’s biggest problem: his paranoid hatred of “those who oppose.” In a nod to Rodney King’s “can’t we all just get along,” Obama mentioned the word bipartisanship and he spoke of the need to change the tenor in Washington. But then, like a petulant child, he set about settling scores.Angry Obama Gives Way To Nasty Obama
He attacked the Republicans over and over, using any falsehood he thought would help him. He tried to blame them for his own failures and then, like a cartoon villain, he incredibly warned them that they would be held responsible for any further failure on his part. He called his own party cowards for trying to hear the message of the people. He blamed Bush for every single one of his faults and failures. And, as noted before, he petulantly tried to sound tough by claiming that he killed more terrorists than Bush did in 2008.
He demonized bankers and lobbyists, in ways not heard since the 1930s -- all the while ignoring the fact that they are his biggest contributors, that they are his closest advisors, and that he appointed them to serve in his cabinet and to run his treasury department.
He even tried to play the self-pity, phony-acceptance-of-responsibility game by taking “my share of the blame” only to twist that into accepting the blame for being stopped by the self-interested and politically motivated acts of others.
Incredibly, he made a highly inappropriate attack on the Supreme Court, in their presence. It is not that he criticized a court decision, but that he attacked the court personally, when he angrily accused the court of destroying “a century of settled law” in favor of special interests (impugning their motives). This caused Justice Alito to mouth the words “not true”. . . giving Obama a second “you lie” moment in as many trips to Congress. And, indeed, it was not true. By the way, as an active attorney, his attack on the Court is an ethics violation and he should be sanctioned.
Finally, he thanked no one for anything.
This man is a child. He knows nothing, and it shows. He out hates Nixon as a paranoid gatherer of enemies and a serial assigner of blame. He out wimps Carter as an effete warrior. He makes the obviously stupid Bush II look like Einstein, and the smarmy insider Bush I look like a zealous reformer. And he makes the dishonest and dishonorable Bill Clinton look like George Washington.
Obama is finished. Not because he doesn’t have time to change, but because he’s not willing or able to change.
[+] Read More...
Question: Favorite Era for Movies?
Other than the present, what is your favorite time period for movie settings? Is it a long long time ago in a galaxy far far away? Or maybe 1522? Perhaps you prefer Ancient Greece. . . it is the word after all, or the Twenty-Fourth and a Half Century!? Do tell, and why.
[+] Read More...
San Francisco Diary--Journal Of An Exile
The storms have temporarily passed, the temperature is almost at sixty degrees, and the sun is shining. All in all, a beautiful day here in The City By The Bay. Unfortunately, much of the current fun is being had behind closed doors, in courtrooms, and in the automobiles of commuters traveling across The City's main bridge arteries.Note: Bay Area commuters are not going to find their commute into San Francisco any less expensive over the next few months and years. The authority which controls all the major bridges into San Francisco (or lead there), including the most-heavily traveled Bay Bridge, now will impose increased fares during peak hours. The bridge tolls go up to $6.00 one way (no toll in the other direction). Only the Golden Gate Bridge is controlled by a separate authority, which has already raised tolls. Bad news for everybody crossing the bridges, but particularly for those using the much-beloved car-pool lanes. The drivers of those cars will be charged the same toll, but now instead of being rewarded for being "energy conscious," they will pay an additional "per passenger" toll. If it moves, charge it a toll. If it merely goes along for a ride, charge it a toll as well.
NOTE: The Proposition 8 trial has now moved into its second phase, and the testimony is now heating up. The plaintiffs rested their case-in-chief, and it's now the defendants' turn. Both lead attorneys are brilliant attorneys, but defendants' attorney was beginning to cause the pro-Prop 8 crowd some nail-biting by asking so few questions on cross-examination during the plaintiffs' case. It has turned out that lead attorney David Boies was using tactical restraint. He had asked few questions earlier, and reserved his cross-examination for matters where the testimony was clearly pure opinion, didn't address the equal protection constitutional argument, or was patently wrong. He left the defense "experts" pretty much alone to hang in the wind on their social issues.
Boies first recalled plaintiffs' witness David Blankenthorn, a current convert to the anti-Prop 8 position, and asked him pointed questions about the inconsistency in his direct testimony relating solely to the social impact of Prop 8 and its prior legal history. That gave Boies an opportunity re-open the touchy-feely aspects of the formerly anti-gay marriage witness who testified about the sociological impact of gay marriage. Boies was able that way to put the purely sociological aspects of the anti-Prop 8 lawyers back in front of the judge (this is a non-jury trial). Plaintiffs were arguing that one's feelings about gay marriage are more important than centuries of law and constitutional precedent regarding marriage.
