Friday, January 15, 2010

Technical Assistance, Commentarama Style

Sometimes a relationship goes stale. The chase becomes tedium. The challenge is gone. You’ve said everything you have to say. Those little things you once found charming. . . they become annoying. That’s how I feel about Nigerian Scammers. Who did you think I was talking about?

I, for one, am sick of the low quality garbage these Nigerians keep sending to my inbox. They’re dull, pointless, and about as see-through as the latest Obama jobs claim lie. Blech. I miss the old days, when you looked at your inbox and you weren’t sure what was real or what wasn’t. Now it’s nothing but Spanish Lottery winners and rich widows trying to leave Africa. Come on people! You’ve got to step up your game.

So I’m going to offer some free advise to my friends from Nigeria. . . or Kenya.

The crux of the problem is this. Nobody believes that you would pick a “trusted friend” from a random e-mail. Not happening. BUT. . . people will believe that they stumbled upon something. So start with this: “Dear Harry, I have the money and am ready to send it to your account. But I need to act fast. If you were unable to open the account, then find me someone who can do this instead of you. I’m willing to share with whoever it is.”

Notice the advantages here. First, you don’t need to know who you’re talking to because your target thinks you were sending the e-mail to “Harry” and they will just assume you sent it to them by mistake. That means no more awkward e-mails to “Dearest Mr. Commentarama” or “My trusted friend flamingasshat7”. Secondly, this is believable because the target will think they’ve stumbled upon a scheme, not that you’ve offered them one. Trust me, humans are suspicious of offers that sound too good to be true (except from Congress), but they’re suckers for sneaky schemes.

Next, stop talking about lottery winnings. Everyone knows that nobody wins the Spanish lottery, not even the Spanish. And calling it the British lottery doesn’t help either. You need a better angle for where you got the money. I would suggest playing on the current strain of angry populism: “Harry, I got the TARP money from that rich greedy bank.” This has many advantages. First, banks aren’t people, they can’t feel pain so people feel no qualms about stealing from them. Secondly, some politicians reinforce this by telling us that it’s ok to take things from banks, because they’re evil and greedy. . . and foreign banks are the worst!

But if that isn’t simple enough for you, take a page from the frat party ad book. Send the following: “I’m going to shoot this panda if you don’t support ObamaCare send us $100.” Just make sure to include the picture of the panda. If you need to, substitute a baby.


Finally, get yourself an English speaker on staff. Seriously, the investment will pay for itself in days. If you’d like us to help you, just send us your account information and we’ll get right on that.

[+] Read More...

Thursday, January 14, 2010

Commentarama Saves or Creates 10 Billion Jobs!!!

Yep, we did that. . . and you can’t prove otherwise. You can thank us later. How did we get to that figure? The same way Obama got to his newly-revised claim that his stimulus binge created two million jobs: he made it up. But this week Obama earned his place in history for something his fake job-creation claims can't cover up: he gave us the first jobless decade!

If you haven't heard, Obama has found a new way to calculate the number of jobs his stimulus plan “saved or created.” Rather than trying to count actual jobs (his first plan) or trying to count fantasy jobs in non-existent districts (his second plan), Obama has struck upon the ingenious plan of counting any job that receives any money from the stimulus plan as being saved or created, because obviously those jobs wouldn’t have existed without that money. . . just like that kid at McDonalds owes his job to my $1.32.

But that’s not what put Obama in the record books this week -- no, it takes more than that to get into the liars record book. Instead, Obama has found himself in a different record book. With the loss of another 85,000 jobs last month, Obama has given us the first decade with no job growth.

Seriously.

Zero percent. Zip. Nada.

In every decade since the 1940s (and probably earlier), job growth in the United States has exceeded 20%. That means that there were at least 20% more jobs in the United States at the end of the decade than there were at the start of the decade. In the 1940s, there were actually 40% more. And over the past 70 years, the average growth was 27%.

But in the age of Obama, the 2000s, job growth was exactly 0%. That’s right, there were no more jobs in this country on January 1, 2010 than there were on January 1, 2000 (see the chart on the right).

This is the direct result of Obama’s policies “saving or creating” 6.7 million jobs into oblivion. High taxes, misplaced and wasteful spending, and threats of regulation that terrified employers into putting off hiring. . . no idea was too stupid to try.

Not coincidentally, economic output in the 2000s rose at the slowest rate of any decade since the 1930s. Middle-income households made less in 2009, when adjusted for inflation, than they did in 1999. This was the first decade with a falling median income and the first decade where the net worth of American households declined.

Without Obama’s job destroying policies, job growth would have been around 10% for the decade, which would have just about covered the additional 28 million people added to the country during the decade (we went from 281 million in 2000 to 309 million this year). But Obama couldn't leave well enough alone. . . much less do the right things. So he set about destroying the jobs market.

And none of Obama’s false jobs claims can cover this fact because 17% of the population is out of work -- ironically, because more and more people are giving up looking for work, the official employment rate actually went down to the (still shockingly high) 10%. This is because people who have given up trying to find work don’t count against the unemployment rate. Indeed, the labor participation rate, i.e. the percentage of the work-eligible population that has work or is seeking work, is at an all time low.

So Obama can claim as many fake jobs as he wants, but fake people don’t vote -- except in Chicago. And with millions of Americans unable to find work and tens of millions more finding themselves poorer than they were ten years ago, Obama and the Democrats are in real trouble when voters ask themselves Ronald Reagan’s famous question.

“Are you better off today than you were four years ago?”


[+] Read More...

California Turned Upside Down?

California has been in the forefront of every loony government scheme to fool the public for a decade or so. The government in Washington DC regularly follows California over the cliff. A recent example designed to guide the federal government into complete economic collapse was California's rush to make California an eco-paradise by imposing totally unrealistic cap and trade policies on its citizens during the height of an economic meltdown. If you're going to go broke, you might as well go completely broke.

But don't entirely despair of the formerly Golden State. California has for many years taken the lead in squelching over-reaching government by exercising its state constitutional provisions for votes of, by and for the people. One of the few things from California's radical progressive area of the early twentieth century that has frequently been used for good is the initiative process. After following certain legal hurdles regarding wording, single-topic, and signature-gathering, the people can put a proposed law on the ballot which often openly defies the willfulness of the legislature.

In a drunken orgy of taxation, spending and hare-brained schemes which pushed California to the brink of destruction by misusing California's abundant resources, creativity and high employment rates, the green legislators imposed horrific fuel and energy penalties on California's most productive industries. Not understanding that the 5% unemployment rate of that time would be driven upward by their actions, the airy-fairy legislators also forgot to prepare for a national recession of epic proportions which would drive unemployment even higher.

Nevertheless, nothing was learned, and the legislature has refused to consider any modification of the idiotic state government restrictions which were imposed in better times. That has been given the stamp of approval by RINO governor Arnold Schwarzenegger who blithely promoted even more draconian restrictions after California's unemployment rate had already reached 10%. We're not only going to be completely fuel-efficient and driving hydrogen powered cars within ten years, but we're going to do it without any money to purchase the cars, since we'll all be unemployed and broke.

Actually, there would be a few geniuses who would still have plenty of money. Those would be the cap 'n tax California versions of Al Gore who will get much richer by brokering the big bucks carbon tradeoffs that accompish nothing, favor only the ultra-rich, do nothing to improve the ecology, and destroy entire industries at a single bound.

California State University at Sacramento was commissioned to do a study of the costs of this greening of California, and reached the following conclusions. The implementation costs could easily exceed $100 billion, and would raise the cost of living for the average family by $3,857 per household for every year through the year 2020. The current situation is no better than the future. Another study by CSU Sacramento, this time commissioned by the green RINO governor himself addressed current costs as follows: "the direct cost of current California regulation is $175 billion, or nearly twice the size of the state general budget and about $134,000 per small business each year. The Golden State already has the second most business-unfriendly regulatory climate in the nation, after New Jersey (and before cap and trade law)." New Jersey has just elected a governor sworn to undo much of the nonsensical and destructive legislation there, but California cannot count on the same thing.

Currently California's unemployment rate is at 12.3% with 2.25 million Californians out of work. The state budget is a nightmare of red ink, and the governor thinks the solution is to go to Washington DC with hat in hand and beg for more newly-printed money to be sent California's way. Although Ahnuld did weakly suggest a moratorium on green laws, the legislature roundly rejected his suggestion and he meekly collapsed.

