Saturday, September 5, 2009

Messiahs Aren't Taught Self-Restraint

Dear Leader Barack Obama will be shoving his mug in front of America's school kids the day after Labor Day, and then in front of Congress and the rest of us on Wednesday night. On Tuesday, he'll ask the kids to help him build the Obama Nation, and on Wednesday we'll be treated to the miracle of universal health care with no restrictions and no costs. I haven't been this excited since my bank told me my 401k's were worthless--like Obama rhetoric.

If there's one thing that Obama is filled with, it's self-confidence. Well, he's full of something else, too, but that doesn't relate directly to this discussion. Nobody without several extra rations of self-confidence could go from obscure two-bit Chicago politician to President of the United States in such a short period of time. But there is something to be said for rising a bit slower, making a few stops along the way to learn a few things, and maybe even stumbling a few times. Such a meteoric rise can turn self-confidence into arrogance and intransigence, along with a feeling of infallibility. Those are traits best left for Greek gods and dictators. It can quickly lead to a fall, and cause a great deal of harm along the way.

In a republic, it can also lead to a disdain for the underpinnings of the republican form of government, and lead to a "whatever it takes" attitude toward maintaining the leader's preeminent position. One of the earliest indicators of this in the Obama administration was his choice of Rahm Emmanuel as his Chief of Staff. Emmanuel very openly told Obama: "You never want a serious crisis to go to waste." Cynical and opportunistic, it played right into Obama's mindset of "making a fundamental change in America." Using a serious recession as the crisis to be exploited, Obama parleyed it into his foot-through-the door to proclaim the entire nation to be in crisis on finance, health care, the environment, and racial relations.

Any president who didn't think he was the best man for the job would probably not be there in the first place, and if he got there by some fluke, wouldn't be good at the job anyway. But it has become increasingly clear that Obama believes a great deal more than that about himself. He has come to believe his own propaganda. And it means that the people he is sworn to protect are irrelevant to his goals.

So Obama began making his first, ongoing mistake about America. He believes it needs to be fundamentally changed. Most Americans like their country enough to want to preserve it and improve it by reasonable and traditional means. To Obama and his crew, the word "tradition" means "outmoded." So rather than listen to the people, he firmly plants his feet and proceeds to do whatever he can--not to convince, but to offer the option of "convert or be destroyed." He cannot conceive that any ideas but his own can have any validity. This means no compromise, no give-and-take, no discussion, just "listen here" (as he is wont to say), here's what you need and here's how I'm going to give it to you." The American people saw the moderate, bipartisan image that he tried successfully to promote during the election, and chose him as the man to stabilize the economy. They didn't elect him to turn our 220 year old constitutional republic into rule by the elite and government control of everything in their lives.

Instead of seeing quickly-growing suspicions about his plans as a warning to slow down and moderate his agenda, Obama saw it as a challenge to his "fundamental change," to be attacked, ridiculed, and overcome by exploiting the economic crisis and moving even faster. His poll numbers drop each time he renews his call for government control and radical change in society. That mistake could cost him his agenda and his presidency. It's a rookie mistake, and a sin of pampered youth. Age doesn't impart wisdom automatically, but youth cannot gain experience any faster than the years attained. And experience is an ingredient of wisdom which Obama, with zero prior executive experience, lacks almost entirely.

He could have learned a lot from the lessons of Ronald Reagan, if he had stopped to consider that his book-learnin' at Columbia and Harvard weren't the only places to get an education. Reagan was no slouch in believing in himself. But he had learned early on that even people who were with him would not always agree with him, and that his opponents were not enemies trying to interfere with his perfect agenda. After two terms as governor of the nearly unmanageable State of California, Reagan had learned a great deal about governing successfully.

After winning a decisive victory over Jimmy Carter, and bringing in the first Republican Senate in nearly thirty years, Reagan was in a position roughly comparable to Obama's, although Reagan's party did not control the House. And Reagan did indeed have an agenda. But unlike Obama, Reagan recognized that much of his agenda had to wait because, like Obama, he came into office during a very tough economic period. Reagan had the good sense to realize that his strong victory didn't guarantee similar victories on legislation, and he had to fix the economy before he could do anything else that he wanted to do. In order to restore the economy and defeat the Carter "stagflation," Reagan obtained immense tax cuts and restoration of the dollar. But to do so, he had to give up temporarily some of his other important issues, such as killing off the welfare state and destroying the entitlement monster. That's the difference between self-confidence and childish arrogance.

It took two future administrations to effect the final cutbacks in the welfare state and reduction in entitlements, but none of that could have been accomplished if Reagan had not first gotten the economy back into high gear. He deferred his grand plan in order to lay the foundation for that plan to build on later. The American people had said "fix the economy" and Reagan did so, at the expense of some ideas he held dear. Obama simply can't even grasp the concept of deferring his grand plans in order to do the first thing which needs to be done--fix the economy. And daily, he repeats his mistake.

The other big Obama mistake is less obvious, more subtle, and yet perhaps even more fundamental. Obama, for all his alleged smarts and education, has no sense of history nor any understanding of how a constitutional republic develops. And even if he does, he doesn't care. Again, in keeping with that childish personality flaw, Obama wants it all, and he wants it now. Utilizing Emmanuel's playbook of exploiting a crisis, Obama tosses aside James Madison's "auxiliary precautions" which constitutional historian Martin Diamond describes as "the self-restraining, temporary majority-restraining principles of the Constitution, such as the separation of powers, bicameralism, limited government, and all the internal checks which go with those restraints."

Americans who may not be students of history or the Constitition still have an innate sense of putting on the brakes and moving with caution. They have lived in a constitutional republic all their lives, and they're instinctively suspicious of nebulous big ideas powered by an engine with no governor and no brakes. Unlike Obama ideologues (or Marxist ideologues, or socialist ideologues, or internationalist ideologues, etc.), they know that man and society are works-in-progress with both virtues and vices which propel their actions. They see government as a way to get things done, but not at the expense of liberty, choice and the abandonment of all caution. When things are not being done right, they want to see change, but they know better than to throw the baby out with the bathwater. They are by nature, moderate to conservative.

Ideologues like Obama and his gang of half-fast intellectuals see society as immediately perfectable, infinitely malleable, and capable of making every decision entirely rationally and intellectually rather than ever considering self-interest. Every dictator and totalitarian has believed exactly the same thing. Obama believed that by using Emmanuel's cynical ploy of exploiting the economic crisis, he could slip immense packages of legislation through Congress without debate. And those packages would, as he wishes, fundamentally transform America--from the greatest and wealthiest republic in the world, to a middling Euro-style socialist state with personal liberty and freedom of choice in how to live their daily lives gone forever. "Here comes the unread and unreadable stimulus. Just pass it. Here come the incomprehensible nationalized health care bill. Just pass it. And don't worry about the multi-trillion dollar cost and the burden on our children and grandchildren. Just pass it. We're here to make your lives perfect and the nation brand-new overnight. Just pass it."

James Madison's restraints have stopped the master's progress in its tracks. And Lincoln's wisdom had apparently never been transmitted to Obama: "You can't fool all the people all the time." Obama's plan was to rush this nation-altering legislation through so fast that it would be in place before the American people knew what had happened to them. American tradition and plain common sense have thwarted the rush to destruction. Even with a clear majority in both Houses of Congress, and the ability to use a procedural ploy to pass his nationalized health care package in the Senate, Obama has raised so much ire at his attempt to detour around public input that his own party won't do his bidding. He is such a completely deluded ideologue, and he is so isolated from middle America in his White House of Sycophants, that he is genuinely convinced that the opposition is all a vast plot to thwart his lofty goals.

That wonderful Constitution, and America's determined belief in its right to govern itself without an all-powerful government to tell it what to think and do, will keep this wannabe perfect leader from ever becoming a true dictator. If he gets health care reform at all, it won't even faintly resemble his nationalized government plan, and the public will be watching to see if he tries to get that plan incrementally in future legislation. He has lost the trust of the majority of Americans, and whether he likes it or not, the Constitution and the people will prevent him from tossing out 220 years of history for a little promised economic or health security at the expense of their basic liberty.

As I did in yesterday's post, I again advise caution. Obama is a doctrinaire leftist, but he's not a complete fool. He wants his agenda, and he will not give up trying to get it. The current mood of the people must not lull us into a sense of complacency while the spider in the White House spins his web in a less visible way. His mistakes so far and his misjudgment of the American people may be his downfall, but only if we don't take a few winning battles and turn them into a belief that we've won the war. The price of liberty is eternal vigilance. If we stop watching and stop fighting, the dear leader could still defeat us.
[+] Read More...

Friday, September 4, 2009

Obama's Down, But Don't Count Him Out

Next Tuesday the President will be opening the school year nationwide with a canned address, talking points and helpful charts to start the students' annual propaganda school year off with a bang. On Wednesday night, he will address Congress and the nation on his nationalized health care scheme. But don't fail to notice that his face and his voice are showing up five to seven days a week, and may be implanting themselves in many people's minds as a permanent fixture.

The Democrats are comparing Obama to Lincoln, FDR and occasionally, Jesus Christ. Well, we know that's hooey. But too many Republicans who ought to know better are counting on Obama's poll numbers as an indication that he's more like other one-term wonders in the White House. Big mistake, and we'll pay dearly if we allow it to go on unabated.