Blankenship had previously espoused publicly, financially and in articles the position that "'leading scholars' share his view that same-sex marriage would weaken heterosexuals' respect for the institution and accelerate a half-century-old trend of increased cohabitation and rising divorce rates." On direct testimony, Blankenship had failed to mention that in a 2007 book he wrote, he stated: "We would be more American on the day we permitted same-sex marriage than we were on the day before." Not only was that inconsistent with his prior positions, but Blankenthorn was unable to explain what had changed his mind other than anectdotal sympathy for certain gay couples he knows of. Lead attorney for plaintiffs, Ted Olson, in his own tactical move not to emphasize the weakness of the sociological arguments, asked only a few short questions on re-direct examination in an attempt to redeem the seeming confusion of the witness.
Then Boies brought on his string of legal experts to counter the few legal scholars that Olson had called on direct. Claremont-McKenna law professor Kenneth Miller testified about the due process arguments critical to the entire case. He pointed out that there is no genuine legal difference between the legal rights of California domestic partners and those of traditional marriage partners. He contends that the word "marriage" is a political definition, not a legal one, and therefore belongs in the political arena, not in the courts. The definition of marriage can be altered by appropriate amendment to the state constitution just as Prop 8 and the subsequent confirmation by the state Supreme Court were accomplished. Miller testified that "California attitudes toward the definition of marriage have been constantly evolving, but that due process arguments are invalid because the plaintiffs have yet to point out where gay marriage proponents are actually denied any access to domestic bliss that is available to heterosexual couples under current California law, the effects of the upholding of Prop 8, and the adequate independent state grounds restraint on federal court proceedings."
Boies then called a series of legal scholars who testified that the definition of "marriage" was a purely political matter, unrelated to constitutional due process and equal protection arguments which will ultimately be the only issue which will be addressed by future appellate courts. Plaintiffs' academic witnesses had argued that allowing gays and lesbians to marry would benefit the couples and their children and improve the status of marriage without affecting opposite-sex couples. Each of the defendants' legal witnesses in some way made it clear that they considered that testimony to be interesting and perhaps even true, but had nothing to do with the due process and equal protection arguments. Those are purely sociological and political questions, not legal questions. Olson again soft-pedaled his cross-examination so as to avoid emphasizing the strength of the defendants' arguments. Some of the defendants' expert witnesses actually support gay marriage, but insist that the courts are the wrong place to be pursuing that goal. That's where the more germane issue resides with the political process, the initiative constitutional amendment process, and the ballot box. If Prop 8 is to be overturned, let it be done by the voters on a superseding ballot measure.
The outcome of the trial may end up being the result of the active participation of Judge Vaughn Walker, who has frequently indicated his pro-plaintiff positions on the record, from granting the original plaintiffs' motions to proceed to trial, to frequent reiterations of the plaintiffs' position in the form of questions to the witnesses. He also allowed testimony from San Diego Mayor Jerry Sanders, who gave a teary-eyed litany of his sins against his lesbian daughter by previously supporting Prop 8 which at best had a cumulative effect on the hearts-and-flowers "how do you feel?" therapeutic psycho-sociological approach to the law. The judge is doing an excellent job of convincing himself.
This is beginning to get interesting, and if Olson continues on his current course, he is planning on relying on rebuttal testimony and closing argument (at which he is possibly the best in the country) rather than attacking the defendants' position directly. Of course, Boies is no slouch in this area either, and in civil trials neither side has the advantage in closing argument, unlike criminal trials where the prosecution gets the last word every time. Both sides are merely preparing their record on appeal, where lengthy appeals are both inevitable and will ultimately be disposed of at the highest court levels.
NOTE: On Wednesday, Steve Jobs of Apple introduced his newest product at the San Francisco Yerba Buena Center. Interestingly, the rollout took place at the Cultural Center rather than the more typical rollout out at the Moscone Tech forum. I'm not quite sure what that actually means. Reactions and critical evaluations of the new "I-Pad" have been mixed, and it remains to be seen if it will be successful financially, even after the original estimated cost of the gadget had been halved by the time of the announcement.