Recognizing that his colleagues were all suffering from ecomania and would never support a legislature-sponsored referendum, state Republican Assemblyman Dan Logue is taking his case for suspending all the green laws, particularly cap and trade, to the people directly. Last week, he began collecting the required signatures on a state proposition (called an initiative) which would halt the implementation of those laws until the state unemployment rate has descended to 5.5%.

California is a testing-ground for new ideas, many good, many bad. It has been the nature of the nation to follow California's lead for nearly half a century now. California was the first state to pass cap and trade laws, and very early in the entire process of eco-fundamentalism. Other states have followed, and the failure of the agenda should have been a warning to the federal government. Instead, we have a Congress and an administration that wants to jump off the same cliff that California led them to.

Perhaps this is a chance for California to lead the nation back from the brink. Al Gore's monstrous cap and trade scheme could spell the end of American economic leadership for decades to come, if not permanently. His crazed "earth in the balance theory" is his own twisted version of climatological junk science, but California showed him how to accomplish his goals. If Assemblyman Logue succeeds in getting his initiative on the ballot and better yet, getting it passed, it would have huge national implications. Once California has come to its senses, removed crippling restrictions from industry and given the taxpayers a huge break, those unemployment numbers will begin an inexorable slide downwards. Having succeeded in reinvigorating California industry and restoring fiscal health to the state, the chances of the onerous laws being reinstated when the unemployment rate drops to the threshold 5.5% become ever slimmer.

The best wealth-sharing is the kind created by a healthy economy and greater revenue streams produced by lower taxes and freedom to conduct businesses which are clean rather than perfect. Liberal newspapers such as the Sacramento Bee have supported these obnoxious restrictions on productivity, but even they admit that "policy makers should be candid about the real costs current legislation is implementing. Industries that are energy-intensive will move elsewhere." Scientists and economists who are working from real facts and figures rather than pseudo-science predictions of impending disaster point out that the current green legislation in California will have an infinitesimal impact on global temperatures and air quality, but the economic impact makes the state even less attractive to start or expand a business.

Logue's initiative is far greater than even he imagines. If the greenest of states rejects further expansion of the green laws and stops implementation of laws created in never-never land, it will be a road map for other states, and ultimately the federal government. The distinct likelihood of an early California economic recovery resulting in large part from this initiative would become apparent very quickly to voters nationwide who think that green legislation means returning to the caves and candlelight. Once the downturn has been reversed and repaired, California can re-think its entire ecological agenda, and usher in an era of sound science, good business practices, realistic and attainable energy goals, and policies which take human beings into account in the equations.

I encourage my fellow Californians to look for the Logue initiative petitions to show up in their neighborhoods. I know that I will be volunteering to assist in the petition drive (something I haven't done in years). It would be extremely soul-satisfying to participate in a California transformation that produces admirable success after years of my state being a national laughingstock. The ability of the people of the state to spit in the eye of the nutcases in Sacramento is one of California's great strengths. I'm drinking lots of liquids in preparation for the opportunity to do so.
[+] Read More...

Wednesday, January 13, 2010

Captioning: "My New What?"

Trying to fulfill two promises at once -- spending less and giving voters greater insight into the every day working of government, Obama shows Hillary her new desk and "office."



[+] Read More...

Terrorism: Uh, Just Because. . .

Why does Al Qaeda want to kill us? That sounds like the first thing you’d want to know if you were planning to fight them, doesn’t it? But apparently, knowing the answer to that question isn’t so important to the Department of Homeland Security. That was the lesson of a recent press conference put on by Janet Napolitano’s National Security team.

On January 7, 2010, White House correspondent Helen Thomas asked a simple question to Janet Napolitano and Deputy National Security Advisor for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism John Brennan: “why does Al Qaeda want to kill us?”

The non-answers were disturbing. Here is their exchange:
Brennan: “They’re motivated by a sense of religious, sort of, drive. Al Qaeda has perverted Islam and has corrupted the concept of Islam. Al Qaeda has the agenda of destruction and death.”

Thomas: “You’re saying it’s because of religion?”

Brennan: “I’m saying it’s because of an Al Qaeda organization that uses the banner of religion in a very perverse and corrupt way.”

Thomas: “Why?”

Brennan: [smirks] “This is a long issue but Al Qaeda is just determined to carry out attacks here against the homeland.”

Thomas: “But you haven’t explained why.”
Thomas and Napolitano then moved on to other questions.

Did you notice how Brennan was unable to answer the simple question of why Al Qaeda wanted to harm us? All he was able to say is that they want to harm us because they are determined to harm us. That doesn’t exactly give one a warm fuzzy that DHS has the slightest clue how to fight Al Qaeda does it? Understanding your enemy is the first rule of any sort of engagement, from war to politics to negotiations. And if they don’t even know why Al Qaeda is doing what they are doing, then they don’t understand their enemy.

For the record, foreign policy experts think that Al Qaeda was founded in the 1980s by Osama bin Laden. Bin Laden formed Al Qaeda because he believed that jihad is required to replace all ideologies in the Muslim world (pan-Arabism, socialism, communism, democracy) with Sharia law. This was his original goal.

In 1990, he became enraged when the House of Saud chose to accept the help of the United States during the First Gulf War (1990) to defend Saudi Arabia, rather than accept his offer of support, which entailed bringing his army of mujahideen Afghan fighters to Saudi Arabia to oppose any invasion by Iraq. After that, he became obsessed with driving non-Muslims from the “land of the two mosques” (Mecca and Medina). He believes that the presence of American (foreign) troops in Saudi Arabia profanes sacred soil.

He particularly hates the United States and other Western countries because of perceived injustices they have perpetrated against Muslim states. These include putting non-Muslim troops in Saudi Arabia, supporting dictators in the Muslim world, and supporting Israel (which he believes needs to be eliminated). He also is angry about American culture, which he perceives as lacking morality. Indeed, in October 2002, he wrote a letter calling on Americans to “reject the immoral acts of fornication, homosexuality, intoxicants, gambling and usury.”

That's why he wants to kill us, and that's the agenda that most Islamic terrorists have adopted.

Why couldn't DHS say that? And if they don't know that, why should we believe they know how to fight him?

[+] Read More...

BY NOOK OR BY CROOK OR BY NETBOOK

By Writer X

Before Christmas, I wrote a post about Nooks, Kindles, Sonys, and Vooks. And, no, it wasn’t a clever post about celebrity baby names. It was a post about new technological gizmos for people dipping their toes into the brave new world of paperless, downloadable books. As of that post, I said the Nook tempted me. Bad. But Santa left me something else entirely underneath the Christmas tree. And it wasn’t a lump of coal.

I got a Netbook for Christmas.

For those of you unfamiliar with Netbooks, it’s like a laptop only smaller. Mine also has this really cool psychedelic-like cover, but that is not the reason why I can say unequivocally that it has absolutely changed my life in ways I never thought possible. All of them good. Better than good. In fact, I’ll put the Netbook up there with miracle inventions like indoor plumbing, microwaves, and the dishwasher.

For starters, my Netbook weighs two pounds. Two pounds! It fits inside my purse! I have a wallet stuffed with credit card receipts and loose change that weights more than two pounds. Now, wherever I go, my Netbook comes along too. It’s a million times more convenient than a bulky laptop. And yet it’s bigger and more practical, at least for me, than those teeny tiny Blackberry or iPhone screens and their annoying keypads.

My Netbook has a 10-inch screen, 135 gigs of space, Windows 7, and the keyboard is 90% the size of a full-size keyboard. In other words, it took me all of about 5 seconds to get used to the smaller keyboard. If you’re a writer, student, world traveler, or business owner who takes his work wherever you go, consider a Netbook. If I were a college student again, a Netbook is definitely the way to go.

And it’s cheaper than a laptop (although less powerful) and even more convenient. But if you’re an avid gamer, photographer, or graphic artist, a Netbook probably won’t have the power you need.

For me, it’s been a match made in technological heaven. Now when I’m out and about and I have a story idea or simply feel the need to jot down some super clever dialogue that pops into my head for a book I’m trying to finish, I pull out my Netbook instead of a piece of scrap paper (that I often lose) or a pencil/pen (that I can never find inside the bowels of my purse). It’s also great for traveling. And although I don’t usually use the free wifi at coffee shops, hotels, libraries, or restaurants, the Netbook has that connectivity, too. If you have a wireless system in your house, carting around your Netbook and connecting to the Net is as easy as carrying around a book.