Before we get too complacent, remember that we made that mistake with Bill Clinton, a far less ruthless politician than Obama. People had actually begun to speak of him as "irrelevant," so much so that he made speeches denying that he was irrelevant. Shortly thereafter, he was re-elected as the first two-term Democratic President since FDR. He won on a combination of personal affability, a lousy Republican candidate running against him, MSM squelching of "bimbo eruptions," and being lucky enough not to have to face a major international crisis. He lobbed a few missiles at Arab tents, quasi-military targets, and aspirin factories and made himself look decisive.

Assuming that Clinton's sleaziness would be enough along with his sagging poll numbers, the Republicans ran a lackluster campaign with a lackluster candidate, and handed Clinton his second term. His civilian criminal law view of terrorist war resulted in a few isolated prosecutions and convictions, including some of the principals in the first attack on the World Trade Center. It also resulted in an energized Al Qaeda. His refusal once to accept Osama bin Laden as a prisoner of war, and again his refusal to kill bin Laden on at least one occasion at a training camp played a major part in the subsequent second and far more deadly attack on the World Trade Center. His treatment of the attack on the USS Cole told terrorists worldwide that the United States would not do what was necessary to hunt them down and kill them. And all because Republicans underestimated Clinton and relied on polls rather than principles.

But because Obama is soft-spoken, proud of his family, loyal to his wife, and exudes phony warmth and misplaced compassion, far too many conservatives compare him to Jimmy Carter. The comparisons of certain milestones and public statements do tend to make those who don't view politics in-depth are somewhat apt. But only to a point. Make no mistake. Barack Obama is no Jimmy Carter. Yes, he's namby-pamby about protecting American national security. Yes, he talks in spiritual terms (though not in strictly Christian terms). Yes, he talks platitudes instead of policy. And yes, he plays footsy with Arab dictators. But that's about as far as the comparisons can go, at least until some Middle East religious fanatic takes over an American embassy and holds everyone hostage. Then he'll have a half-assed Keystone Kops failed rescue attempt to finish the parallels.

So let's take a look at what's different (beside the fact that we don't have a Ronald Reagan standing in the wings). Jimmy Carter was a tough politician, by rural Georgia standards. Obama is a ruthless, doctrinaire politician from Chicago, with all the nastiness and will to power that goes with being a major player in a major urban political machine. When Carter became President, he failed to do proper obeisance to the Democratic political machines which got him the big states and the big cities. Obama knows where his power comes from, and he gives it proper allegiance, by staying in daily contact with them, and appointing their political hacks and agitators to major government positions.

Carter had powerful political enemies within his own party, and it made it difficult for him to propose then pursue a purely Carter agenda. Ted Kennedy showed public contempt for his President, and finally prepared to run against him after mocking him in the 1980 primaries as being a "sissy, running his campaign from the White House Rose Garden." Even those few Democrats who do not see eye-to-eye with Obama continue to present a united "stand behind our President" public image. Carter was a proud Navy man. Obama and his cohorts despise America's military men and women, but openly praise them while denigrating their main mission--to keep America safe by defeating the enemy overseas.

Carter won his election against an inept President who had succeeded one of the most intensely disliked Presidents in modern history. The Viet Nam War was already being left behind, but Watergate was not. The memory of Nixon's sneakiness combined with Carter's image as a lovable uncle overcame Gerald Ford's lame attempts to enunciate a clear Republican agenda. Obama came into office, succeeding a predecessor from the other party who had won two elections in squeakers. But Obama got a clear, if not large, majority of the votes in his election. He inherited a financial crisis which he was able to pin on George Bush (even though it was only partially true), and a war that had become unpopular and which he could blame almost entirely on Republicans.

Carter faced a Congress which was just barely Democratic, and certainly not unified. Obama inherited a Congress which was already heavily Democratic, and he brought more along with him on his coattails. Carter faced governors with a slight Democratic lead, while Obama has a clear majority of governors on his side and from his party. The press and TV leaned liberal, but did not act as surrogates for the Democratic Party under Carter. Today, Obama has a press and TV deeply ensconced in his camp. Carter wasn't very media savvy. Obama is a master of it. Carter had to invite the media to come to the White House. Obama has one network practically in permanent residence in the White House.

Like nearly all Presidents before him, Carter came into office to effect a change within the historical American system. And here is where Obama is completely unlike Carter, or any other President of the Twentieth Century. He doesn't want to move the system in a different direction. He wants to scrap it. He was mentored by communists, homosexuals, black liberation theologians, a foreign Muslim father (for awhile) and a radical mother who preferred almost anywhere to America, and of course 60s radical activists. He has a strong streak of authoritarian narcissism. And when he announced during the campaign that he wanted to "bring a fundamental change to American politics," he wasn't speaking abstractly.

Reaching the voters has changed radically in the thirty-two years between Carter's election and Obama's election. With his Alinsky training and deep involvement in ACORN, he knows how to organize every group with any dissatisfaction with mainstream America. And the internet didn't even exist when Carter was elected, but Obama played it like a harp. Carter fought off personal enemies and political opponents in order to enact his version of clean, compassionate America. Obama sees only flies to be swatted if they get in the way of his inexorable march toward a socialist, rabid egalitarian society.

Although Carter did have a good education, he came off (purposely or accidentally) as one step above a country bumpkin. His Southern accent was rural and exaggerated. Obama sounds urbane and crisp, and flaunts his [somewhat questionable] education and professional credentials. Carter couldn't convince the American people of much of anything. Obama has brilliantly succeeded in fooling the public into believing he governs from intellect rather than emotion. And again, unlike Carter, Obama is a master of misdirection. Obama speaks of equality, fairness, help from the government, cleaning up the economic mess, providing health care for everyone, knocking the rich and powerful off their lofty perches, eliminating special interests and making sure that everyone shares in American success. In fact, behind it all, is the radical thinking, but without the violent tactics, of Fidel Castro and the other "successful" leftists in the Americas.

Carter never appointed a leftist radical to any office, though at the time some of his appointments seemed very liberal. Carter foolishly backed down from dictators and foreign leaders whom he really didn't like much. Obama not only likes them, he patronizes them. He bowed to the Saudi King, and practically made love to Hugo Chavez. He giggled like a little girl around Russian President Medvedev, and quietly allowed Vladimir Putin, former (?) head of the KGB to lecture him like an arrant schoolboy (partially because he thoroughly agrees that America is fatally flawed). Although he is smart enough not to openly encourage America's enemies, he certainly doesn't seem to be able to find the words in his extensive vocabulary to criticize them or stand up to them.

Bill Clinton did attempt to appoint a few very left ultraliberals, but he never intentionally appointed a known communist, 60s radical left activist, or racial supremacist/separatist. When he got caught on a few really bad appointments, he knew he had to back down or else. Obama has knowingly appointed exactly such types to high positions, and utterly refuses to acknowledge what he has done, and shows every sign of standing behind his anti-American appointments. As a candidate, he felt he had to disassociate himself from white-hating Rev. Jeremiah Wright. But as he said when asked once after he became President why something he believed in should automatically trump what an opponent might believe, "I won." That belief in the absolute righteousness of the Obama Presidency motivates him today. He won't throw a white-hating, professed communist named Van Jones out of his administration, and won't respond to questions about why he appointed a man like that in the first place.

Another thing has changed, and it's something Obama plays in a way Carter could only dream of. America's attitude toward a common culture and a common understanding of the concept of ordered liberty has morphed into assorted victim groups and special pleaders with no belief in anything resembling unity. Diversity has become a loathsome, mindless mantra. And Obama knows how to play all sides against the middle. He doesn't have a majority of Americans so much as a majority of the pluralities which comprise all those various groups which he can turn on each other. As Quin Hillyer has said: "Obama has the talent to raise demogoguery to an art form."

Carter tweaked the tax code a bit, and said so. Obama plans to tax every hardworking American into destitution while claiming he's handing out tax cuts. Carter would have had a heart attack if anyone had suggested he wanted the government to replace private enterprise in every facet of American life. Obama is doing it at an astounding rate, and claiming it's just helping out troubled corporations. Carter attempted to extend some social security and medical benefits to relatively small segments of society not then covered--and got slapped down by his own party for doing so. Obama proposes to throw over a trillion dollars into universal health care, and nobody in his party even asks where he intends to find the money and who is going to pay for it.

Carter would have loved to know who in the general public was working against his policies. Obama opened a special White House e-mail address to get citizens to report their fellow citizens who were distributing "false information" about his socialist policies. Carter couldn't even get some extra funding for the Peace Corps. But Obama proposes to set up a multi-billion dollar civilian force to push his agenda, and the Democrats go "hmmmm." Carter took some heat for trying to get some youngsters involved in politics by having grants available for them to go into a nebulous public service. He was shot down. Obama cut his teeth on the felonious and leftist ACORN, and when they were caught time and again during and after the election committing one illegal act after another, he didn't disavow them. Instead he got more billions of dollars put into the federal budget to fund ACORN and similar community-organizing cadres. He has used AmeriCorps funds for supporting his agenda, and when his minions were caught doing so, he fired the Inspector General who blew the whistle, then defamed him. Currently he has co-opted the National Endowment for the Arts to work for his "recovery" agenda. Carter couldn't have conceived of such a thing.

In foreign policy, Carter was weak-kneed, but didn't actively support our enemies. Obama undermines our allies and potential allies while embracing or playing neutral with oppressive governments. He had nothing positive to say about the pro-democracy demonstrators in Iran. He has imposed economic and travel sanctions on Honduras because they tossed out an anti-American president who tried to undermine the Honduran constitution. But in the case of Ecuador's leftist president who tried to shake down an American corporation for $27 billion, not a word.