NOTE: San Francisco actually has a somewhat serious Republican rival to Nancy Pelosi for the general election in November, though he hasn't won the primary yet. There's a lot of buzz about the self-described libertarian-conservative candidate. He's certainly not the typical RINO put up by the local Republican powerhouse, the San Francisco Republican Central Committee. He probably has the general election prospects of a snowball in hell, but considering our recent frigid San Francisco weather and the wind blowing in from Massachusetts, maybe this snowball actually does have a chance (though I'm not holding my breath). Boston isn't Massachusetts, and San Francisco isn't California.
A Fordham University graduate in Business Administration, John Dennis has founded two very successful real-estate related businesses, and is very savvy in the use of the internet for raising funds and getting his message out. He bolted from the SF Central Committee and became a member of the more conservative San Francisco Republican Liberty Caucus. Dennis is opposed entirely to government-controlled health, care, cap 'n tax, and the Cyber-Security Act which gives the President near-dictatorial power over the internet during a crisis, but grants the administration almost unfettered discretion in determining exactly exactly what a "crisis" is with little oversight from Congress. Let us not forget that the unofficial position of the Democratic Party is to leave "no crisis unexploited" and leftist Democrats have declared multiple crises over the state of America since Obama's election.
Dennis supports health-care reform in the form of free-market competition, with heavy emphasis on private insurance being closely monitored by regulators, but essentially fully free to market across state lines and to be exempt from antitrust legislation. He opposes illegal immigration categorically, and adds that it seriously weakens the American dollar. While supporting much more limited legal immigration, he also proposes drastic penalties on businesses that hire illegals, and wants "guest worker" visas that would eventually allow the fast-track to immigrants who arrive here legally and follow all the traditional paths to American citizenship, including assimilation and disavowal of all prior allegiances.
He is a doctrinaire gun-ownerhsip supporter, who goes so far as to say "I don't even need a Second Amendment to tell me that I have the right to defend myself," and he sees gun ownership as a mainstay in protecting against government tyranny. He opposes Social Security in its present form as a "pyramid scheme," and supports an opt-out system allowing citizens to choose a private retirement plan with corresponding tax equalization consequences with Social Security, and no penalty for the private plan doing better than the government plan. To the best of my knowledge, he has not yet taken a position on those who invest in private plans that fail or produce less than the current Social Security plan, but since Social Security is taking the fast-train to bankruptcy, I'm not sure how much of an issue that really is.
He supports two of my favorite positions. First, he believe the Constitution ought to be amended to repeal the Seventeenth Amendment providing for direct election of Senators, and wants it returned to the legislatures of the various states. Second, he believes that the Tenth Amendment is abundantly clear about the extent to which the federal government is allowed to preempt state decisions.
He strongly opposes federal funding for abortion and fetal stem-cell research, and opposes government-paid political junkets (with special emphasis on Nancy Pelosi as the biggest offender).
Where he may be unclear so far is where he stands on some issues and whose political camp he will sit in. He got his first experience as a Get Out The Vote volunteer in the 2008 presidential race, supporting candidate Ron Paul. His energy policy position is closely akin to the Democratic position that "the key to energy needs is the concept of improved relations with foreign countries because the federal government's only energy policy should be its foreign policy (emphasis added). He has so far failed to express his opinions on domestic energy production, and that will need to be seriouly addressed in the near future. He opposes extension of the Bush tax-cuts but advocates spending reductions to reduce the federal spending spree. It seems clear that right now, he only understand one-half of the Laffer Curve. He somehow thinks that by raising income taxes, that money will somehow mystically be put back in the taxpayers' pocket by reduced federal spending. He wants to abolish the Federal Reserve, and has not indicated any strong reasons for doing so other than it's "straight out of the Communist Manifesto" without explaining why abolition would be preferable to top-to-bottom reform of the Federal Reserve system.
He believes that gay marriage should be a strictly state issue without federal interference, but has not yet discussed how he would feel about a federal ban on enforcement of "sister-state judgments" (without banning banning gay marriage or defining marriage itself) via the constitutional Amendment process.
Until those issues are clarified, I'm not ready to throw my full support behind Dennis, but even if I don't like his positions when clarified, he's still head and shoulders above every other candidate the Republicans have produced. Still, his personal opposition to gay marriage (even though he would accept it if it becomes the people's will) will go over like a lead balloon here. The vast majority of San Franciscans believe that any opposition to gay marriage is a hate crime. And don't forget, he is running for a House seat from San Francisco.
