Keep Your Friends Close--But First, Make Sure They're Friends

Just a mere few weeks after California Senatorial candidate Carly Fiorina was widely criticized and mocked from both ends of the political spectrum for her "Demon Sheep" attack on fellow Republican Tom Campbell, she's done it again. This time she dragged new Massachusetts Senator Scott Brown into her campaign, as a "friend." Someone forgot to tell Scott Brown.

Fiorina, a newcomer to California politics, is a Republican primary candidate in a three-person race to unseat Democrat Barbara Boxer in the general election. The race is tight, and as I've reported before, all three Republicans are now within the margin of error for beating Boxer. The other two candidates (Tom Campbell and Chuck DeVore) are to the right of Fiorina, and both have prior political credentials in California. Fiorina has a background as an executive at AT&T, Lucent, and most notably at Hewlett-Packard corporation from which she was forced to resign by the Hewlett-Packard Board of Directors. Her Republican political credentials are very thin, and her most notable entry into politics was her position as top economic adviser to "maverick" Presidential candidate, John McCain. 'Nuff said.

Fiorina's most recent campaign web ad (Demon Sheep Redux?) shows a smiling Scott Brown with the legend "Thank You Massachusetts. Now on to California. Join the Path to Victory." One would be tempted to think that Carly has hooked a big fish to help her with her campaign in California. It would certainly be fair to infer that she at least suggested an endorsement from Brown, a hugely popular candidate who came from an obscure spot in the Massachusetts Senate to become the replacement for Senator-for-Life, Democrat Ted Kennedy. There has been much talk (grossly premature, I might add) of picking Brown as the Republican candidate for President in 2012. Endorsements don't get much better than that.

Fiorina's campaign has said that the ad merely indicates that she wants to duplicate Brown's feat in California. No endorsement implied. Yeah, and if you believe that, I've got this big orange bridge I'll sell you cheap. A spokesman for DeVore said "It's crafted with this wink wink, nudge nudge that's meant to imply something that it doesn't explicitly say. You don't appropriate the symbol of Scott Brown and claim it as your own without validating him as a source." Campbell's media consultant tweeted "I don't know if she's claiming an endorsement but that's up there in the Scott Brown exploitation sweepstakes."

Unlike Fiorina, DeVore's people went directly to Scott Brown's handlers and openly asked for Brown's support. They were not entirely rebuffed, but a Brown staffer replied with "Everybody and their mother is asking for an endorsement and we don't want to get involved in a Republican primary." Clearly, the Brown camp was not rejecting the idea of endorsing the Republican primary winner down the road, but is wisely staying out of the politics of other states during primary season. Campbell, on the other hand, seemed to sense the inappropriateness (and poor timing) of even asking for an endorsement from Brown. Short of opposing a KKK or 9-11 Troofer candidate, it is simply unwise for a Republican from one state to interfere in the internal politics of the primaries of another state. Wise politicians recognize that (although pace DeVore, there's no harm in asking).

Political science professor Larry Gerston summed it up by saying: "It's not unusual for people running for office to make exaggerated claims. As to accuracy, well, accuracy sometimes takes a back seat to emotional appeal in politics." Although I see the professor's point, that's an excuse more than an explanation. Fiorina at best has shown bad judgment, for the second time in a rather limited time-frame. She could at least have run it past Brown's people, and perhaps gotten his approval for a use of his image in a far less-obvious ploy to suggest endorsement. All three candidates are perfectly justified in using the Massachusetts Miracle as a guideline for a Republican victory in Democratic California. But that doesn't mean they should drag Brown into a race that he has not chosen to participate in.

Showing the images of Brown, new Governor Chris Christie of New Jersey, new Governor Bob McDonnell of Virginia, along with an image of herself would have suggested a "trend." Showing Brown alone followed by the statement "Thank you Massachusetts. Now on to California. Join the Path to Victory," clearly suggests in the strongest way possible that Brown has endorsed Fiorina. Fiorina needs to learn the old adage that just because you can do something, it doesn't necessarily follow that you should. Her twin misjudgments at least indicate that she is too reliant on subordinates. If she can't pick a good ad agency or good public spokespeople, what kind of aides is she going to pick if she actually wins the nomination and defeats Boxer in the general election?
[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

ObamaCare Takes Hard Left Turn

This morning President Obama unveiled a new version of ObamaCare. If you believe the MSM, the reason was a last ditch effort to save health care reform and to get the public’s support for his “negotiations” (read: trap) with the Republicans on health care. Not quite. This bill is an attempt to energize the left, and it takes a disturbingly hard left turn. . . one that deserves the dreaded "S" word.