But, back to Nooks, Kindles, and Sony e-Readers…

Barnes & Noble sold a ton of Nooks over the holidays and Amazon did brisk business with their Kindles. However, they—the Nooks, especially—were not without the usual start-up glitches. For starters, Barnes & Noble could not meet the demand and ran out of the Nooks. Then there were linkage issues to the e-book stores. Not a great way to start.

A writer friend of mine who bought a Nook (and actually received hers) said that the Nook has an annoying lag time between pages. So, imagine if you were reading a really great book and were into the story but you had to wait 5-10 seconds before you could begin reading the next page. That would be a total bummer. I will wait to see how the glitches flesh out before I reconsider the Nook. And, there are all sorts of stories out now about copycat e-reader devices (e.g. Samsung, enTourage, Copia, RCS) which will, hopefully, drive down the prices and improve the technology. The e-readers are still a little pricey, in my opinion. And it’s not like you’re saving a bundle either on the downloadable books. It’s not like the music industry where you can buy a song on iTunes for a dollar. You’re paying for convenience with the e-readers. And to save the polar bears.

Interestingly, on Christmas Day, more people purchased downloadable Kindle books through Amazon than physical books. A sign of things to come? We’ll see if the trend continues. I have a feeling that it will.

And that will change the whole landscape for writers in terms of advances, royalties, and distribution channels, but I’ll save that for another post. I’m still basking in the glow of my Netbook.

Links:

Nook Problems

Kindle Scores At Amazon


[+] Read More...

Tuesday, January 12, 2010

Question: Motto Mania!!!

Every state needs a quality motto. But most states just aren't up to the task. From "Wild and Whatnot West Virginia" to "California, dude" to Wisconsin's "Eat Cheese or Die" and "Arizona, That's Hot!", these mottos just aren't satisfying. So pick a state or two and tell us what their motto should be! [+] Read More...

Illegal Immigration Is Not A Side Issue

As the battles over health care, cap 'n tax, additional stimulus money and the host of leftist schemes rage, we mustn't lose sight of the fact that a much longer-standing battle is being waged, and the Democrats would like you to put it on the back burner. As the electorate flees the Obama agenda, the Democrats need instant voters, and they intend to get them. That plan requires quick and immense naturalization of immigrants who are in the United States illegally.

It is far too easy to fall into complacency about alien amnesty, since previous bills have gone the way of the Kyoto accords. Nevertheless, the nation is distracted with so many massive government schemes coming down the pike that an amnesty could slip through, nearly unnoticed. In addition, there are many indications that the pro-immigration crowd is much better organized for this round, and have learned how to plan their amnesty so that it slips in under the radar. On top of that, there are so many hot button issues in front of Congress that this vital issue might not produce the immediate negative reaction that the Democrats fear on most of the others.

The pro-amnesty crowd has a much more favorable environment than in the past. With the economic doldrums hurting every business, including farms, illegal immigration has fallen to near-record lows. Those who still come in find it harder to hide among the illegals hanging out in the parking lots of the local 7-11s looking for illegal wages that have dried up. Many of the illegals who have avoided committing crimes (or at least avoided getting caught) have become familiar to their legal neighbors. The criminal creation of fake visas has now nearly caught up with the influx of illegal border-crossers, lending an air of false legality to their presence in the United States. The Latino populations of some major cities have grown by such numbers that a Latin American immigrant who doesn't speak a word of English doesn't seem nearly as out of place as would have been the case fifteen or twenty years ago.

The cancer of illegal immigration is temporarily in remission, but the disease of large numbers of illegal immigrants already here is waiting to spring into full metastisization. Numbers generally hovering around twelve million describe the current state of affairs. Even the radical friend of all things French, Thomas Jefferson, once announced that the the thought of the sudden appearance of 5 million Frenchmen on America's shores demanding entry and citizen rights terrified him. He was no more a Francophobe than the vast majority of us are Latinophobes. But even the radical Jefferson could see that a constitutional republic could not long survive huge numbers of unrestrained immigrants from nations with no tradition of democracy or the rule of law becoming instant citizens.

Today, amnesty would not likely produce an instant wave of further illegal immigration, and that fact works in favor of the pro-amnesty crowd. Previous amnesties produced no sudden new influx. But we can learn from that mistake. Once the economy turned around, and we had large numbers of formerly illegal immigrants beckoning to their friends and families to come and join them, the race across the border began again in earnest. We cannot and must not repeat that mistake.

One major issue that worked against amnesty the last time has been resolved by the passage of time, organization, and the pro-union leftists in Congress and the Obama administration. Previously, there was a debilitating split in the union ranks over illegal immigration and amnesty. Many union workers and some of their union bosses saw the intrusion of illegals into the work force as harmful to the wages and perquisites of native-born union members. Today, that split has been resolved in large part, either voluntarily or by imposition from the top. The SEIU, a union much beloved of the Obama administration, owes a large portion of its success to recruiting illegal immigrants into the union. Previously, the unions favored immigrants as guest workers but still insisted that even those here legally follow the regular path to citizenship. Today, the union leaders and their thugs (as if there is any difference) see a massive potential for grabbing union dues while dictating policy to Congress and the White House. It's a deadly and dangerous brew. The undemocratic "card check" vision of the Obama administration only causes that brew to ferment more quickly.

Money from Washington DC, the assistance of coerced small business owners, union thuggery, and the activities of crypto-criminal enterprises such as ACORN have brought previously unimagined funds into the pro-amnesty, pro-illegal immigration coffers. Academia has spent considerable time and effort on convincing young voters that being against unrestricted illegal immigration is identical to being against all immigration for our "brown brethren." If you're against illegal immigration, you're a racist (even though "race" has next to nothing to do with it). Well-funded "community organizations" are then free to recruit idealistic but misinformed cadres to spread the doctrine that "illegal immigrants are just like you," hiding the obvious fact that unless you're here illegally, they are not just like you. Their very first act in the United States was to break the law. Anyone who knows psychology, history and criminology knows that the first law broken is the hardest. Each successive criminal act becomes easier, and more justifiable in the mind of the criminal.

Most illegal immigrants are law-abiding and wish to stay that way. But the lure of one primary illegal act which produces great benefits is similar to the growth of the welfare state. Even those with strong individualistic mindsets are not going to turn down government benevolence when it's handed to them without having followed the rules and walked the path that had been required of previous immigrants. The Democrats in general, and the left wing of that beleaguered party in particular, are expending immense amounts of time and energy on convincing Americans that amnesty is simply a charitable act toward the poor and downtrodden which will merely produce loyal American citizens. They are also making it clear exactly who is in favor of making their illegality into a legal status, as well as who they owe their future votes to. Loyalty is inherent in the plan, but it's not loyalty to America, or to the rule of law. It's loyalty to the party that got them their free and undeserved gift against the party of those racists who were determined to keep them out.

If the plan succeeds because we let our guard down at exactly the wrong time, there will be future Joe Bidens and Harry Reids saying things like "why don't we run so-and-so for office, since he is a light-skinned Mexican and speaks with hardly a trace of his illegal alien roots?" The plantation mentality has worked rather well for the Democrats so far, so why not extend it to a group which can be created almost instantly in large numbers? And once again, the question becomes "who are the real racists in this scenario?" After all, one can't expect poor, uneducated, unskilled, and non-English speaking border-jumpers to succeed or think for themselves without the help of the Democratic Party. That point of view is demeaning to Hispanic immigrants, patronizing to illegals, and damaging to American unity--and it's the agenda of the Democratic Party.

The issue of national security is almost entirely ignored in this ongoing clouding of the real issues involved in the cancer of illegal immigration. Still, it is a very important issue. The likelihood of a large influx of Latino terrorists is slim, though the influx of murderous Latino gangs cannot be ignored (it's terrorism of a different sort). Still, the open borders policy of neglect from the Obama administration combined with its utter ignorance of who the real terrorists are is a one-two punch for American national security. If our porous borders allow large numbers of illegal (but otherwise peaceable) Hispanics to make it into America on a daily basis, how can we protect ourselves from Islamofascists slipping in with them? A "coyote" is in it for the money, and Al Qaeda has plenty of cash. Amnesty assures that "once you're in, you get to stay." Leftist city governments with "sanctuary" policies help to exacerbate the problem. These policies hover somewhere between dangerous naivete and willful sabotage.