Domestically, Carter tried several "outreach programs" which would get Democratic operatives to glean information on potential voters. He was criticized. Obama has established an immense "data-mining" operation which includes monitoring e-mails and activity on the White House website while gathering names of potential enemies. Carter sported his basic Baptist theology, and invoked Christ and God on regular occasion. Obama informed the entire world that America is not only not a Christian nation, but it is one of the world's largest Muslim nations.

Carter took attacks on him personally and reacted in petty ways. Obama is trained in radical politics, and knows how to use attacks on him to his own advantage. And despite being the first "post-racial" President, he is quick to use the race card to explain why someone might oppose him. And he stood idly by (or was actively involved) in his Attorney General's dismissal of all charges against New Black Panther thugs who had been proven to have threatened and intimidated voters at a Philadelphia polling-place. At the same time, he has allowed the very same Attorney General to pursue damning investigations against CIA operatives over their interrogation techniques which led to the thwarting of at least two major terrorist attacks on American soil.

The millionaire Kennedys actively sabotaged Carter. But their puny millions which were put into the service of Obama pale compared to the money being provided by the gazillionaire America-hating George Soros directly and through his multiple front-organizations such as MoveOn.org. Carter tried to influence and guide the dialog with his known supporters. Obama's team sends out daily talking points to various left-wing organizations such as the Daily Kos and the Huffington Post. Carter was boring. Obama is charismatic.

So this coming Tuesday, when Obama greets American school children nationwide, I want you to consider this. Obama resembles Carter in very few ways. On the other hand he resembles another famous world figure who is shown in the opening illustration on this page being worshipfully attended to by his future supporters (and later victims). Trotsky and the radical social democrats didn't take Josef Stalin seriously and paid dearly for it. And the loving peasants of Soviet Georgia and the Ukraine sang his praises, even as they were starving to death in the many millions from Stalin's policies. After all, how could such a mild, caring leader not love them as much as he claimed to love them? Carter is unlike Obama because Carter wanted to advance his idea of an America that was the best nation on earth. Obama, like Stalin, wants nothing less than government control of every area of American life, and he will do whatever he thinks he can get away with to get it.
[+] Read More...

Film Friday: Trading Places (1983)

What do you get if you take My Fair Lady, aka Pygmalion, and you run it twice within the same movie, and then you Americanize it? You get Trading Places. Don’t believe me? Read on. . .

** spoiler alert **
My Fair Lady & Pygmalion
My Fair Lady (1964), which is based on the play Pygmalion (1913) by George Bernard Shaw, which is itself inspired by Greek Mythology, is the story of a jaded upper class Englishman, who bets a colleague that he can take an extremely low class woman, train her in etiquette, speech and deportment, and then pass her off as upper class. By the end of the story, he has indeed changed her, apparently for the better, but she also has changed him, making him less jaded, less cynical, and less misanthropic. Trading Places repeats the Pygmalion story twice. First, most obviously, with Eddie Murphy’s character being brought up from the lowest class. Then, less obviously, with Dan Aykroyd’s character being brought down from the highest class. And in the end, we are taught a lot about what America values.
The Obvious My Fair Lady/Pygmalion: Eddie Murphy
The story of how Randolph Duke (Ralph Bellamy) and Mortimer Duke (Don Ameche) take Billy Ray Valentine (Eddie Murphy) from the streets and turn him into a successful manager of their commodities trading firm is the obvious parallel to My Fair Lady/Pygmalion. As the movie begins, Randolph and Mortimer are engaged in an argument, similar to the one between Henry Higgins and Colonel Hugh Pickering, in which Randolph, like Higgins, states that he can take a lowly human being and raise him to their own level by placing him in the right environment and giving him the right kind of encouragement. Mortimer disagrees.

Having settled upon a wager, Randolph sets out to find their human guinea pig. And where Higgins finds Eliza Doolittle, Randolph finds Billy Ray Valentine. In Valentine, you have a man who has no manners, no social graces, no vocabulary appropriate for polite society, and who has little understanding of the social conventions of the upper classes. By comparison, in Randolph and Mortimer, you have the bluest bloods on Wall Street, the elite of the elite: “a Duke has sat on the exchange since it was founded.” Even their names imply royalty.

Soon Randolph, like Higgins, sets about raising Valentine from his environment, and, indeed, he becomes so successful that Valentine eventually becomes cold-hearted regarding people in the same situation in which he was himself prior to meeting the Dukes, suggesting that they just need to stop taking drugs and work harder. But when Valentine overhears the Dukes’ plan to return him to the gutter this story diverts dramatically from My Fair Lady/Pygmalion -- “I’ve grown accustomed to her face” becomes “do you really believe I would have a n*gger run our family business?” and there is no reconciliation between the Dukes and Valentine, as there is between Higgins and Doolittle. Instead, it's war.
The Not So Obvious My Fair Lady/Pygmalion: Dan Aykroyd
Trading Places also does something else interesting, which My Fair Lady/Pygmalion do not. Whereas My Fair Lady/Pygmalion bring Higgins around to realize that he has been an arrogant ass, and has misunderstood humanity, Trading Places chooses to let that transformation play out in the character of Louis Winthorpe III (Dan Aykroyd). Indeed, there is a second half to the Valentine bet: Randolph and Mortimer bet that Winthorpe, who currently manages their firm, will lose his breeding and education and become like Valentine if he is stripped of his surroundings. Thus, they fire him, they have him kicked out of his house, and they have him arrested for drug possession (which causes his friends and fiancé to ostracize him). In effect, Winthorpe goes through the same Eliza Doolittle story that Valentine does, only in reverse. Whereas Valentine should become more refined, Winthorpe should become less. And because every Doolittle needs a Higgins to guide them, Winthorpe is given a guide in the person of Jamie Lee Curtis, who plays the hooker with a heart of gold.

As predicted, Winthorpe does indeed become a common criminal, just like Valentine becomes a snob. He becomes alcoholic, deranged, and suicidal. The entire false-human Harvard facade behind which he has lived his life comes crashing down. But just when it looks hopeless for Winthorpe, Valentine arrives with the news that the Dukes are behind his fall. And he has a plan for revenge.

At that point, Pygmalion ends and Americana begins.
American Values
My Fair Lady and Pygmalion both include a good deal of unspoken criticism of Higgins and the British upper classes. They are portrayed as arrogant, callous, lifeless, and obsessed only with appearances. Though, in the end, they are essentially forgiven by Eliza, who accepts upper class society with only minor concessions. Trading Places is very different.

Trading Places highlights the American rejection of class. The Dukes, who set themselves up as a form of American royalty, are despised in the movie. They are shown to be rotten to the core, hateful, deceitful, and we are told that their success is the result of illegal market manipulation. In fact, our disgust for them is so great that when they are brought down and bankrupted at the end of the movie, we are happy, not sympathetic. It is only the comedic talents of the actors that even make the characters bearable.

Yet, at the same time, our glee at their destruction should not be seen as an indictment of wealth. To the contrary, what gives this movie a happy ending is the fact that each of the heroes (including the hooker and the butler) end up rich. And that is consistent with the American attitude to wealth. We love self-made people, but we despise those who have inherited their wealth. We worship people like Sam Walton because he drove the same beat up pick up truck until the day he died, but we despise the ostentatious display of wealth by those we feel have not earned it.

It is also interesting that we are shown that Americans view the under class with disdain and despise the upper class. Ask yourself, for example, would you want to live in either world presented in the movie? Would you want to spend time either with any of the people Winthorpe meets in jail or through Jamie Lee Curtis or with any of Winthorpe's former friends? Probably not because they are all unappealing. Or consider the difference between Jamie Lee Curtis, who is a lowly prostitute but (like all good Americans) has a plan to better herself, and Muffy, Winthorpe’s cold as ice fiancé, who seeks only to exist on inherited wealth. We find Curtis more appealing in every single way, though we would not if she were content to remain in the lowest class.

This same issue is made clear by the conversions of Valentine and Winthorpe. Both are presented as being at the wrong end of the spectrum originally, and then drifting to the other wrong end of the spectrum as they change. But once they break free and settle in the middle, all becomes right with their characters. And that is the Americanized message of the film and of American culture itself: the ideal class is the middle class. It is no coincidence that most Americans prefer to view themselves as middle class, no matter how much or how little they make.

Thus, whereas the very British My Fair Lady and Pygmalion suggested that the upper class was the best, though it could use some adjustment, the very American Trading Places suggests that the only good class is the middle class.

Check out the new film site -- CommentaramaFilms!

[+] Read More...

Thursday, September 3, 2009

The Dark Ages (Redux)

A few years back, a group of environmentalists decided to see what would happen if you thrust a country back into the Dark Ages. They chose Britain, possibly because the British were too busy stabbing each other and binge-drinking themselves into a stupor to notice. With nary a hint of protest, the environmentalists set their plan into motion. Now the free range chickens have come home to roost.

Here’s what happened. Beginning in the 1990s, the Labor government started a concerted effort to destroy the British power grid in the name of stopping global warming. . . er climate change. . . er the next ice age.