Let’s start by pointing out that nothing the Congressional Democrats have done with health care could be called “center,” “center right,” or even “center left.” Their plans have involved pure, old-fashioned liberalism: direct government participation in the market, massive regulation of private enterprise, forced participation by the public, unaffordable promises of subsidies, a one-size-fits-all plan for the little people, and soaking the rich and evil corporations to pay for this healthtopia.

Let’s also point out that during this entire debate, Obama remained conspicuously silent. Even his speech to save health care was vague and noncommittal. The reason for this was not, as the MSM would have it, to avoid Bill Clinton’s mistake of being too forceful. The reason was that Team Obama simply didn’t have a plan. Indeed, to this day, they still have no ideas. They have wants. . . a wishlist, but they have no idea how to implement those wishes. Thus, rather than expose their inadequacies, they deferred to Congress -- creating a royal mess. In fact, Obama’s refusal to referee disputes between Democrats was the key factor in creating the chaos that ensued (even the MSM is starting to catch on to this).

So what’s changed? Why ObamaCare 2.0?

Obama needed to reconnect with his hard left flank. They are furious that they’ve gotten nothing from him and his Democratic super-majorities, and they now lay the blame at his doorstep. Unless he can change this and inspire them, they will sit out the next two elections and the Democrats will get slaughtered. Hence, ObamaCare 2.0.

What Obama has done in this version 2.0 is take the Senate bill and add a few panderings to placate his left flank. Here are some of the new provisions that should worry you:

• The prior versions prevented insurance companies from rejecting people for pre-existing conditions, but they didn’t control what the insurers could charge for such policies. This version does. In fact, this version would prohibit insurers from charging more for pre-existing conditions period. In other words, the guy who needs the heart and lung transplant pays the same as the healthy 20 year old.

• This version all but eliminates the tax on Cadillac plans, to placate the unions. Why is that bad (beside the pure politics of it?). Well, to make up the missing tax revenue, this bill (1) increases the payroll tax on "the rich" (read: "the employed") AND (2) it changes the way Medicare taxes are determined -- they would now be based on your total income (including investment income, interest, rents, etc.) rather than being merely a payroll tax. . . so much for encouraging savings, and (3) an increase in the capital gains tax. All of these are direct job killers.

Of course, on the plus side, everyone will now have to file taxes and that’s a good thing because it eliminates the something-for-nothing mentality created when 40% of people were taken off the tax rolls.

• Finally, and most importantly, it would give the federal government the power to regulate the health insurance industry like a public utility, meaning a board of seven HHS employees would be able to (1) block premium increases, (2) set premium rates, and (3) demand rebates for consumers.

That’s called “price control” and it didn’t work for Richard Nixon and it didn’t work for the Soviets. So why is Obama channeling Nixon. . . or Brezhnev?

I do not use the word “socialism” lightly, as you’ve no doubt learned from reading this blog, but this is pure socialism. This moves so far beyond mere liberalism that it is shocking that an American President would suggest it. It is even more shocking, given the 100% failure rate of such policies in the past, that anyone with a brain would try this again.


[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Are You Nuts?

The new DSM (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders), Fifth Edition (DSM V), is in the final stages of preparation for publication. The DSM is often referred to as the "psychiatrist's bible," which makes sense since psychiatrists rarely consult real Bibles, and "evil" is not a mental disorder to be dealt with. You can't make money by billing Medicare and the insurance companies for treating evil people, only "sick" ones.

One of the best ways to insure that your billing gets paid is to create all new mental disorders, or find arcane ways to define common character flaws as diseases to be treated. Psychiatrists, with the willing assistance of governmental bureaucrats and the public in general, have made a major industry out of mental illness. They alone get to decide what's "normal," and who are you to dispute them? Are you a psychiatrist?

Be sure to note that the operative word is "psychiatrist." Psychologists are another thing entirely. They don't have a big enough union to set national standards. Psychiatrists don't just get paid for talking and listening, and accomplishing nothing. Unlike psychologists, psychiatrists have medical degrees, which allows them to use drugs as part of the talk and listen. And unlike the average psychologist, psychiatrists have actually made some great breakthroughs in treating certain mental diseases with largely organic causes. Schizophrenia comes immediately to mind.

For psychiatrists, asking "And how do you feel about your five year old son acting out?" is not enough. He must follow up with "And how do you feel about my diagnosing Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder and prescribing drugs to 'cure' him?" This was one of the earliest newly-created disorders which took boisterous boys and turned them into mental defectives in need of drugging. Your son's inattentive? He's rambunctious? He doesn't follow orders well? DSM comes to the rescue. Drug the little psycho until he's compliant. Christina Hoff Sommers did a pretty good job of describing how the radical feminists convinced psychiatrists to decide that little boys who don't act like little girls must be mentally ill and in need of drugs in The War Against Boys. Boys who didn't fit the proper mold were being brought into line with drugs as far back as the early 70s. Prior to that, we all just waited for them to grow up and behave. An occasional paddle had also been applied back in the Dark Ages.