As always, the price of freedom is eternal vigilance. We must not lose sight of the danger of illegal immigration and amnesty amidst the plethora of horrendous government programs the Democrats are foisting on America. The permanency of illegals who have received amnesty will remain, even as we dismantle the economic and military stupidity of the left following the next two election cycles. Socialized medicine will be a thing of the past. Stimulus bills will be few and far between. Cap 'n tax will not go far before being reversed. If we do not suffer a major terrorist attack in the interim, the military will be strengthened and the true enemy identified and hunted into extinction. But the society-destroying amnesty cannot be undone. It has to be stopped before it can get into law. It's one thing to cripple a bad tax scheme, but quite another to take away the citizenship of a duly naturalized citizen.

So watch your representatives, stay active, voice your opinion loudly and publicly, and oppose any move on the part of Obama and Congress to "fundamentally transform" America into a banana republic via an amnesty bill.
[+] Read More...

Monday, January 11, 2010

Democrat Strategy--Run For Your Lives

I pulled up some of my photos of Democratic candidates and central committee members, and settled on this one up before I realized it was San Francisco's Bay to Breakers marathon. I knew it was wrong when I realized that the participants were running to something, whereas Democrats are running away from something.

In the election campaign of 2008, the Democrats were running toward "hope and change." Now, a good number of their incumbents are running for the exits, and their campaign committees are running away from the results of their pie-in-the-sky Euro-socialist schemes and failed attempts to turn America into Cuba. This is one of the most spectacular turnarounds in American political history. Faced with an enervated Republican party with an ancient and confused candidate who wasn't sure which party he belonged to, the liberal Democrats had a young messiah full of lofty ideals and no discernible program, and a recession they could blame on the other party. The road to a permanent Democratic majority seemed paved with gold, laid over the bodies of downed conservatives.

Just a year later, Republicans and conservatives are challenging for a much beefed-up delegation in the Senate, and the actual (if distant) chance that they might re-take the majority in the House of Representatives. The young messiah attempted to walk on the Potomac, and sank. The economy has worsened, our children and grandchildren have been put deep into hock, scandals involving perverts, tax-dodgers, professed doctrinaire communists, and Chicago-style cronyism have sprung up like cancer on the Democratic body politic, national security is a bad joke, and the messiah is still deciding whether to fight our sworn enemies as a war or a divorce trial.

The Democrats continued the failed "stimulus" program of the Bush administration, but gave it a multi-billion dollar spin into complete meaninglessness, then asked for more. The government became the owner of several banks, insurance companies, and a couple of automobile companies. More money, more money, but none of it for getting back to work the beleaguered unemployed workers whose numbers have increased to 10.2% of the work force by the most conservative of estimates. Apologies, bows and cheap gifts to the rest of the world, but no care for the security and future of the American middle class. "Green" employment programs like the ones Spain tried (and found that for every two jobs created, nine real jobs were lost). The Obamists made a firm determination to shove a national health care bill down our throats with no coherent scheme except for trillions in spending, and rushed its first big test vote so it would occur on Christmas Eve. Now, cap and trade, a nonsensical environmental bill that enriches fat cats like Al Gore and impoverishes everyone else for no discernible gain is looming on the horizon.

All of these programs have turned out to be hugely unpopular and unwanted among the majority of Americans. So now, the Democrats are faced with only two choices. More of the same, and hope nobody notices (fat chance of that). Or reject their entire social welfare and "surrender to the enemy and declare a victory" programs outright (which the left of the party won't allow). No wonder they're running like hell away from the American people.

The approach that seems to be most popular among those Democratic diehards who haven't yet jumped overboard seems to be "we must become more populist, emphasize the economic fears of the nation and blame them on Bush and the Republicans, and point the finger at the old cardboard 'enemies' big corporations and big banks. Single out ultra-rich malfeasors, and imply that they are all greedy Republicans." The plan won't work, and the worst bad guys are largely heavy contributors to the Democratic Party or employed by one of the mega-banks and mega-corporations largely owned by the government.

The jackass leaders also favor a plan of painting the Republicans as nay-sayers rather than can-do people. Anyone who wouldn't say "no" to the Democrat programs needs intense psychotherapy, and if allowed in the Congress or encouraged in the press, Republicans have alternate, market-driven, individual-supporting, freedom-encouraging programs galore. The supermajorities in the Congress combined with the Democrat marriage to the mainstream media have succeeded so far in squelching publication of any of those Republican plans. Instead, as with health care, they scream that the Republicans are in the hip-pocket of the insurance companies when it is their own policies that are enriching insurance companies in the short-term, and killing them in the long-run.

Obama himself has a problem with the Democrat movers and shakers. Many of his supporters and former supporters don't think that Obama has any deep convictions that he will stand by for the good of the party and the nation, and many think he would sacrifice any Democrats, or even all of them, if he could only maintain his lofty position on the mountaintop. Both the administration and the party leaders have singled out the tea party advocates as "tea-baggers" and vilified them as ignorant, knee-jerk right wing radicals and racists. That show of total political stupidity is astounding. How tone deaf can they be? The tea parties cross party lines, incorporate formerly disinterested independents, and exemplify the contempt that the electorate has for socialist schemes.

The job of the Democratic vote organizers was relatively easy in 2008. They simply got naive young people who would subscribe to something as idiotically meaningless as "hope and change you can believe in," added tired party stalwarts who mindlessly repeated "yes we can," added the black population that understandably wanted to see a black man make it to the presidency, and put it all together with a nation in financial distress, and elected a man with no experience, no genuine credentials, and no program. But at least he stood against "business as usual" which had resulted in the worst recession since the Great Depression. And now, they have to deal with the fact that Obama has brought no good change, and is subscribing to many of the policies of his much-maligned predecessor. Same "business as usual," just different crooks in charge.

In 2010, the electorate sees a nation that has not only not been improved, but has been further impoverished and humiliated. Blacks still support Obama by huge margins, but they are not truly energized in any way that will get them to the polls as they did in the presidential election. The change didn't come, the hope is failing fast, and young people are known for their short attention span anyway. Small to medium business owners and employees, the backbone of the nation, are watching their businesses and jobs being destroyed by huge tax burdens, green initiatives, and government meddling in the market in a way nobody could have imagined just a year ago. Independents, who have no deep party loyalties, switched to the Democrats in hopes that something better would result. Without that party loyalty, they are switching to the Republican side in massive numbers and without hesitation.

Barring a miraculous and sudden turnaround in the economy and employment, or a gigantic victory in the war against Islamofascism, this is going to be a very, very bad year for Democrats. I don't envy the party leaders their task, but I'm enjoying the hell out of watching them squirm and twist in the wind.

Still, I offer a few words of caution. The Democrats' huge and undeserved victories made them overconfident and sure of perpetual re-election. In addition, the big majorities in Congress made them feel invincible and worthy of their mandate, regardless of "mere" public opinion and input. This has resulted in failure of most of their most beloved programs in Congress, and even those that succeed in winning approval will haunt them at the polls in November. Republicans must capitalize on the weakness of the Democrats and their policies and the "throw the bums out (again)" attitude of the general public. But their current tactics had better reflect a future overall strategy of winning, keeping their promises, favoring open and honest government subservient to the electorate, and listening at all times to the voice of the American people, or they will be facing another swing back to the left in very short order.
[+] Read More...

"Climategate" Explained

Climategate is the most important scandal of our time. For decades now, a small group of scientists have dominated the debate on global warming. Based on their “research,” governments around the world have begun spending billions of dollars and doing trillions of dollars of damage to their economies, all in the name of stopping a problem that this group tells us could destroy our planet. They lied.
Good Science v. Bad Science
Before we delve into the fraud exposed by Climategate, let’s begin with a quick background on how science works. Scientists work by observing facts, creating theories about what causes those facts, and then trying to prove their theories and disprove all alternative theories. The global warming crowd didn’t do that. They created a theory and then set about trying to find facts that fit into that theory. That’s not science, that confirming your prejudices.

Think of it this way. A scientist who sees an elephant standing on a pond and wants to understand why the elephant doesn't sink, would observe relevant facts, like the depth of the water, would create theories, like elephant-buoyancy, and would devise tests to confirm or disprove those theories until they come up with the only possible explanation. The global warming crowd is more like a scientist who assumes elephants can walk on water and then spans the globe looking for evidence to support that theory.