Noting that coal and nuclear power plants account for about 45% of all power generated in Britain, Labor chose those forms of power as the best place to start. So they made it virtually impossible to build nuclear plants. Then they made it unprofitable to run existing coal-fired plants, and finally they all but forbade the construction of new coal-fired plants. And here is what they’ve achieved:

Britain currently gets around 13% of its electricity from nuclear plants. But most of their nuclear plants are simply too old to carry on. Indeed, half of their existing nuclear plants have already been shut down and the remaining plants will soon follow. The last one should be closed by 2023. New nuclear plants are planned, but the earliest one of those could be up and running is 2017, and that’s probably insanely optimistic.

Britain also gets around 31% of its electricity from coal-fired plants, but this will end soon. EU environmental rules require that coal plants be fit with expensive scrubbers or be shut down. But these scrubbers are too expensive to make economic sense. So owners are finding it cheaper to just shut the plants down. Indeed, right now these plants are operating (in a reduced capacity) under an exception that expires in 2015, after which time they will be shut down.

So by 2015, Britain will lose about 44% of its capacity to generate electricity. Alas, they don’t have the capacity to spare. The chart on the left shows the problem. Beginning in 2015, Britain will not be able to generate enough electricity to meet demand. This gap between supply and demand will continue to grow until around 2030, at which point Britain will be able to meet only half of its demand.

What does this mean? Blackouts.

In the 2007, South Africa experienced blackouts because of a moratorium put in place in the 1990s on the building of new power plants. Consequently, the national power company, Eskom, began rolling blackouts, cutting off power for hours at a time. Initially, these blackouts were announced. But they soon discovered that this attracted thieves to the affected neighborhoods, so they stopped announcing them.

Britain will be heading down the same path. So, if burglary is your thing -- and if you live in Britain, we know it is -- you are about to experience a golden age of crime. It will be glorious!

But wait, in all fairness, I don’t want to overstate the problem. The same idiots who caused the problem have a “solution.” They prayed to the Great Unicorn for magical new technologies that will produce the missing electricity without harming the environment. Here is what they got:

Over the next eleven years (fortunately 2015 is more than 11 years away), they intend to build enough maritime windmills to produce 33 Gig Watts of power. Not bad huh? And while many claim that Britains lacks the resources to produce this many windmills, we should not doubt that they can pull this off. After all, Britain is the world’s biggest producer of wind power. In fact, in 2008, Britain produced a whopping 0.6 GW! See, they're almost there. . . only another 98.2% to go!

But there is a catch with this marvelous plan. The government estimates that it’s about to lose 75 GW of power because of all these plant closures (failures). Thus, even if Plan Quixote works, it will still come up 42 GW short. . . actually, that’s not true. There’s another problem I haven’t mentioned yet. It turns out that windmills don’t work on calm days. I know, knock you over with a feather! Even the government estimates that 25 GW of potential from windmills will only be able to replace 5 GW of fossil-fuel fired power. Thus, to plug the gap with wind, the Brits need to produce 375 GW of wind power -- more than ten times what they’re building. It would seem, the Great Unicorn has failed them?

And this doesn’t even account for the fact that their oil and gas fired plants are running out of fuel as their North Sea reserves run dry (they peaked in 1999).

Yet, there is an out. When the darkness and the cold become unbearable and the number of patients dying in the dark in hospitals increases well beyond its currently high levels, the Brits can start building gas-fired plants. And to fuel those plants, they can call upon old reliable, dependable Vladimir Putin’s Russia. Of course, that will be expensive and will wreak havoc on anyone who pays for their own electricity, partly because the prices will vary dramatically day by day, and partly because Putin loves him some predatory pricing. But it should keep the lights on most of the time. And so what if it makes Britain dependent on Russia. Economic slavery sure beats global warming. . . cooling. . . whatever.

Of course, there is something else they could do. They could burn environmentalists and Labor MPs to keep warm.

[+] Read More...

San Francisco Diary--Journal Of An Exile

In the past week we've had the hottest day in recorded San Francisco history for that date, followed two days later by the coldest night in recorded history for that date, followed two days later by the second-highest temperature and highest humidity on record for that date. If I didn't know better, I'd think I was back in my native Chicago where the word was "if you don't like the weather, wait five minutes." But like the stolid postman, neither heat nor cold nor clamminess of night shall keep this diarist from his appointed rounds.

NOTE: The Bay Area has been buzzing for days over one of the most bizarre criminal stories one can imagine. The police in Antioch (Contra Costa County) arrested Phillip Garrido, age 58, for kidnapping and rape charges for the 1991 abduction and imprisonment of Jaycee Lee Dugard. What makes the story so horrifying is that during those years that Dugard and his wife Nancy held the young woman captive, Dugard fathered two daughters by their captive, whom the pair kept locked up in an enclosed pen behind a back fence which hid the yard behind it from casual viewers.

San Francisco Chronicle writer Debra J. Saunders discussed the case, and raised some really telling issues. Garrido has been on California parole since 1999, when he was released from prison on an earlier rape conviction in Nevada. For ten years of Jaycee's imprisonment and repeated rape, Garrido was subject to drug testing, required to wear a GPS device and subject to twice-monthly unannounced visits from his parole officer. In 2006, a neighbor called 911 to report children were living in Garrido's backyard in squalor, but the Contra Costa County Sheriff's Department failed to search the registered sex offender's police logs. They also failed to check the CLETS database (which would have told them he was on parole, and a search warrant was unnecessary). If the parole officer ever actually visited the premises, he certainly didn't look past the phony fence in the back yard which hid the scene of the ongoing felonies.

At least the parole office who couldn't shake off his torpor and bring himself to leave his office to conduct on-site investigations kept good paperwork (very comforting to Jaycee, I'm sure). An alert UC Berkeley police officer became suspicious of Garrido, and upon asking a few questions, was told that the two girls (ages 11 and 15) who were with Garrido were his daughters. The UC cop called Garrido's parole officer when she ran a check on him and found Garrido was a registered sex offender with terms forbidding him to be around adolescent girls. The parole officer, who was of course in his office, told the UC cop that Garrido had no daughters.

The Contra Costa Sheriff immediately issued a mea culpa offering his "apologies to the victims" as he accepted "responsibility" for his officers' failure to investigate an alleged crime or to notice that the dimensions of the back yard were different from the house to the back fence than they were from the house to the other back fence which was visible from the street side. Well, at least he admitted the mistake, if not the plain damned stupidity of it all. He said: "We're beating ourselves up over this." In all fairness, I suspect he really is, and he may end up beating up a few officers as well.

But the prize goes to Gordon Hinkle of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. His statement to the Chronicle was one of the most self-serving lies (or at least distortions) ever to come out of the mouth of a CYAing public official. He stated that Garrido had "outfoxed" parole officers by building the false fence to hide the secret back yard. Oh, brother! But that's not the clincher. In an absolute masterpiece of false bravado, Hinkle said that the parole officer's "diligent questioning and followup . . . led to Garrido revealing his kidnapping of the adult female." HOLY S--T, you have GOT to be kidding!

There is one minor hero here--Megan's Law. Locals who thought that Garrido was more than a little creepy looked him up on the California Attorney General's Megan's Law website and discovered he was a registered mentally disordered sex offender. At least kids in the neighborhood were kept far away from this felon. Civil libertarians are in high gear trying to get Megan's Law modified so only police officers will have access to the list, and will make the decision as to who should be informed, such as schools in the area. "The money that a repeal saves could help pay for monitoring compulsive molesters more instrusively--through ankle bracelets and the like." Uh, guys, Garrido was on parole, wearing a GPS ankle-bracelet, supposedly getting bi-monthly visits from a parole officer, and was reported multiple times by citizens for suspicious activity. Stuff your experts, it doesn't work.

NOTE: Of course our local strangefellow, Mark Morford, is back from vacation, and he has a different take from Saunders. Opening "sentence" of his article on the subject: "As a passionately jaded observer of news media and the insane human spectacle it is so painfully wont to wallow in, I find there are always a number of choices when it comes to analyzing things like the horrific Jayee [sic.] Lee Dugard/Phillip Garrido saga, that sickening kidnapping/rape/confinement tale spanning 18 years, multiple offspring and countless layers of psychological torment often too disgusting and sad to ponder for long without a book of poetry, a puppy and a large glass of Scotch."

No, that wasn't his whole article, that was his first sentence. He wants to lecture everyone on the dangers of bloodlust. Sample: "Great, another psycho rapist madman. Let's just kill Phillip Garrido right now and be done with it. Or maybe throw him in prison and let him suffer for a while first and then inject him, hang him and zap him with 2,000 volts all at once because he's obviously an unspeakable monster who doesn't deserve another breath on this planet." Somebody forgot to tell Mr. Snark that we've never had the electric chair in California, but that's just a detail.

Then he chides the media for its "unrelenting coverage which, of course, plays right into this perspective, amplifies the fear to such a degree that you think this sort of thing simply must be happening all the time, even if it's completely untrue." Well, Mr. Morford, after spending twenty years of my life in courtrooms, and having a daughter who is a court officer charged with investigating child abuse and child neglect, I'm here to tell you--it's completely true. Oh, maybe not quite this dramatic or as long-lived, but it's a quibble the victims wouldn't really be interested in.

Having drawn the wrong conclusion, Morford then goes on to lecture the liberals (mildly) and the conservatives (wildly). "Why do you never read about, say, that pacifist buddhist yoga teacher who suddenly snapped and opened fire on a playground? Why is it the worst a hardcore liberal lefty is capable of appears to be, say, hurling a brick through the window of the Nike store." Then he moves on to his favorite target: "Whereas your average neocon likes to bring his a [sic.] machine gun to Glenn Beck's Obama-is-a-Nazi pool party?" It took him longer than usual to locate his target.