[+] Read More...
Wednesday, January 27, 2010
TOTUS Speaks. . . Live Blog (8:30 pm)
Prepare to be amazed! Hear the TOTUS speak! See the small-brained Biden Weasel! Cringe in horror at the Botox Queen. Be observed by monkeys. Join us. . . join us. . .
Instructions:
1. Thread opens at 8:30 p.m. (EST). Any time after that, click where it says "click here" (below the picture). To comment, enter your name and a quick hello. Wait to be approved. Accept the approval and start commenting.
2. Only some people can use avatars, sorry, that's the way this system crumbles -- though we're trying to solve that for the future.
3. Fear the monkeys. . .
[+] Read More...
Instructions:
1. Thread opens at 8:30 p.m. (EST). Any time after that, click where it says "click here" (below the picture). To comment, enter your name and a quick hello. Wait to be approved. Accept the approval and start commenting.
2. Only some people can use avatars, sorry, that's the way this system crumbles -- though we're trying to solve that for the future.
3. Fear the monkeys. . .
[+] Read More...
Open Thread -- Vox Populi
"If I were a serious person, I'd probably have a real job."
-- Harrison Ford
[+] Read More...
JOHN MCCAIN: POSTER CHILD WANNABE FOR CONSERVATISM
By Writer XSenator John McCain (RINO-AZ) is up for re-election in November. And we all know what that means...
It’s time for the Maverick to dust off his conservative mask and puff out his chest. Oh, joy.
McCain is like the high school kid that we all remember running for Student Council. Suddenly he wants to sit with you in the cafeteria; he wants you to believe that he’s working hard to improve the greasy cafeteria food and that he’s playing hard-nose with the Principal to bring open-campus privileges to seniors. Suddenly he’s everywhere—on cheesy posters, at basketball games, on the overhead PA system. And just like we were suspicious of the fair-weather friend kid kissing up for Student Council, we should definitely be suspicious of John McCain’s intentions. Instead of the poster child for conservatism, he’s proven himself the perfect poster child for RINOs. And it’s not pretty.
This election cycle with McCain in Arizona is even more bizarre. He’s already started campaigning against J.D. Hayworth, a former conservative Arizona Representative, presumably because recent polls have them in a statistical dead-heat. McCain is running scared. His campaign has begun airing these absolutely insipid campaign commercials, one in particular has this boozy-sounding lady musing aloud to herself about McCain’s greatness and Hayworth’s loserness. It’s probably the dumbest radio commercial I’ve ever heard. Additionally, McCain is making almost weekly desperate appearances on Phoenix radio shows to beat his “I’m not afraid to get my hands dirty” drum—and Hayworth hasn’t even declared his candidacy. (Side note: Hayworth said that he would make up his mind on whether he will run within 30 days.) And of course, miraculously, McCain now plays hardball with Obama, trying to have us believe that he’s some kind of tough guy fiscal conservative.
Please. Spare me. If only his record reflected that.
I’ve already received at least three robo-phone calls from McCain, begging for support, including a disturbing robo-call from Scott Brown, not even 12 hours after his amazing win in Massachusetts, begging for Republicans to support McCain. I have to say, that sort of sucked a little of the euphoria out of the previous night’s win. And when Scott Brown mentioned in his acceptance speech that he appreciated John McCain’s support, well, I had to cringe a little.
Even more disturbing, suddenly McCain and Sarah Palin are BFFs! After letting her hang out to dry following his pathetic Presidential campaign, now he talks about how he and Cindy and Sarah and Todd all hang out for barbecues at his ranch. Just one big happy family. Isn’t that quaint? Frankly, I’m surprised that Palin has agreed to campaign for him in Arizona. She needs a reality check on what his own constituents think about his performance as their senator.
Sorry, but not this time. If J.D. Hayworth runs, my vote will be for Hayworth. And why won’t I vote for McCain? Let me count the ways:
In short, whenever there is an important issue that I care about, John McCain is always standing “across the aisle,” arrogantly thumbing his nose at me and the people who elected him to office. Why in the hell would I vote for him again in November?1) McCain was practically foaming at the mouth to declare his support for Janet Napolitano for Homeland Security, another glowing tribute to his ability to “be bipartisan.” And we all know how well Janet has turned out!