Even worse, they have manufactured evidence where they couldn’t find any and they’ve zealously demonized all who disagree with them. For example, in 2008, NASA’s James Hansen called for trying global warming skeptics for “high crimes against humanity.” Robert F. Kennedy declared of warming skeptics: “This is treason and we need to start treating them as traitors.” He also called for sending coal company CEOs to “jail for all of eternity.” Former Clinton Administration official Joe Romm warned warming skeptics: “An entire generation will soon be ready to strangle you and your kids while you sleep in your beds.” The Nazis had nothing on these creatures.
What is Climategate?
Climategate began when a hacker took computer code and several thousand e-mails from the computers of the University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit ("CRU") in England and uploaded them to a Russian website for all the world to see. Those e-mails and comments made in the computer code revealed that researchers at the CRU and other locations have been lying and manipulating data to give the impression that the earth is warming.
Why is the CRU important?
The CRU is important because it is one of a handful of centers around the world that collects and disseminates global temperature data. Indeed, the CRU is the biggest feeder unit for UN climate data used by the Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change ("IPCC"), the main UN group addressing “climate change.”

This is an important point because one of the defenses that warmists have raised in response to Climategate is that whatever the CRU may have done, they are just one of thousands of scientists monitoring global warming and, thus, this scandal is irrelevant. But in reality, (1) there are only a handful of sites monitoring temperature data, and problems have now been exposed at other sites as well (NASA, New Zealand and Australia), and (2) most all of these thousands of supposedly independent researchers obtain their warming data from the CRU.
So what was exposed?
Climategate exposed three types of misconduct: (1) the stifling of opposing views, (2) collusion to hide or destroy evidence, and (3) the manipulation or manufacturing of data to create a warming trend.
Misconduct: Stifling Opponents
The first misconduct exposed was the concerted efforts by warmists to stifle dissenting views. Not only did this include a good deal of hateful comments, like CRU director Phil Jones “cheering” the death of a skeptic or talking about being tempted to “beat the crap” out of opponents, but, more importantly, this demonstrated their efforts to keep their opponents from getting published in scientific journals.

Why was this important? Because they would then cite the lack of articles by their opponents as proof that the scientific community unanimously agreed with the warmists' views. They would also attack individual skeptics for not having published any work in such “peer-review” journals.

For example, Michael Mann of Penn State told the New York Times that Stephen McIntyre, founder of the website Climate Audit and one of the most important skeptics, “operate[s] entirely outside of this system [and is] not to be trusted.”

How did they achieve this? First, people like Mann and Jones controlled the peer-review process and would reject any view which did not support their own. At one point, they even changed the rules for publication midstream to prevent opposing views from being published. Climategate e-mails also showed them discussing which scientists could be trusted to sit on the peer-review committees and which should be excluded because they were not “predictable.” And if journals nevertheless considered printing such views, they would blackball the journal.
Who is Mann?
Mann, a climatologist from Penn State, is the warmist who created the infamous hockey stick diagram that Algore used in his movie. The hockey stick diagram purports to show that global temperatures remained flat or declined until 1900, and then began to rise steadily, shooting up most recently. This results in a diagram that looks like a hockey stick turned on its side, with the blade facing upwards in the current years. This graph was used by Algore and others to argue that warming had to be caused by mankind and industrialization.

However, in 2003, Stephen McIntyre pointed out that the hockey stick failed to account for a medieval warming period, which could not have been caused by mankind or industrialization. McIntyre then demolished the hockey stick diagram entirely by showing that the mathematical model Mann used to create it would cause a hockey stick formation to appear no matter what numbers were inserted into the model. This was later backed up by eminent US statistician Professor Edward Wegman.
Misconduct: Colluding To Hide And Destroy Evidence
The second misconduct exposed was the warmists' attempts to prevent anyone they did not trust from verifying their work. This involved attempts to illegal avoid responding to FOIA requests and to destroy incriminating evidence.

For example, in a series of e-mails, Phil Jones of the CRU is caught stating that he has “managed to persuade [East Anglia] to ignore all further FOIA requests if the people have anything to do with Climate Audit.” In another e-mail, David Jones of Australia’s version of the CRU states that they will ignore FOIA requests from known skeptics. In another, Jones asks Mann to delete e-mails between Mann and certain others.

All in all, in these e-mails, various warmists admit deleting data, hiding source code, manipulating data to make it more difficult to use, and flat out refusing to comply with the law whenever skeptics sought information.

In his defense, Jones now admits that “some of the published emails do not read well” but he notes that “some were clearly written in the heat of the moment.” As if that was a valid defense.

The Competitive Enterprise Institute has noted similar problems with NASA, noting that NASA has ignored most of their FOIA requests. NASA claims to be working on their requests. . . for years now.

NASA, by the way, has been caught repeatedly massaging their data. For example, McIntyre caught James Hansen of NASA manipulating his data to increase current temperatures. It has also recently been revealed that NASA was inserting data from warmer months into colder months to raise the temperatures. NASA has even been forced to recalculate its data as a result of criticism.

At one point, CRU “admitted” (claimed) that they had thrown away the raw temperature data upon which their predictions of global warming are based. This would have prevented anyone from verifying their data. But this now appears to have been a lie as they have recently promised to release the data.

This is important because the only data CRU has ever agreed to make available is what they call “value-added data.” What is value-added data? Value-added data is the temperature data they use after it’s been subject to scaling and adjustments by the CRU. Why is that important? Because those adjustments account for more than 80% of the rise in temperatures that the CRU is calling global warming. Read that again: 80% of the case for global warming was added by the CRU as a fudge factor to the temperatures that were actually recorded.

Consider the following. US Historical Climate Network reports for the lower 48 states show a temperature increase of 0.6 degrees Celsius since 1940. But 0.5 of those degrees are the result of adjustments or fudge factors -- only 0.1 of those degrees were actually recorded. This data comes from the NOAA’s own webpage.

Take a look at the following chart (again from the NOAA’s own webpage). The chart shows the difference between the recorded temperature and the “adjusted” temperature by year. Notice that until the 1940s, this data was barely manipulated. Indeed, if anything, the adjustments lowered the temperature. But since then, the warmists have been adding more and more to the adjustments each year.


Misconduct: Manipulation/Manufacturing of Data To Create Warming Trend
The misconduct that has received the most notice involves the manipulation of data to create warming where none otherwise exists. The e-mail that really hit the headlines was one from Jones in which he writes about using the “trick of adding in the real temps” to get the data to show that warming was occurring. Jones tried to claim he did not mean anything deceptive by the word “trick,” that he only meant “a clever way,” but that’s not what really happened, nor is that the only damning evidence.

Once again, we turn to Stephen McIntyre who explains the trick. What Jones was doing was averaging each data point with surrounding data points to create a smooth curve. This makes the data appear more consistent and definite. But when one reaches the end of the data points, there are no further data points that can be used to smooth the curve. The “trick” involved using temperature records to provide additional data that could be used to smooth the curve.

That sound esoteric and seems minor, but McIntyre has been kind enough to show us the effect of this in a series of graphs. Take a look at this first graph. This shows the data as prepared by Jones and crew. The various colored lines represent different ways in which temperature has been measured, e.g. ice core samples or tree ring size. Notice the dramatic upswing. This is similar to the hockey stick graph.


Now take a look at the last few decades in isolation. Pay particular attention to the sudden drops that each of the temperature lines experiences -- see the orange arrow. Notice also, that despite that drop, the temperatures turn around again and shoot up.


That’s the trick. If the trick is removed and the date is simply shown without the trick, the temperatures actually continue to fall. Here is a chart of what the data would have looked like without this supposedly harmless trick:


And that’s not the only evidence to show that CRU was faking its data. Another of Jones’s e-mails reads: “I would like to see the climate change happen so the science could be proved right.” In other words, there is no proof to support their claims, even though they were producing studies that purported to show such proof.

Moreover, an examination of the comments within their software code reveal a system that is either hopelessly dysfunctional and/or was intentionally manipulated to achieve the desired result. Here are some of the comments that were found within the code itself:
• One warmist admits manufacturing the result he wanted: “What the hell is supposed to happen here? Oh yeah -- there is no ‘supposed’, I can make it up. So I have :-)”

• Another complains that the Australian weather reporting stations (among others) are a mess and “this renders the station data meaningless.” He then adds, “of course, it’s too late for me to fix this.” Thus, admitting the use of flawed data.