He concludes with the most dangerous thing a "journalist" can do. Raise an issue, condemn, contrast, analyze, insult, and then go off into la-la land with a non-solution solution. "Maybe it has more to do with taking the open-ended view itself, and seeing the Dugard [sic.] story as simply that: a compelling opportunity to ask yourself how to respond, which perspective holds even a modicum of compassion and humanity. Maybe there is no 'right' way to take it all in; there is only a sigh, a shudder, a wincing nod to the demon in us all, and a breathing through."

Morford opened his article by asking "How do you make sense of the ugliest abuses of man?" That is an eternal question, and deserves a better answer than concluding that maybe there is no answer. That kind of agonizing, handwringing, analyzing and psychologizing led to eighteen years of abuse, rape, and imprisonment for a young girl whose life will likely never be right again. There is such a thing as evil, and it must be dealt with harshly, quickly, and with the full cooperation of the authorities. Those who sit idly by while it goes on around them deserve nothing but contempt. And a judgment awaits them: "So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth." Rev. 3:16

So the legal system which failed at the early stages, will now take over through the courts. We want the rule of law, not the rule of the jungle or the rule of vendetta, but I can't help feeling that limiting the death penalty to first degree murders was a major mistake on the Supreme Court's part. Nevertheless, that is the law, and we must live with it. So now we will be treated to years of trials, motions, testimony about how Garrido's mommy didn't love him so he has a psychological problem, years more of appeals, and finally, if we're lucky, Garrido will get life imprisonment without possibility of parole. But at least there will be some children protected from harm, not by the police, not by the courts, not by the parole office, but by observant and caring citizens who pushed the authorities into doing their job.

NOTE: On an equally ludicrous note, the shooting death of a local thug by an inexperienced BART (Bay Area Rapid Transit) police officer has taken another twist. For those who haven't read about this case, the BART officer shot and killed a young career thug while the criminal was handcuffed and lying on the cement platform. There are versions of the case which run from murder to negligence and pretty much everywhere in-between. But that's not the story this time. This adorable young man had a father (doesn't everyone?). And as one would expect, daddy is filing suit against BART.

The Chronicle, in its inimitable style, refers to Mr. Thug (Oscar Grant III) as the "unarmed rider" shot by BART police. Laundering the little gangster is not going to change the story. Papa Oscar Grant Jr., who is filing a federal civil rights lawsuit against BART, is doing so from his prison cell where he is serving a life sentence for murder. The Chronicle touchingly points out that "Grant Jr. cried in his prison cell at California State Prison in in Vacaville when he learned his son had been killed." Since they didn't have anyone there at the time, the Chronicle is relying on the word of Grant Jr.'s lawyer, Panos Lagos.

Grant Jr. was convicted of murder a month after Oscar III was born. He shot a man to death while he was watching TV in his home in the lovely East Oakland area of Darien Avenue (which frequently resembles Mogadishu, Somalia), and critically wounded a woman who was with the murder victim at the time. Violins and sad songs Lagos says: "Even though he is a convicted murderer, I would hope that people could still identify and appreciate that there's still a relationship between father and son." Oh, go chase yourself, Lagos.

Earlier, another "civil rights" attorney filed a suit of behalf of Grant III's mother, Wanda Johnson (surprise, surprise, she wasn't married to Grant Jr.), and Sophina Mesa, who was Grant III's girlfriend and mother of their four-year old daughter. Is anybody noticing a pattern here?

Nobody has filed a wrongful death suit, for some reason. I can hazard a guess. The BART officer's action was clearly unlawful, but "wrongful" is a bit iffy. And in a wrongful death suit, somebody has to show that the deceased had some sort of value. The best attorney around wouldn't be able to prove that Grant III had any value or prospects of longevity which would justify an award of damages. But those wonderful civil rights statutes that brought millions for Rodney King are very handy. And the "civil rights" attorneys chasing the money are fully aware of that fact. I apologize to my parents and my pastor (I'll deal with God privately) for losing my sense of Christian charity in believing that some lives have absolutely no value at all, and Grants II and III are among them. I hope God will forgive me for my slip, and I'm sure the federal jury will forgive the Grants for living and give them oodles of money to salve the pain of their terrible loss. Maybe they can spend some of the money on parenting classes (or at least birth control classes).

NOTE: The State of California is wallowing in debt combined with the highest income taxes in the United States. RINO governor Arnold Schwarzenegger did what a sensible executive should do (only more so)--he cut jobs. The poor state workers who have both civil service protection and union goons to help them, knew exactly where to go to remedy this unprecedented action on the part of government: The Superior Court of San Francisco. Judge Charlotte Woolard didn't disappoint the civil "servants" who believe they are entitled to jobs for life, full-time employment for as long as they want it regardless of economic conditions, and ever-growing pension benefits. Want to guess who filed the suit? OK, the liars (oops, lawyers) for the SEIU. And Woolard, being a good lefty make-it-up-as-you-go-along judge, felt compelled to go the union one better. The SEIU represents 6,300 workers compensation employees, but Woolard figured "what the hell" and ruled in favor of another 1,100 workers who weren't represented by the union, and weren't even parties to this lawsuit.

And what horrendous thing was the financially beleaguered state requiring? That these overpaid, underworked and outrageously inefficient employees take two unpaid days off per month until June, and thereafter, 3 days per month until the fiscal crisis is over (if that ever happens). They don't lose their jobs. They don't lose their pensions. The don't lose their extensive medical benefits (paid for by the taxpayers who can't afford their own anymore). They don't lose their ridiculously high hourly wage. The don't lose their civil service protection. Just two or three days a month. I worked for the California Inspection Rating Bureau, which is part of the same operation, when I was a student. We were the most efficient division in the department, mostly because the vast majority of employees were students being paid minimum wage to help pay for our educations. I can testify that if the governor had fired the whole damned department and replaced them with starving students, the system would be greatly improved. If Judge Woolyhead is upheld, the employees will be entitled to back pay plus 7% interest for each day they were furloughed.

By the way, furloughs exactly like this are not unprecedented (I said that tongue-in-cheek). It has been done many times before in the recurring history of California financial crises, and the state Supreme Court has upheld the government in every case. And so California in general, and San Francisco in particular, continue to circle the drain.
[+] Read More...

Wednesday, September 2, 2009

Captioning: It's A Cook Book!!

Forget everything I ever said about conspiracies. They're all true! This very morning, I received proof that aliens exist, and they use public transportation like a grocery store! Check out this sign below. Tell me that the big-eyed thing to the left isn't one of the "grays" and that this "priority seating" charade isn't really an attempt to select only the tastiest of us! Though I can't for the life of me understand why they want people carrying huge syringes? Somebody, please, tell me I'm wrong!




[+] Read More...

Mr. Bland Builds His Dream House

Over the past few months, several of our readers have asked me about potential Republican candidates for the upcoming California gubernatorial contest. So let me introduce you to one of the early possibilities. He is the most famous California politician you've never heard of. His name is Tom Campbell. And now you've heard of him.

Tom Campbell is one of two Republican "Toms" who have been prominent in recent California politics. My personal favorite, Tom McClintock, has not shown any sign yet of being interested in getting into the race, but if he does, you can bet I will be sure to report back to you. But in the meantime, Mr. Campbell is nothing to sneeze at either. After the glitz and glamor and hazy politics of RINO Arnold Schwarzenegger and his Kennedy-family wife, Maria Shriver, California may be ready for a solid, intelligent, conservative policy master. And if the glitz factor is now working as a negative, his likely opponent, the current mayor of San Francisco, is in more trouble than he expects.

Campbell's first negative is that he is a Harvard Law graduate, but at least unlike another prominent politician (from Illinois), this grad actually attended classes, got good grades, and has an academic record which can be found. On the upside, he also has a doctorate in economics from the University of Chicago--you know, the one that teaches market economics. His mentor at the school was Milton Friedman. Campbell was a Reagan adviser on supply-side economics, and when at first it didn't seem to be working, Campbell prepared to leave D.C. expecting a Reagan loss in '84. When Reagan won 49 states in the election, Campbell couldn't have been more pleased, and more self-deprecating about what he calls his "apparent lack of political acumen."

Upon his exit from Washington, Campbell taught law at Stanford Law School, where again, unlike a certain Illinois politician, he had an illustrious record of teaching and publishing. He was one of the few conservatives in an increasingly-liberal faculty. He then went on to five terms in Congress representing Silicon Valley (the Menlo Park, Atherton, Palo Alto and Stanford corridor). The old money in Menlo Park, Atherton and Palo Alto, along with the entrepeneurs, liked him. The Stanford liberals, not so much. He ran for the California Senatorial nomination in 1992, and lost. In 2000, he succeeded in getting the nomination, but lost the election in a very Democratic statewide year.

Campbell looks at the patchwork budgets (to cover previous failed budgets), the immense and growing deficit, high taxes, low productivity, "creative financing" schemes which use bonds to pay off previous bonds, and the enormous public employee sector, and asks: "Where did my California go?" A state which used to be the fifth or sixth largest economy in the world is now one of the world's biggest debtors. Business and middle-class taxpayers are fleeing the state in droves. Illegal immigrants comprise one of the state's most important political blocs. Politicians pander to the public employees unions and radical environmentalists, thus reducing both productivity and the possibility of productivity.