2) McCain pushed hard for amnesty, practically telling those of us at Arizona townhalls who deal daily with the effects of illegal immigration that we were a bunch of insensitive morons. When public opinion rose vehemently against amnesty, suddenly he got religion. Just in time for his lackluster Presidential bid. Then he became the tough Border Guy. And our southern borders are still wide-open.
3) He was a global warming alarmist. And proud of it. But now he never says a peep about it, despite the alarming emails that have surfaced showing evidence of a cover-up and manipulation of data. Where’s the Maverick now?
4) He was for cap and trade before he was against it. (And, thanks John. I’m already seeing the effects on my monthly electric bill.)
5) McCain-Feingold campaign finance law. Another attempt to “reach across the aisle” and screw his own party and trample on free speech. By the way, has he ever authored any meaningful legislation? I have not seen any.
6) He supported the $700 billion TARP bailout, the $25 billion auto bailout, the $300 billion mortgage bailout, and the first $85 billion AIG bailout. And who could forget when he stopped his already failing presidential campaign to race back to Washington, D.C. like a crazyman, only to push forward a bailout that most taxpayers, including his constituents, didn’t want. Well done, John!
7) He grandiosely opposed CIA enhanced interrogation techniques that have saved countless lives.
8) I’ve heard the cringe-inducing “my friend” one too many times for this lifetime.
Footnote: On Friday, Hayworth left his job at a popular local Phoenix KFYI radio show because of pressure from the McCain campaign and the FCC, both claiming Hayworth was abusing his public airwaves privileges, even though he had not yet declared his candidacy. Hayworth expects to decide whether he will challenge McCain within 30 days.
[+] Read More...
Tuesday, January 26, 2010
Obama To Save Middle Class
As Team Obama digests the lessons of Scott Brown’s victory, they keep finding new things they “should have done” to entice voters, like "saving" the disappearing middle class. This usually means sops to big labor. In fact, nothing warms an ivory-tower socialist’s heart more than thinking of the great citizens of this nation toiling away in unionized hard-labor jobs. But Obama knows not of manual labor, so his plan to “save the middle class” is a tad different than you might expect. It's also laughable . . . to put it kindly.How does one save the middle class? Jobs, jobs, jobs, according to Obama. Creating new jobs and reducing unemployment is “the single most important thing we can do to rebuild the middle class,” read Obama from his TOTUS. Then, like OJ Simpson before him, Obama assured us that “I won’t rest until we’re doing just that.”
But if Obama really wants to create jobs, then why doesn’t his plan include anything that could actually lead to the creation of jobs? Could this just be a shallow attempt to buy votes or is Team Obama really that stupid. . . or both?
Here is Obama’s four point cradle to grave plan:
Part One: Child Storage
The first part of Obama’s plan to save the middle class involves a sop to feminist thinking, which holds that a lack of “affordable daycare” enslaves women. So Obama takes the big step of promising to “double the child care tax credit.” Sounds good, but. . .
First, in this case, the word “double” doesn’t actually mean “double” in the traditional sense. Instead, it means increasing the percentage of the qualifying costs that can be deducted from 20% to 35%. Moreover, this applies only to children under the age of 13 because women with children over 13 years of age are evil. Oh, and this increase only applies to families making less than $85,000 a year (the new “millionaire” cut off). Not to mention the amount you can claim is capped, so the maximum benefit is only $900 more than it was before his proposal -- with most receiving far less than that. (As an aside, if $900 in tax cuts is all it takes to save the middle class, why hasn't Pelosi's House enacted such a change before. . . say in 2006, 2007, 2008 or 2009?)
Now, I would be remiss if I didn't point out that this proposal does nothing to create more jobs. That means you can't expect to benefit from this, unless you already have a job, which kind of undermines the purpose of motivating people to get jobs. But at least there is symmetry between the non-motivation and the non-job creation. . . and symmetry is beautiful.
Part Two: Enslaving College Kids
Turning to your school years, Obama’s second proposal is intended to deceive college grads. With all the guile of an evil credit card peddler, Obama essentially proposes to reduce the minimum payment on your student loan debts. He phrases this as capping the amount you can be forced to pay in any one month to 10% of some living wage, whatever that means. But the reality is that this will establish a minimum payment amount that you can pay happily for the rest of your life. Because, while he's proposing to reduce the amount you can be forced to pay at any one time, he’s not changing the amount of interest you are being charged. Thus, if you pay only the maximum payment (minimum) you will be paying on this loan forever. . . and you will pay far more than you would have paid under the old system.