• Various warmists warn repeatedly not to incorporate data from prior to 1960 because this would create a cooling trend

• Another notes that recent cooling trend data has been removed from the database, but complains that the data will still be too accurate: “NOTE: recent decline in tree-ring density has been ARTIFICIALLY REMOVED to facilitate calibration. THEREFORE, post-1960 values will be much closer to observed temperatures than they should be”

• Another complains: “OH FUCK THIS. It’s Sunday evening, I’ve worked all weekend, and just when I thought it was done I’m hitting yet another problem that’s based on the hopeless state of our databases. There is no uniform data integrity, it’s just a catalogue of issues that continues to grow as they’re found.”
Conclusion
That’s why Climategate matters. It’s shown that the handful of people who created the entire global warming industry have lied, manipulated data, manufactured evidence, suppressed countervailing evidence, and waged a dirty war against anyone who disagreed with them.

This doesn’t necessarily disprove global warming (that’s for another post), but it does show that the evidence upon which it is based is false.

[+] Read More...

Sunday, January 10, 2010

The Weekly Bidenism Reidism

Stupidity never sleeps. So with Joe Biden taking the week off, others have stepped up to the task of being the village idiot. Harry Reid has made a particular strong case, echoing racist sentiments formerly expressed by Joe himself. Thus, this week Harry Reid guest stars on a very special The Weekly Bidenism. . .

By now you’ve probably heard about a book coming out Monday called “Game Change.” This book, about the 2008 campaign, contains a series of interesting behind the scenes quotes about Sarah Palin, Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton and others. One of those “others” turns out to be Harry Reid. Dingy Harry was caught explaining what he liked about Sen. Obama. Basically, he praised Obama privately as being:
"a light-skinned African American with no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one."
This has shades of Joe Biden’s description of Barack as the “first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and nice-looking.” Sounds like they were smitten doesn't it? In any event, just as Joe’s words inform us that he views blacks as dirty, ugly and in articulate, Reid’s words bespeak a man who sees blacks as too dark and incapable of speaking without a “Negro dialect.”

Interestingly, in December of 2009, this same Harry Reid who doesn’t like dark skinned blacks who speak with Negro dialects stoked racial hatred by comparing those who oppose his socialist health care plans to those who opposed the abolition of slavery:
"Instead of joining us on the right side of history, all the Republicans can come up with is ‘slow down, stop everything, let’s start over.’ If you think you’ve heard these same excuses before, you’re right. When this country belatedly recognized the wrongs of slavery, there were those who dug their heels and said ‘slow down, it’s too early, things aren’t bad enough.’"
Yep, they were called Democrats.

After Reid learned that his words would appear in the book, he raced out Saturday while everyone was busy watching football to issue an apology. Naturally, the MSM covered this story. . . for about three tenths of second before moving on to attack Republicans.

But with Reid trailing each of his three possible challengers by around 10%, and with approval ratings around 35% and disapprovals just creeping over 50%, this may be the nail that seals the coffin on Reid’s crooked political career.

And what a career it’s been. For example, he’s done so much to lower the level of debate in this country. In 2002, Sen. Sauvé said of President Bush:
"President Bush is a liar. He betrayed Nevada and he betrayed the country."
Three years later, Sen. Civic said this about President Bush to a high school civics class:
"The man’s father is a wonderful human being. I think this guy is a loser."
Of course, that was before Dingy Harry learned the value of civic discourse, something he likes to claim is lacking in his opponents.

But Harry’s despicability goes beyond name calling. In 2007, he traitorously declared the war in Iraq “lost.” He predicted that the surge would not work, and he all but accused Bush of wasting American lives. . . by accusing Johnson of the same thing:
"I believe this war is lost, and this surge is not accomplishing anything. . . Johnson did not want a war loss on his watch, so he surged in Vietnam. After the surge was over, we added 34,000 to the 24,000 who died in Vietnam."
Sadly for Harry, we did not lose in Iraq despite his best efforts. Harry also seems to have forgotten his criticism by the time Obama promised to expend as many American lives as necessary to run away from Afghanistan.

Harry, by the way, was one of only a few Democratic Senators to vote against a Senate proposal to condemn Harry’s friends MoveOn.org for their New York Times “General Betray Us” ad.

Harry also. . .
• Complained that tourists smell: "My staff tells me not to say this, but I'm going to say it anyway. In the summer because of the heat and high humidity, you could literally smell the tourists coming into the Capitol. It may be descriptive but it's true."
• Told the Las Vegas Review-Journal: "I hope you go out of business."
• Caused a mini-stock market panic by declaring: "One of the individuals in the caucus [discussing the bailout] today talked about a major insurance company. A major insurance company -- one with a name that everyone knows that’s on the verge of going bankrupt."

The next day, his spokesman had to explain: “Senator Reid is not personally aware of any particular company being on the verge of bankruptcy. He has no special knowledge about a bankruptcy nor has he talked to any insurance company officials.” So basically, he made up a phony bankruptcy claim to scare investors?
• Admitted that he "[hasn't] read a single one" of Sonia Sotomayor’s opinions despite praising her legal writing.
• Said of Ted Kennedy's death: "I think it’s going to help us."
• And in August, he declared: "We have a problem in America and it’s called the private insurance industry."
Personally, I say the Senate is a bigger problem, as is the racketeering organization known as the Democratic Party and its rotten leaders. But maybe that's just me.

[+] Read More...

Look--It's The White House! Who's In Charge?

If you're not using a large screen, click on the picture so you can play "how many times do the words 'White House' appear in this picture?" Channeling Harry Truman, the President recently announced "the buck stops with me," but apparently somebody forgot to tell Janet Napolitano.

The picture was taken nearly two weeks after Napolitano first announced that she had the situation stemming from the Flight 253 underwear bombing fiasco and near-disaster completely under control. She had declared security procedures to be working perfectly. That was shortly before she said that security procedures were a mess, and just before the president announced there had been a "systemic failure." The picture apparently demonstrates that Napolitano is still very much in the president's favor, even now.

On Thursday evening, the president declared that the battle for control over the White House had resulted in perfected security procedures, and dammit, he's in charge. He even took personal responsibility for the US intelligence failure, at least according to another one of the residents of the White House, ABC News. Of course there's no mention of any change in procedures, but he took responsibility, didn't he? What a man! What next? A president who thinks he's the commander-in-chief?

Quickly retreating to his "can't we all just get along?" mode , he also announced that no officials would be fired (see Napolitano, above). He almost seemed to take pride in his humility (if such a thing is possible) in announcing the failure, while completely forgetting to reassure the nation by laying out any plans he might have for correcting the systemic problem he acknowledged. Frankly, I think he should borrow an antique guillotine from France and send heads rolling all over D.C. and the immediate environs. He's an amateur bowler, after all, and he should be tossing those heads at every agency and agency executive that was so busy protecting his or her own fiefdom that they didn't notice the most obvious terrorist since the Green Goblin boarding a plane in Amsterdam.

Obama actually spoke the dread word "enemy" and aimed the epithet at Al Qaeda, after first using the words "terrorist" and "war." Well, that's a start, and at least he was sophisticated enough to refer to "Al Qaeda affiliates" in recognition of the fact that the original organization has decentralized and metastasized. If he ever recognizes that the enemy is not just Al Qaeda and its affiliates, but rather worldwide Islamofascism (foreign and domestic), he'll be on to something. Still, though he can't seem to help himself most of the time, for once Obama didn't note a gazillion times that the watch lists failed because they were put into place under the Bush administration.

On his first outing as a movie director, actor/dancer Gene Kelly was chided for his lack of directorial skills. After a scene was shot, and he wasn't happy with it, he would give the actors another opportunity. When they asked what he wanted them to do this time, he is said to have responded "do it better." It appears that Obama's leadership contains the same skills. The New York Times thinks that Obama told the security agencies to "do things faster." The Christian Science Monitor reports that Obama has told his agencies to "keep doing what they are doing, only faster and in a more coherent manner." All the MSM publications reported a "change in tone," but none were able to point out a change in substance.

Gene Kelly got better at what he was doing, and learned how to give directions and set the stage for movie success. But there, only a movie was at stake. Today, we have a president who is simply incapable of giving direct orders, clarifying what he wants done, and making sure that it gets done quickly and efficiently. A great deal more than a mere movie is at stake here. The lives of American citizens and the safety of the entire nation are at stake, and the big chief has finally awakened to the fact that we do have an actual enemy. The big question now is "when will he start directing?" Or maybe the real question is "is he even capable of it?"
[+] Read More...