Columnist George Will has said that Campbell's motto should be "speak softly and carry a small calculator." Campbell was California's budget and finance director from 2004 to 2005, when he quit in disgust over the state's complete unwillingness to curb spending and taxation while refusing to do anything to reduce the growing government sector or encourage the private sector which produces the only genuine wealth. Given his experience, Campbell has a plan and an agenda.

First, he proposes a restoration of the Gann Amendment to the California constitution which lasted from 1979-1989, at which point the legislature again amended the constitution via the referendum process. The Gann Amendment limited state spending by tying it to the rate of inflation and growth of the legal population. Of course, once the liberal tolerance of illegal immigration and hoboism caused a huge increase in the need for pubic assistance and state services, the legislature found a way to pull out the violins and convince the people to vote for an amendment to take money away from their families and give it to public employees and all-around moochers.

He also proposes to re-set the state budget cycle so that the current year's revenue is used to pay for the next year's operations. This would halt the pie-in-the-sky predictions of future revenue increases to pay for current increased expenditures. There would be no more guessing. No increase in this year's expenditures if revenue from the previous year won't cover it. And if there is still a shortfall, budget cuts have to be made to match the previous year's revenue. In other words, he's proposing performing the outrageous act of "living within your means." In California today, that's plain damned revolutionary.

Campbell is also a big fan of Arthur Laffer's theory of decreased taxation leading to increased revenue. Of course, when he first encountered it back in the Reagan administration, he was convinced it was a highly-flawed theory which the left had already started calling "voodoo economics." At first, the conservatives called it "trickle-down," but eventually settled on "supply-side" economics. Today, unlike liberals, Campbell knows when he was wrong, and has learned from it. In every single instance in which the Laffer Curve has been applied, revenues have indeed increased. Campbell is even willing to add his own corollary: "The worst possible time to increase taxes is in the middle of a financial recession." That completely flummoxes the Democrats and RINOs in Sacramento, but taxpayers who haven't already headed for Texas are beginning to sit up and take notice.

Many of my fellow UC Berkeley alums and my son's fellow UCLA alums won't like another of his proposals. He says that the two state schools provide an education equal to that of privately-funded and endowed Stanford. Campbell singles the two leading UC campuses out for increased tuition comparably priced with Stanford's. For those who cannot afford the tuition, he would offer carefully-crafted academic scholarships based on need (in the interest of full disclosure, after my father's death, my plans to attend UC Berkeley looked rather grim until I was awarded a full-tuition California State Scholarship). Sports, "heritage," affirmative action, and non-academic scholarships would be prohibited from being paid out of the public treasury. For these two campuses at least, the concept on which the University of California was founded would be restored--the best university education available without regard for family wealth, social station, political connections, race, creed or color. And California residents would have precedence over non-Californians in the matter of tuition.

One proposal of which I am very wary is his call for a constitutional convention (California, not the United States). The intention is excellent. He wishes to reform the initiative process (by which the California constitution is amended through the publicly-created "proposition" followed by a vote of the people). His proposal is to add the requirement that any amendment which costs money must show specifically which taxes would have to be raised and/or which programs would have to be curtailed or eliminated in order to pay for the cost of implementing the proposed amendment. But he is cautious enough to recognize the inherent power of a constitutional convention (just study what happened when the states' representatives formed a constitutional convention to amend the Articles of Confederation). So he intends to ask the California Supreme Court for a written advisory opinion as to whether a constitutional convention in California can be limited to a single topic. If he succeeds in getting a strong favorable opinion, I withdraw my objection. And besides, the precedent regarding the Articles of Confederation didn't turn out too badly, did it?

Currently, Campbell has two serious declared rivals for the Republican nomination. Former eBay CEO Meg Whitman comes with fine business credentials, a moderate social agenda, no political credentials, but a lot of personal wealth. Ditto for tech entrepeneur Steve Poizner who does have the political credentials, however. He is California's commissioner of insurance, one of the few statewide offices held by a Republican. Either of these two could self-finance. Campbell is a professor, and that won't cut it in the campaigning arena of multi-multi-million dollar California campaigns.

But Campbell is not without some history and practical experience to get around the initial campaign finance roadblock. First of all, the two holy harridans of liberal leftism, Senators Boxer and Feinstein were elected by defeating multi-millionaire Republican non-entities with no discernible political or philosophical anchors. How many people outside of California have ever heard of Zschau or Herschensohn? How many people inside California remember them? And the only reason you've ever heard of Huffington is that he turned openly gay after his humiliating defeat, and he was married to the strident conservative-turned-radical-leftist Arianna Huffington of the infamous HuffingtonPost.

So assuming that Campbell can get a few important and wealthy sponsors at the early stages, and neither of the other two candidates run very good primary challenges, there is a good chance of Campbell securing the nomination while the two rich candidates try to beat each other over the head and outspend each other (it's how the man of limited means, Democrat Gray Davis, defeated his rivals). But wait, there's more.

Neither party has a majority in California, though the Democrats have a clear lead over the Republicans currently registered. The Republicans don't comprise a majority in a single Congressional district, although Republicans are elected, some repeatedly, in moderate to conservative districts. The large and quickly-growing sector of the electorate which determines elections is the declared independents. As the Republican Party has continued to lose members, the Democrats have not increased their numbers correspondingly. Disgusted with the wishy-washiness of the Republican Party, many who don't like or understand party discipline and effectiveness have switched their registration to independent. And that is a major factor in California primaries. Under California's peculiar system, a Democrat cannot vote on a Republican ballot, and vice versa. But, and this is a big one, a registered independent can vote in either primary. It's not an "open" primary, but it's getting darned close.

Campbell has been misjudged by his opponents in the past as being politically unsophisticated. That misjudgment has cost many of them dearly. Campbell has taken a page out of the Democratic community organization handbook and is going directly to the voters. He has obtained the lists of voters registered as independents (a perfectly legal exercise). He has then gleaned a list of "likely" voters, and can even determine from past records if this voter was a previous Republican voter who didn't switch parties. He has invited 150,000 California independents to call into a monumental "town hall" conference call to spend an hour and a half discussing their issues. He expects about 20 to 25 thousand of the invitees to accept the invitation and participate. He believes that the majority of those voters would vote moderate-conservative if they could find a Republican who is a principled conservative. And he further believes that those 20 thousand or so are activists looking for a cause. I think he may be right.

Assuming that Campbell is successful, and is not discovered in bed with a dead female or a live boy, whom will he face in the general election? So far, he has only two declared (or at least serious) opponents. The first is former Governor Jerry Brown, aka "Governor Moonbeam." At the age of 72, he is no longer the boy-wonder he once was. He can hardly rely on the vote-gathering power of his father's name (former Governor Edmond G. "Pat" Brown, who last appeared in California politics in his victory over Richard Nixon in 1962). His airy-fairy bachelor form of government became an object of public derision toward the end of his gubernatorial term. As Mayor of Oakland until term-limited out of office, his accomplishments were meager, at best. And as current Attorney General (though it was even questionable whether he could serve in the post because of his failure to provide proof of his active State Bar status), he enraged the state's conservatives by refusing to support the People in argument before the State Supreme Court in the matter of Proposition 8 (the no-gay-marriage amendment).

His other potential opponent is current San Francisco Mayor Gavin (I didn't do it, and I'll never do it again) Newsom. Newsom is only fairly popular in his hometown, hugely popular with the Pelosi-Feinstein-Boxer insiders, and relatively unknown in the rest of the state. He will get some traction in movie star-addled Los Angeles since he is movie star handsome (and just about as politically logical). He's a serial philanderer, and when caught in a tryst with the wife of his chief of staff, declared he was a drunk and a user, and was going into rehab. His wife divorced him because of his infidelity. All-in-all, he's a young Ted Kennedy, although he hasn't driven off any bridges that we know of. He went Jerry Brown one better by openly defying California law in ordering the San Francisco County Clerk to register gay marriages when the prior law was still in effect. When the California Supreme Court upheld Proposition 8, Newsom famously declared "you're going to get gay marriage whether you like it or not." Many Californians don't like it, and many who are neutral on gay marriage are not neutral on having the will of the government imposed over the will of the people.

Although it is unlikely that California will ever again be a conservative state in our lifetimes, it does tend to show a distinct preference for conservative over liberal governors when the choice is clear. Polls show that even in California, though Democrats outnumber Republicans almost two-to-one, self-identified conservatives hold a slight edge over self-identified liberals. Campbell will not make the mistake of trying to run to the middle if he gets the Republican nomination. He has clear proposals which appeal to both intellectuals and the average guy. Short of some sort of economic miracle or divine intervention, it is likely to be a "throw the bums out" sort of election. Conservative Democrats in some districts will still be able to beat RINO moderate Republicans. The Democrats, and specifically the far left of the Democratic Party will maintain their stranglehold on the big cities (with the possible exception of San Diego). Republicans are likely to gain seats in the state legislature, but will come nowhere near a majority.

But statewide, given the choice of a pretty-boy liberal or an aging hippie running against a bland but smart, principled conservative, this Republican gubernatorial candidate stands a very good chance of winning. California is currently a shipwreck, and its citizens are looking for someone who knows how to plug the holes with something other than public money. Campbell could certainly fill that bill--and those holes.
[+] Read More...