Liberals used to call that "unconscienability." But a better description might be a tax on stupidity, or a tax on the educated. . . either way works for me. But what’s more interesting, this very practice is one of those practices that Obama promised to stop evil credit card companies from doing. Now he’s turning around and proposing to do the same thing to college grads. Nice!
But Obama’s not entirely heartless (his behavior toward his grandmother and his brother notwithstanding). While this will make college students long term indentured servants of the federal government, it won’t actually run forever. After twenty years of servitude, you will be released from your burden. . . only three times longer than the indentured servant contracts of the 17th and 18th Centuries. (By the way, because federal government employees are so put upon, with their massive salaries and their unpaid taxes, Obama proposes to free those who “work” for Club Fed after 10 years instead of twenty. . . call it time off for lazy behavior).
In terms of creating jobs, this doesn’t do squat, but it makes up for that by keeping the future middle class poorer. Enjoy your free lunch college grads, you’ve earned it!
Part Three: Slaving For Retirement
As you toil away in the salt mines, you are no doubt worried about your retirement. Some day, you’ll be too old to work and social security is looking pretty flimsy. So it’s time to start saving for retirement, lest you enjoy eating dog food under bridges. To help you, Obama is planning to force your employer to provide workplace-based retirement savings accounts (formerly known as 401ks). . . and no, your employer doesn’t have to contribute, they just need to do all the paperwork for you. That should raise the unemployment rate from 10% to 11%.
Sadly, if I read my tax code correctly, this will kill off your right to have your own personal 401k, but hey, that’s a small price to pay for getting your hands on a hot self-funded retirement account! Now I know what you’re thinking -- isn’t Obama just proposing to replace our 401k’s with a different kind of 401k? Yeah, but this one is tied to your employer, which makes it less convenient and less flexible, so shut up and stop looking a gift whore in the mouth!
To sweeten the pot, Obama wants the government to match up to $500 if you put in $1,000! I hope you’re ready to live the highlife! Of course, you need to make less than $65,000 to qualify for this amazing benefit, because anyone who makes more than that is rich and, thus, subhuman.
Oh, I almost forgot to mention, Obama promised to excuse small businesses. . . the very companies that don’t provide retirement plans now. So maybe this whole thing is just a wash?
Part Four: Chump Change for Geezers
Finally, as your loved ones speed toward their appointment with the grim reaper, Obama wants to lift some of the burden you’ll bear in taking care of these oldsters. Did you know that in 2006, Americans spent $333 billion caring for the elderly? And that was under the evil George Bush, back when we used to toss the elderly into the streets and run them over with SUVs. Imagine what it must cost now, in the age of the enlightened one!
So how is Obama promising to lift this burden imposed by these dirty, dirty old people? How about a tax credit for taking care of elderly relatives. . . you know it, baby. . . $100 million worth!!! Awesome, that’s like giving $3.30 to someone who makes $10,000 a year! All we need now is for McDonalds to add elderly care to their dollar menu and we’ll be set!
At least this one, unlike the prior three, could create jobs. . . if you believe in magic.
Poverty, thy days are numbered!
Note: By the way, if you want to see what Obama could have done to create jobs and/or raise middle class incomes, check out our proposal for a real stimulus plan. Unlike Obama, we didn’t take stupid pills before coming up with our plan.
[+] Read More...
Captioning: I Think I'm Going To Be Sick. . .
Love on the rocks, ain't no surprise, pour me a drink and I'll yell you some lies. . . you smell perty.
[+] Read More...
[+] Read More...
Are Republicans Finding Their Manhood?
It would seem so. And at least one of the early moves toward taking the momentum away from the expansionist federal monstrosity is being led by a woman. Lisa Murkowski, Republican Senator from Alaska, has introduced a resolution of disapproval to overturn the Environmental Protection Agency's determination that greenhouse gas emissions, particularly carbon dioxide, endanger public health and welfare.This would be a major step toward slapping down the bureaucratic circumvention of the independent powers of Congress and the executive branch. The Messiah, tutored by the Goracle, decided it was time to stop any moves which would endanger their march toward economic meltdown by empowering the EPA to do by indirection that which the law had previously denied them directly. By declaring carbon-dioxide to be a dangerous emission, the federal bureaucracy would be able to force restrictions on industry and production without having to go to Congress for authorization. In other words, it's the fast-track to cap and trade legislation. Congress would be forced to find a scheme to finance a reduction of greenhouse gases that Obama and Gore both believe are the cause of global warming, or climate-change, or whatever they're calling it this week. That whole theory is blowing up in their faces, and any impediment to enforcement of carbon trade-off legislation endangers their underlying plan--to gain government control of every facet of our lives and to tax American businesses into oblivion.