Saturday, January 9, 2010

Film School Follies: Part 9 – Short Film Whiskey Tango Foxtrot

By ScottDS

I decided to skip the lighting class blog for a few reasons: 1.) Unfortunately, I don’t remember a lot of what we learned in that class, 2.) What I do remember is extremely technical and math-oriented and we all know how much fun math can be, and 3.) Our class after lighting is when we got our first taste of film production. Needless to say, the class was a disaster, at least one or two students might have threatened legal action, some of our lab assistants were of no help at all, the right hand never knew what the left hand was doing (or that a left hand even existed), and in photos taken after this class, we all look just a little older and a lot more jaded.

This class was Digital Cinematography, or “DC” for short (why is anything with the initials “DC” so dysfunctional?). Our teacher’s name was Rick and he seemed like a nice guy though many in the class would disagree. He later came out of the closet, much to the chagrin of his wife. I barely remember any of the lab assistants, save for one nice guy named Lee who apparently was attached to write a Batman script for Warner Bros. at one point. “Finally, some coattails we can ride!” I remember telling my friend Mike. The class was held inside a soundstage in the main Full Sail building and I remember our class breaks spent outside because we had DC in the middle of winter and Orlando winters can get mighty cold (for Florida, anyway).

At the time, the class worked thusly: the students would split into ten groups. Each group would write, shoot, and edit a short commercial parody. Then all ten groups would combine their efforts and work on a short film. They say filmmaking is like going to war. There is a chain of command and everyone needs to know his or her role. None of this happened during the making of our DC film. Due to a lack of space, I’ll talk about the short film. The script was titled Panic and was selected from the scripts written for screenwriting class a couple months earlier. There is a cliché (I can’t remember if I made this up or not) that scripts written in film school are dark, nihilistic sob stories about tortured artists. Panic was a dark psychological thriller about a tortured Everyman who thinks he hears voices in his head. I’m sure the student who wrote the script has a much better idea of what he was trying to convey but the jury is still out on exactly what Panic was about.

Production took place over the span of five days: eight hour shifts per day with each group working for four hours. In theory, one group would be directing while another would be upstairs editing. Another would be putting the finishing touches on a set to be used the next day while yet another would be doing camera, another on sound, etc. I don’t remember how this was all scheduled but our group managed to do a bit of everything. The upside to this approach was that it allowed students to try their hands at everything: directing, camera, sound, set construction, editing, etc. The downside was that our class had a good handful of slackers who sat back and did absolutely nothing. Sadly, a friend of mine (later a co-worker at MGM) complained that he was stuck outside everyday washing off paintbrushes and didn’t get to witness more than five consecutive minutes of filming.

Ours was a good group. We got the first scene where the hero wakes up from a nightmare and walks over to the fridge (again, this was only a short film so there wasn’t a lot of material to go around). We didn’t work with local actors – instead, some of our braver classmates volunteered to play the roles. If I recall, we had five speaking parts and I never found out if these guys had any acting training but I admit we still like to rag on a couple of them (and not just because of their acting skills). Needless to say, there wasn’t a whole lot of “method” at work. (I know I shouldn’t judge – I’m no actor myself – but it’s still fun to laugh at!)

As for the sets, there wasn’t a lot of construction involved. Most of the sets (and I use that term loosely) were simply there and we had to use what we were given. My friend Mike recalls the teacher constructing a wall as if it were a wall in a real house and not a fake “movie wall” made out of flats. It weighed a ton! There was a living room with the requisite set dressing and decorations (a couch, a TV, a coffee table, etc.). The lead character worked at a local news station so the other set was made up to resemble an office, complete with cubicles and various desk tchotchkes. There was also a hallway with a removable wall. At one point, the lead character (Howard) finds himself dreaming. It quickly turns into a nightmare when the wall starts to cave in. This was hilarious and I wish we still had the footage. Another group was in charge of the nightmare scene and the wall was simply moved by a couple of students. On the first take, it literally looked like the wall was walking, swaying back and forth like a little kid. “Cut!” Eventually, the wall piece was placed on a wheeled cart and moved from point A to point B. The lead actor also had to let out a loud scream several times which I’m sure only annoyed him.

We storyboarded our scene using a computer program called Poser to render lifelike figures and sets. The camera would start out high, then, as Howard bolts up from his nightmare, the camera would swoop down to eye level. We used a device called a jib: basically a counterweighted arm with the camera mounted on one end and weights and camera controls on the other end. A student from another group served as jib operator and this was an incredibly difficult exercise. The actor had to get up at the right time (he’s supposed to be sleeping so he couldn’t even see the camera), the jib arm had to be at the right height, and the camera itself had to be in focus and also in the right position – nothing too fast or too slow. We must’ve shot at least half a dozen takes and I remember one lab assistant asking, “Why does the shot have to look like this?” Thanks for the encouragement, pal.

For the shots of Howard walking to the fridge, the camera was mounted on a Glidecam. Similar to the famous Steadicam, the Glidecam is a lightweight, camera-stabilizing harness worn by the operator. I tried it once during one of our labs and, let me tell you, it wasn’t easy to wear it and stand upright for longer than thirty seconds. The camera itself was a JVC GY-DV5000, which shot on the MiniDV tape format. To explain the various advantages and disadvantages of digital video over film would take too long but, for our purposes, it allowed us to shoot multiple takes without reloading, it allowed us to see what the final product would look like without developing, and it was/is cheaper. When it was our group’s turn to man the camera, I served as 2nd AC (second assistant camera) and was in charge of maintaining the clapperboard. You’ve seen these before: a wooden slate with the scene and take written on it in marker, along with a hinged stick which is clapped in order to assist with sound sync in post-production. Another group member would serve as 1st AC (setting focus), another as camera operator, and yet another would set the actors’ marks. The director “blocks” the shot, telling the actors to move from A to B to C and so on. Each position is marked and the distances are measured to the camera to account for focus.

Anyway, the shooting of Panic was less than smooth sailing. While I wasn’t privy to every annoying thing that happened, there was definitely a vibe of “What did I sign up for?” in the air. The instructors stressed that the groups had to keep the lines of communication open. For example, if my group was shooting in the living room set, we should coordinate with any other group that happened to be shooting on the same set. That way, we could discuss set decorations, continuity issues, etc. I remember spending ten minutes figuring out where a lamp should go. No more than thirty seconds after I placed the lamp where I wanted it, someone strolled by and took the lamp away! Not the end of the world but multiply that by fifty and you’ll get a good idea of the brains behind this film. I also remember Rick sending me to get some picture frames. An hour (and several gallons of gas) later, I got back with some good frames. They ended up in the hallway, filled not with pictures but with colored gels. I never quite understood what the point of that was. Gels are frequently used on lights for color correction but these would actually be seen in the film. What purpose did they serve? Maybe we’ll find out in the sequel.

Post-production took place during all hours of the night. Since different groups were editing on Final Cut Pro at different times on different workstations with other groups’ footage (yeah, this went smoothly), sometimes we’d sit down only to find out that all the footage had been assembled already. Sometimes there’d be a take missing. More often than not, the footage would suffer from subpar audio. Since the instructors would only produce one class DVD, there was no guarantee your edit would ever be seen by anyone! A nice guy (and genius) named Chris assembled a montage to be used in the middle of the film, complete with superimposed calendar dates and a brief excerpt from James Horner’s A Beautiful Mind score. Some students even fudged around with this montage and in the final film, you can tell that it was tampered with and cut together with something else.

My one regret was that they didn’t use our version of the end credits. My good friend Steve included a song by Eric Idle titled “That’s Death.” At the end of the film, Howard thinks he smells gas, sits back on the couch, flicks open a lighter, BOOM! – cut to black, roll credits! A couple months later during the casting sessions for our 16mm films, someone walked in with the class DVD. I’d kill for an audio recording of our collective reactions. Between the commercials (one of which was accidentally omitted and replaced with another class’ commercial) and the film, what followed was twenty minutes of uproarious laughter, mouths agape, bug eyes, and the phrases I heard most frequently were “What the f--- was that?!?” and “Huh?” I don’t remember whose final edit ended up on the DVD but it was a glorious mess (and that’s when the dialogue was actually audible) full of bad edits and nonsensical events. Even some of the names in the credits were misspelled (and anyone who knows me knows I’m a stickler for that sort of thing).