The Polls They Are A Fallin'

Like a countdown in a James Bond film, Obama’s approval rating keeps working its way toward zero. This week he hit a new low -- 45%. But he’s not the only one in trouble with the voters. Nosiree.

As incredible as this may sound, most people don’t think Congress knows what it’s doing. Imagine that! In fact, only 29% think Congress has a clue, and most of those people are institutionalized.

More interestingly, a full 57% of Americans -- six in ten -- would vote to throw out the entire Congress and start over. Now that’s a vote of confidence you can believe in!

Unfortunately, most people don’t believe it can happen. They think the system is “rigged” to protect incumbents. Fifty percent of respondents believe this in fact. Only 23% believe that “people hate Congress but love their own congressman.” And anecdotally speaking, I’m pretty sure Lawhawk can confirm that this is not true -- he’s never once mentioned making love to Nancy Pelosi, and that’s the sort of thing you tell people. . . like your exorcist.

FYI, speaking of Congress, Republicans now top the Democrats by 7% in the generic poll (43% to 36%). Not bad for a party that has no brains, no policies, no principles, and no leadership. Keep sitting around boys, it’s working!

Well, that’s all we have today. What? You want more? Ok, maybe just a little. . .

Perhaps you’ve heard of an odious little man named Harry Reid, “Dingy Harry” to his friends? Reid considers himself a muckety muck in the Senate, or so he tells his constituents every chance he gets. . . at least when he isn’t telling local newspapers: “I hope that you go out of business.” Right back at you Harry, right back at you.

So what’s up with Harry? Harry is under a great deal of stress. See, every so often, Harry has to answer to the voters. The next so often occurs in 2010. And, sadly, poor Harry is losing. Yep. Harry is losing to someone named Danny Tarkanian, who seems to be the son of towel-biting former NCAA basketball coach Jerry Tarkanian. “Tark the Shark” used to coach at UNLV, a much more esteemed institution than where Harry works.

Tark’s boy Danny claims to be something called a “Republican.” Now stick with me here, because I know that’s a new term. According to the wikipedia, “Republicans” are a political party found in some US states. And Harry's losing to one! Ha! What's worse, it’s not even close. Right now this mystery “Republican” is beating the pants off Harry by 11 points (49% to 38%).

Of course, these “Republicans” might want to give Harry a sporting chance. If they feel generous, they’ll run a woman named Sue Lowden, who only leads Harry by 5 points (45% to 40%).

Still, five points is nothing to sneeze at. And either way, it just doesn't look good for The Dinge.

What a shame it would be if Harry had to leave the land of graft and dirty money. Why, what would he do all day. . . all by himself? Well, actually, Harry might not be alone as you might think. Indeed, he might be able to hang out with Joe Biden’s kid (whose name I believe is Kumar). Little Kumar loses to some Republican named Mike "White" Castle, though it’s close -- 21 points.

And if Kumar Biden isn’t to Harry’s taste, he could swap mortgage details with Christopher Dodd, who trails someone named Simmons (possibly Richard? maybe Gene?) in New York’s eastern annex by 9 points. Arlen Specter might be free too. He currently trails something called “Toomey” by 12 points.

So fret not friends for young Harry, he won't be alone.

(P.S. If you do feel like sneezing at the five point lead, check out Writer X's post today on the advice given by Obama about sneezing. God help us all.)

[+] Read More...

Tuesday, September 1, 2009

What Constitutes A Conservative Film?

If politics is a highway, Hollywood is in danger of driving off the far left shoulder. Almost every new film oozes with far left thinking. Not only do they openly jam films full of left wing messages, but even the assumptions upon which most films are based lie deep within the leftist mind. But conservatives have begun to fight back. They are starting to make conservative films, and conservative critics are trying to identify conservative films that are worthy of support. Unfortunately, this effort is fraught with sloppy thinking that keeps it from becoming effective.
Is It Wrong To Want “Conservative” Films?
Many on the left like to talk about the conservative “obsession” with finding conservative films. They whine that it is somehow improper for conservatives to want films that fit conservative thinking, and they label any such films as propaganda. Are they right? Hardly.

First, there is nothing wrong with trying to find films that have a message you agree with. This is the same instinct that draws Christians to see movies about Christianity, Jews to see movies about Judaism, minorities to see movies about the countries of their ancestry, and deranged liberals to see movies about Nixon. Further, with Hollywood having moved so far left and politicized itself so thoroughly, it is natural for conservatives to want to find movies that aren’t left wing propaganda.

Moreover, it is disingenuous for liberals to act as if this were somehow a uniquely conservative idea. Liberals have been playing this game for years. If a movie doesn’t feature enough blacks, women, gays, handicapped, or other members of the victims du jour, the left turns out with protests and boycotts. Oh, you’re doing a movie about the five survivors of a Nazi U-boat and the whole thing takes place in a life boat? Well, you better find a way to cram some women and blacks into this movie or you’ll be sorry. Come to think of it, better make the first officer gay.

Liberal reviewers play this game as well. Many reviewers openly talk politics in their reviews. And even when they aren’t doing it openly, their bias is obvious: a soldier in a movie dies horribly and as he dies, he blames George Bush and Dick Cheney -- that’s an impartial movie with a powerful message that everyone needs to see (like anything by Michael Moore). But if that same soldier blames Obama -- well, that’s pure hate-filled propaganda and the filmmaker “browbeats” his audience with his political views: no one should see this film.

To understand this, understand that liberals live in a bubble. Everywhere they look they are being fed liberalism. Their college professors were liberals. The evening news gives them liberalism on tap, the nation’s biggest newspapers too. Their friends are liberals. They cluster into bubbles where only Democrats get elected and where all their friends squawk the same liberal garbage. . . like a gaggle of idiots. It’s so pervasive in their lives that they can’t even see it. They aren’t aware of the fact that liberal beliefs, as we’ve shown before, are the outlier in this country, because they don’t know anyone who disagrees with them. So when they go to a movie and they hear that familiar echo, they have no reason to think that this is anything unusual or controversial.

Thus, when a guy like Roger Ebert reflexively gives all liberal “message” films good ratings and describes them as unbiased or fair or without political message, he honestly just doesn’t “get it” because no one in his life has ever told him how far left he is. By the same token, his hypersensitivity to non-liberal films, and his reflexive downgrading of those efforts, just demonstrates how deeply unaware he is of how his political biases sway his thinking.
Supporting The Conservative Film
In any event, let us move on. The first question is, should conservatives support a film merely because it is conservative? The answer is no. To warrant support, a film should first and foremost be a good film. Conservatives should encourage the incorporation of conservative ideas and principles into movies, but should not support a film just because it is conservative -- that reeks of affirmative action. To support bad films merely because we agree with the message does nothing but open us up to the charge that conservatives are incapable of making quality entertainment. So the next time someone tells you that you need to like a crappy movie because it was “conservative,” ask them whether they think the crapfest in question does anything to advance the conservative cause or if it just reinforces negative stereotypes.
How To Spot A Conservative Film
Now we come to the heart of the issue. Right now there are a great number of conservative film critics who play the game of spotting conservative films. Even National Review came up with a list of their top 25 “conservative” films. The only problem was that almost none of the films they identified were conservative. The same is true of the critics; they don’t seem to be able to distinguish conservative and liberal films.

As anyone who has visited Big Hollywood knows, when the question comes up of naming conservative films, people start spitting out the wildest garbage. They mistake conservative messages for “liberal lies” because they fail to grasp the meaning of the film. They identify far left propaganda as conservative because they think they heard one line in the movie that struck them as conservative, like when the cross-dressing, serial-killing sheriff, who is sleeping with his gay cousin, spouts off that he doesn’t trust the federal government to fix the environment (as he eats a child-raping priest). Sure his next line tells us that we must rise up and demand that our government ban the use of fossil fuels, but he said he doesn’t trust the government. . . that makes him a conservative hero. WTF?!

Moreover, every good trait suddenly becomes conservative. Every bad trait becomes liberal. I’ve even heard claims that movies that “kick ass” are conservative. And any film about the military that doesn’t involve an American solider torturing a civilian is conservative? Give me a break.

Let’s get over the idea that a movie can be made into a conservative movie by an errant line of dialog or some strange twisted interpretation of some minor event. And let’s drop the idea that just because we like a movie or a character, there must be some trait that lets us call the character conservative. To be a conservative movie, that movie must have conservative values deeply ingrained within the film. Think of it this way, if you have to sum up the lessons the film taught, are those lessons consistent with conservative thinking or liberal thinking?

A film cannot be considered conservative if it pays lip service to conservative beliefs but falls back on typical liberalism to resolve the films crises -- the lesson of such a film is that liberal answers are the correct answers. Nor can we consider a film conservative if it reinforces the propagandized view of the world that the left espouses, or if it relies on stereotypical liberal boogeymanisms to provide a villain or conflict to be resolved. Nor can we consider a film conservative if it treats conservative values as evil or wrong.

At the same time, we should not consider a movie liberal just because it deals with an issue that conservatives consider unpleasant. You must look beyond the settings and consider the themes and lessons of the film. Take the issue of the pedophile priest. A film that treats the priest as typical of all priests and the church as uncaring likely could not be considered a conservative film, particularly if it further extends that message to say that all religious people are inherently perverted, corrupt or evil. But if the film shows that this priest is not typical of Christians, and that Christianity does not condone his behavior in any way, then the film might be conservative, depending on how the rest of it is handled.
So What Are Conservative Values
So what are conservative values? Sometimes it’s obvious. Some films are intended as a conservative or liberal message movie. Is the movie a direct criticism of certain politicians or policies? Is the point of the film to sway people to a particular set of beliefs? If so, then it is obvious what the film is. What you see is what you get, a political film that will generally be seen only by the true believers.