In proposing this resolution of disapproval under the Congressional Review Act, Murkowski is taking an angry shot across the statist bow. And she understands "strike while the iron is hot." In the wake of the Massachusetts victory and the revolt of the Tea Party movement, even blue dog Democrats, already feeling shaky, are positively trembling about their futures. As a result, Murkoswki's resolution is co-sponsored by Democrats Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas, Ben "Cornhusker Kickback" Nelson, and Mary "Lousiana Purchase" Landrieu. And Murkowski knows that if she can bring along her party and seven additional Democrats on a resolution, she's home free because under Senate rules, a CRA resolution of disapproval only requires a majority vote and cannot be filibustered.
Murkowski faces formidable opposition, led by my junior Senator, Her Majesty Doctor Professor Queen-of-the-Hill Don't Call Me Ma'am Senator Barbara Boxer. Says Babs: "Imagine if in the 1980s the Senate had overturned the health finding that nicotine in cigarettes causes lung cancer. How many more people would have died already? Imagine if a senator got the votes to come to the floor to overturn the finding that lead in paint damages children's brain development? How many children and families would have suffered? Imagine if the senator had come down to the floor and said, you know, I don't think black lung disease is in any way connected to coal dust. Imagine!"
Well, Ma'am, would you listen to a Senator who said that all your examples are "settled science" which can't even come close to being said about your crazed ideas about carbon dioxide and global warming? How would you feel if a Senator came down to the floor and said "we believe that chocolate is killing children at a horrendous pace, so we want production taxed, limited and ultimately eliminated, and if you'll just give us another fifty to seventy-five years, we'll have bought enough junk scientists to prove it?" (Theoretically, the latter Senator would also produce a hockey-stick graph to demonstrate how the increased use of chocolate in the last decade has caused a huge spike in the death rate of chocolate-eating children).
It's all "for the children" isn't it, Ma'am? So anything goes. Well, maybe not. More germane, Murkowski joins many of us in wanting legislation which cleans up the air that we, and our children, breathe. Even we troglodyte conservatives see the good in preventing further despoliation of our air, land and waters. Murkowski merely sees the underlying statist scheme and the immense damage it would produce, and says that what the Democrats are proposing won't work, is based on highly-disputed science, would be costly beyond imagination, produce wealth for carbon-traders like Al Gore while crippling major American business and industries for no good reason, and set a precedent for bureaucratic decision-makers to reach conclusions in which they have a vested interest.
With the approval of the Obama administration, and the past docility of the Congress, the EPA is working toward making itself the sole power controlling a major portion of the economy. By declaring carbon dioxide a dangerous emission, the EPA can control heavy industry, energy producers, the automobile industry, the construction industry, and myriad small businesses. And it does all that without public agreement or the necessity of Congressional votes.
Before passage of the Clean Air Act, Congress had reserved to itself the power to determine what is, and what is not, a poisonous emission. If EPA was allowed to regulate anything, it had to get that power from Congress first. The new power to make that determination came from Congress's failure to put that reservation into the Clean Air Act, and a terrible decision from the U. S. Supreme Court in Massachusetts v EPA which held that without specific language regarding regulation of the list of dangerous emissions authorized by Congress, EPA's power to do so was inferred from the text of the Act.
Boxer's argument is that if we waited for Congress to make the determination, it could take years. Yes, Ma'am, it might. It's called democracy, and it's messy and time-consuming. But prior to the new-think from the Progressive era, we did not tolerate government by bureaucracy. Speed and efficiency are no substitute for public debate, Congressional action, and the will of the people. The Clean Air Act is simply another example of Congress unconstitutionally delegating its power to legislate to a regulation-crazy bureaucracy. Murkowski proposed to halt that ongoing process. The correction is actually quite easy. Amend the Act so that Congress takes back its rightful power of determining what the EPA can and cannot do in the area of "greenhouse gases." Murkowski's resolution is a first step in accomplishing that. Nevertheless, Her Majesty the High and Mighty Senator Boxer calls the action "unprecedented." I wonder where she got that word?
[+] Read More...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