After our class, the film school people got together and completely retooled the DC curriculum. Six years later, I have no idea what it’s like. I tend to divide the time at Full Sail between pre-DC (when we were all gung-ho and enthusiastic) and post-DC (when the egos took over and the age lines began to show). Another friend of mine recently expressed an interest in re-cutting (and, in theory, improving) the film. I said to him the same thing David Fincher once said about fixing Alien 3: “Better to burn it and start over!” Good times but the best and worst were yet to come…

Recommended Reading and Watching:

Kaufman, Lloyd. Make Your Own Damn Movie!. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 2003.

Lumet, Sidney. Making Movies. New York: Vintage Books, 1996.

The Making of Alien 3. Dir. Charles De Lauzirika (as Fredrick Garvin). Perf. Sigourney Weaver, et al. 20th Century Fox Home Entertainment, 2003. DVD.

Rodriguez, Robert. Rebel Without a Crew. New York: Plume, 1996.

Underdahl, Keith. Digital Video for Dummies.New York: Wiley, 2003.

[+] Read More...

Donnybrook Brewing At The RNC

Michael Steele, Chairman of the Republican National Committee, has found himself on the wrong side of conservative and tea party anger over recent months. He made some choices that upset even many moderates, particularly his early support for the far left Republican House candidate in New York's 23rd Congressional District. Only recently, however, have the internal battles become quite this heated.

In the New York race, a conservative Republican threw his hat into the race as an independent, and as a result, the Republican vote was split, the conservative came in second, and the Democrat won a longtime Republican district at the time of a trend otherwise going toward Republicans. That certainly didn't further endear him to those who were already questioning his decision-making abilities. It sounded too much like "business as usual, support the 'safe' candidate" to be palatable to the invigorated conservative wing of the party.

Over the past couple of days, the controversy has gotten even hotter. Steele announced that he didn't think the Republicans would re-take the House of Representatives in 2010. That may very well be true (and we have cautioned about overconfidence on this very site), but it isn't the sort of thing one expects from a strong, upbeat leader of a party that is clearly on the upswing. The job of a national chairman has two elements: First, head coach. Second, head cheerleader. The head coach side is already in question, and now the head cheerleader has led a cheer that sounds a lot like "we're number two."

Add to those woes that Steele is embroiled in the word that some of the Republican Party's biggest donors are not giving their money to the RNC. They are instead supporting state and local candidates and committees. Two reasons are given, and neither looks good for Steele. The first reason given is that Steele is good at the bureaucratic task of reacting to political disasters and attempting to clean up the mess, but totally lacking in organizational skills needed to "get out in front" of the trend and pick candidates who can win. By the time Steele puts money into a strong internal insurgency, it's often too late to put the "new" candidate into office.

The second criticism is that he doesn't seem to be aware of exactly who the big donors actually are. And if he does, he's been ignoring them. Christine Toretti of Pennsylvania and Lawrence Bathgate (former RNC finance chairman), large previous RNC contributors both, say that they've never received a personal letter or phone call from Steele. To some, that may sound petty. Still, big donors should expect at least the courtesy of personal contact, and the assurance that the chairman is fully in charge, and making good (not perfect) decisions. It's their own money, and the money of people who trust them, and they have every right to know that it's being spent in useful and dynamic ways.

Most recently, a third major criticism has dogged Steele. He is paid $223,500 annually for his job as chairman, not including almost unlimited expense reimbursement. Yet he somehow feels that he is also entitled to earn additional money making speeches when many say his time should be devoted entirely to the job of chairman. Steele has responded, somewhat weakly, that when he is making those speeches, he is also giving support to the party. Unfortunately, the job is specifically designed to raise and distribute funds, as in money, for national candidates. It is not simply to support Republican ideas. There are plenty of speakers to support the party and its principles, but they aren't paid solely to raise money for the party and to pick winning candidates. There is also a strong indication that he published his new book (Right Now: A 12 Step Agenda for Defeating Obama) and set up publicity without letting anyone at the RNC know about his plans. Rumor is that nobody knew he had a publishing contract ("more freelancing," as one RNC member says).

Harsher criticism, not entirely deserved from my point of view, is that Steele is the Republican Party's Obama. That has been floating around for some time. It unfairly posits that Steele was chosen solely as a token black to counter Obama's "post-racial" breakthrough. That contains an obvious hint of unspoken racism, but most who say it simply believe that it was a cynical ploy on the part of the Republican bigwigs. Steele is no "empty suit," and he was a good and honorable Lieutenant Governor of Maryland.

On the other side of the coin, Steele now seems to be taking heat from the Republican old guard for being "too tea party," or too conservative. That's a strange development, since even the old timers must realize that this is exactly where the 40% of Americans who have just self-identified as conservative want the party to go. In addition, late or not, Steele has just announced that he will be funneling money to conservative Republican Scott Brown in Massachusetts in the run to fill Ted Kennedy's old seat. Although Steele may not have made an early decision, he clearly picked up on the trend and sees that even a narrow loss for that seat would have huge positive implications for Republicans in the next regular Congressional election cycle.

Of course there are always those jabbing at Steele who say "I'm a lifelong Republican," and generally turn out to be nothing of the sort. They simply have found a forum to vent on. As a side note for those who haven't read my older columns, I admitted in no uncertain terms that I'm a former left wing Democrat who had an epiphany in the early 90s, became a conservative (not a neocon, thank you very much), and recognized that for all its faults, the Republican Party best represented the center-right coalition that America actually is. Steele is a loyal Republican, who didn't need an epiphany to realize what it took some of us years to learn. He does, however, need to learn that "give us a Republican, any Republican" is not a winning strategy during a conservative surge.

During Steele's tenure, he has thrown large sums into the gubernatorial campaigns in Virginia and New Jersey, two big wins for the Republicans. Although Haley Barbour and the Republican Governor's Association are to be much admired for their hard work and electioneering, Steele's contribution should not be dismissed in any way as insignificant. Whether his critics consider it cynical or not, it is genuinely important that an upstanding, successful black politician play a prominent role in Republican politics. The party is too often characterized as the white people's party, and though entirely untrue, the perception has been raised. If Steele is ultimately replaced, it had better be abundantly clear that it had nothing to do with his race, and everything to do with practical politics.

Steele also has a very strong argument going for him. He is herding Republican/conservative cats, and that's no easy task. Mistakes aside, he became chairman following and during devastating Republican election losses, and was put in charge of a party in total disarray with no clear goal and no agenda for the future. Then we were hit with a recession nearly unprecedented in our history. It would have been nothing short of a miracle if he hadn't made mistakes. His support for Brown in Massachusetts is a strong indication that he not only understands victory, but also the more subtle message that conservatives are worthy of support, even if the odds are that there will be a narrow ultimate loss to the Democrats.

My ideal chairman would pick every conservative in every race, which is why I'm not the chairman of the RNC. The Republicans lose enough elections without my help. A leader must lead, but he must also listen to his base and search for ground where the majority can join together. Perhaps he is not doctrinaire enough. But while the rest of us can look to our own districts and sense trends, Steele has two houses of Congress and the fifty states to work on, not to mention the presidency in three years. That's a bit more difficult, to say the least.

Steele should be reaching out to those big contributors. On the other hand, the phone works both ways, and instead of carping, perhaps some healthy input and a few lectures might be helpful to both Steele and the party. Wounded egos are no substitute for good alliances. Executives who won't listen to their counterparts are fools, and allies who don't push for the executives to listen to them are not much better. We are at a pivotal point in history right now, and a further divided Republican Party could undo future victory overnight. Whatever happened to the "Eleventh Commandment?" "Thou shalt not speak ill of another Republican?" to which I would add "at least nastily and publicly."

Steele on Thursday got testy (I would say understandably). He challenged his Republican critics to "fire me, or shut up." That is a very reasonable position, even if it was spoken in anger. Enough with the infighting and backstabbing. A decision needs to be made soon. Instead of withholding funds, bad-mouthing the chairman, and stirring up divisiveness, it's time for those who oppose Steele simply to challenge him for the leadership position. Lead, follow or get out of the way, but kwitcherbitchin. There are plenty of Democrats taking potshots at the Republican party in general and Steele in particular without the same thing taking place within the party. If it takes a good fight for the chairmanship to get this show on the road, then so be it.

I hope the party loyalists and conservatives in general understand that whoever is left standing after that battle gets our full support. Time is not on our side, and this street fight needs to end, soon. We have less than a year until the next Congressional and gubernatorial elections, and less than three years until the next presidential contest. A divided party, taking bitch-slaps at each other is not going to accomplish our goal.
[+] Read More...