But more often than not, it is less obvious and we must divine the intent of the filmmakers. In this regard, we must first understand that many values like patriotism, bravery, caring about people, love of family, tolerance, or even religious faith, are not uniquely conservative or liberal ideas. Both sides of the political spectrum love to claim these values as their own and to assert that they are lacking in the other side. But such claims are mere propaganda (excluding, of course, certain fringe elements who specifically disavow certain values). This, coincidentally, is why both left and right see Orwell’s 1984 as a warning about the other.

If you look around the world, you will find that both left and right hold these values in high esteem -- they just tend to define them differently. And that is where you must look to determine the real nature of the film. What motivates their patriotism? How do they interpret their religious beliefs? Does the do-gooder want to teach people to fish or are they demanding that the government hand out fish?

Uniquely conservative values tend to be centered around the “traditional” ideas of (1) faith in the individual over the collective, (2) an acceptance of cause and effect, and a willingness to let people bear the consequences of their own actions, (3) an unwillingness to excuse misbehavior as something beyond the control of the individual, i.e. society made me do it, (4) the idea that respect and dignity are earned, not a right, and must be maintained through appropriate behavior, (5) a belief that truth is absolute, not relative, (6) an acceptance of human nature as it is and not as something that can be changed, (7) a distrust of government imposed solutions, and (8) support for rule of law. Liberal values tend to be the opposite of these.

These are the values that make a film conservative or liberal. So ask yourself when you hear about some new “conservative” film, do the positive characters (i.e. the protagonists and any other characters shown in a good light) share these beliefs and does the film function according to these beliefs? If not, you’re probably not dealing with a conservative film.

[+] Read More...

Through The Legal Looking Glass--The Nine Gray Eminences

Associate Justice Ruth Joan Bader Ginsburg was born on March 15, 1933 in Brooklyn. She is the second daughter of Nathan and Celia (Amster) Ginsburg. She was the younger of two children, both daughters. She was devoutly religious, and took advantage of the strong Jewish educational opportunities available in New York City. She read voraciously, and always did well in school, graduating from James Madison High School.


The future justice went on to Cornell University in Ithaca, New York. She received her bachelors degree in 1954, and then went on to Harvard Law School. Prior to her entry into law school, she married Martin Ginsburg. After they graduated from law school, he went on to become a prominent tax attorney and a professor of law at Georgetown Law School. They have two children, a daughter born in 1955 and a son born in 1965. When her husband's employment took him to New York City, she moved to Columbia Law School where, as at Harvard, she was on the law review. She received her bachelor of laws from Columbia in 1959, and was tied for first in her class.

While in law school, she became actively involved in early feminist causes. She continued to belong to and advocate feminist causes right up to her first appointment to the bench. Thereafter she broke her official bonds with feminist organizations, but her rulings consistently demonstrated her commitment to feminist ideals. Upon graduation from law school, she began a clerkship for Judge Edmund L. Palmieri of the U.S. District Court in New York. Although highly recommended by the dean of Harvard Law School, she was rejected in 1960 for a clerkship for Supreme Court Justice Felix Frankfurter. After completing her position as a research associate and director of the Columbia Law School Project on International Procedure, she became a professor of law at Rutgers, where she taught from 1964 to 1972.

In keeping with her feminist views, she co-founded the Women's Rights Law Reporter, the first American law journal to deal solely with women's rights. She became the first tenured woman on the Rutgers Law faculty, and co-authored the first law school textbook on sex discrimination. In 1977 she became a fellow at the Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences at Stanford University. Although she never practiced trial law, she became the chief litigator of the ACLU's women's rights project, and argued cases before the Supreme Court where she developed a reputation as a skilled oral advocate on appeals.

She continued in her capacity as a senior ACLU attorney through 1978. That year, she challenged laws and practices in the state of Missouri which made women's service on juries optional (Duren v. Missouri). She saw this as demeaning to women, and argued that it sent the message that women's service was unnecessary for important government functions. Future Chief Justice, and then Associate Justice William Rehnquist asked Ginsburg "you won't settle for putting Susan B. Anthony on the new dollar bill, then?" Realizing it was not meant as a serious question, Ginsburg did not answer.

Ginsburg was appointed to the U. S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in 1980 by Jimmy Carter where she remained through the next thirteen years. In 1993, President Bill Clinton nominated her for a seat on the U. S. Supreme Court on the recommendation of his Attorney General Janet Reno. At the confirmation hearings, Ginsburg refused to answer most of the questions asked of her regarding her personal views on issues which had been addressed by the Supreme Court. She also refused to answer hypothetical questions posed to her on a multitude of issues which might come before the Court in the future. Legal scholars of all stripes largely agree with her right, and even her possible obligation, to refuse to answer those questions. However, many conservative scholars have pointedly asked why the same courtesy was not afforded to later Republican appointments Samuel Alito and John Roberts. The final Senate vote was 96 to 3.

Ginsburg's appointment changed the balance of the court. She replaced Justice Byron "Whizzer" White. White had been appointed by John F. Kennedy, but he was not the type of justice who fits today's definition of a good Democrat. In labor cases, he tended to side with unions, but he was otherwise very much a traditionalist who was unwilling to continue the expansion of the judicial empire. Clinton could now count on a court which would lean toward activism, feminism, and enlargement of the powers of the federal government over the states. During the hearings, one of the few issues Ginsburg had declared strongly on was her support for the judicial newly-created right of privacy (in Griswold v. Connecticut), and more importantly, its expansion into the right of abortion (newly judicially-protected by Roe v. Wade). Clinton could now put on his dog and pony show about making abortion "safe and rare" without worrying that the Court would return the decisions on abortion to the states.

Despite being one of the best-known justices, her record on the court must be discerned more by her votes than her fairly rare written opinions. If the case expanded federal authority over the states, blurred the lines between legislation and judicial opinion, leaned toward creating new and previously undiscovered constitutional rights, preferred "victim" group rights over individual rights, or broke with precedent to support the Democratic Party's cause du jour, you'll find Justice Ginsburg's fingerprints on it.

On environmental issues, she has always come down on the side of the radical ecologists and litigious environmentalists, as in Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Environmental Services, Inc. (her majority opinion found that individual plaintiffs had the right to sue a company for past acts which were perfectly legal at the time, but resulted in present residual pollution of a river). Always willing to support an out-of-control court seizing power from the people and the legislatures, she wrote the dissent in Bush v. Gore, declaring that in the interest of "fairness" the Florida Court had the obligation to change legislative statutes, case law and precedent in order to guarantee the continued counting of votes until the "right" vote was tallied. Most recently, she searched, and searched, and searched, and simply couldn't find any kind of discrimination against whites in the case of Ricci v. DeStefano. She wrote the dissenting opinion which would have upheld the ruling of her new powder-room Supreme Court ally, Sonia Sotomayor.

The opinion most loathsome to conservatives, traditionalists and those who can get past the weasel-word "choice" was Stenberg v. Carhart, an opinion in which Ginsburg both joined and strongly advocated. The case struck down Nebraska's statute forbidding partial-birth abortion. Ginsburg uses a kind of twisted logic to support her activism on abortion. She laments that it had become "necessary" for the court to act in Roe v. Wade since it "terminated a nascent, democratic movement to liberalize abortion laws which might have built a more durable consensus in support of abortion rights. " I guess that means she prefers death in small doses. Again, in 2009, in a New York Times interview, she continues to ignore any discussion of a baby in the womb as having any existence as a human being. She continues to speak in terms of women's rights, and ignores the horrific consequences of late term abortions. "The basic thing is that the government has no business making that choice for a woman." In her mind, and in her jurisprudence, there is only one human life involved in an abortion, and the baby isn't it.

To her credit, when she was asked by liberal-leaning MSM reporters about Roberts's and Alito's avoidance of answering many questions posed by the Democrat attack dogs Leahy, Kennedy and Feinstein, she supported the judges' right to do so and would not criticize them for maintaining judicial neutrality by not announcing how they might vote on a future issue before the Supreme Court. To her discredit, Ginsburg is lavish is her praise for using foreign law, politics and norms to shape American constitutional law. She is very much a booster for the "living Constitution."

Despite many bouts with aggressive cancer, surgery, and chemotherapy, Ginsburg has returned to the Court, each time a little more frail, but always alert and ready. Nobody can deny her work ethic. And she has that unique ability not to take what happens in the confines of the Supreme Court personally. Her best friend on the Court is Justice Scalia, who has on more than one occasion disagreed with Ginsburg in extremely strong terms. Their judicial and political views couldn't be more different, but once they step outside the marble halls, they enjoy lunches and dinners together in complete camaraderie.

It is considered a relatively safe bet that Ginsburg will be the next justice to retire. But she has personally shown no indications that she will do so. She may surprise everyone by sticking around. Given the current administration's political and judicial views, it would be hard to find a justice more liberal and more activist to replace her, but it would also be difficult to find one as intelligent and hard-working. Should she be the next to leave, the makeup of the court would be unlikely to change much, although another strong liberal with a weak mind might make the job of the conservatives and strict constitutionalists on the court a bit easier.
[+] Read More...