The latest "advance" in psychiatry is the proposed addition to the DSM of "psychosis risk syndrome." Some teenagers and young adults do, indeed, show early signs of mental illness, occasionally including mild delusional behavior. We used to call those "phases," and though potentially serious, conscientious parents and friends simply helped wherever possible and waited to see if something actually came of it. By their own admission in the Journal of Clinical Psychiatry in a major study entitled Intervention in Individuals at Ultra-High Risk for Psychosis, the study found that seventy percent of those identified as potential risks never went on to develop the mental illness feared.

In The Wall Street Journal of February 19th, psychiatrist Sally Satel has said that: "Since we don't know who those [30%] will be, otherwise healthy kids will be exposed to potent antipsychotic medications and their side effects, such as diabetes and weight-gain." She goes on to conclude that treatment is not especially effective in forestalling psychotic illness in that minority destined to develop it, and therefore "until the science of prevention becomes more advanced, it is better to keep psychotic risk syndrome out of the main DSM, placing it in an Appendix for Further Research."

Another problem with modifications, additions to and deletions from the DSM is the problem of ever-shifting parameters which are often as sociological as they are medical. Is homosexuality a mental disorder? At one time, the DSM said "yes." Then it said "maybe." Now it says, "probably not." What does any of that have to do with medical treatment? Psychologists, politicians, moralists and theologians can argue over the issue from now until doomsday, but until somebody actually finds that elusive "gay gene," it is not a proper subject for a psychological-medical approach, let alone designation as "abnormal" or "normal." You can't "cure" or palliate a "disease" that has no scientifically-proven organic basis with drugs. So the psychiatrists should simply keep it out of the DSM, however it is described, and leave it to the rest of us to debate simply whether it's "right" or "wrong."

An example of changing the parameters of the ever-increasing diagnosis of autism is another example. That does not necessarily mean that autism itself is any more of a danger than it was 100 years ago, but as the definitions shift, so do the number of positive diagnoses of the disease. There have at least been some serious scientific studies which indicate strongly that some forms of autism are almost purely organic/genetic in nature, and therefore possibly amenable to drugs. There have also been studies that show that drugs can be the very cause of autism. Autism exists, there is science built around it, and therefore belongs in the DSM in some form or another.

But now the new DSM proposes to replace Asberger's Disorder as a separate category, and toss it into the larger category of Autism Spectrum Disorder. Asberger's kids tend to be very bright, overactive, have early language delays followed by the development of perfectly normal or even advanced speech abilities, and they (via their parents, of course) object to being place into the general category of Autism which largely describes children with serious concentration, intelligence and language deficiencies.

And let's not forget the potential Christine Jorgensens of this world. The proposal on the table is to remove the classification of Gender Identity Disorder. That has stirred up a big brouhaha among those who wish to change their sex. The camps are divided into those who believe the disorder should be removed from the DSM because it implies they are mentally ill, and those who wish it to remain in order to have their sex-change procedures covered by insurance and government programs.

The DSM III was the break from the original approach of simply describing Freudian concepts of unconscious conflict and stunted sexual development and leaving it to the individual psychiatrist to determine if his or her patient suffered from it, and whether psycho-medical procedures would alleviate the problem. Published in 1980, The DSM III switched to describing mental illnesses based on symptoms. Add up enough symptoms, and you had the disorder. That had the advantage of allowing two or three separate psychiatrists to interview the same patient, and agree that the patient had a disorder based on the symptoms rather than acute observation by one psychiatrist acting alone. It established a necessary uniformity, but it tended to leave little to individual observation and divergent treatment.

The DSM III carefully warned psychiatrists to be wary of diagnosing a disorder and automatically turning it into a mental disease to be treated with drugs. Depression, a common symptom of humans world-wide, can have so many causes that it is dangerous to assume it is always organic and permanent or even amenable to drug treatment. It can range from a serious but temporary condition caused by a current crisis or tragedy to a lifelong clinical problem which may or may not be amenable to drug treatment. And the treatment is often as dangerous as the condition. Yet by the time of DSM IV, the warnings had essentially been removed, and clinical depression was diagnosed far too often because at the time of the interview, the patient exhibited all the classic symptoms.

As Dr. Satel concludes, "In the preface to DSM III they said 'this symptomatic approach to defining mental disease is only one still frame in the ongoing process of attempting to better understand mental disorders.'" She concludes that "thirty years later, despite undeniable progress in brain science, we are saying much the same thing." Defining mental illness solely by an accumulation of symptoms does both the art and the patient a disservice, which DSM V ought not to be perpetuating. There is a great deal more to a human being than his or her symptoms, and psychiatrists, of all people, should recognize that and use the DSM as a tool, not as a Bible.
[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

The Weekly Bidenism

After last week's stunning claim that Bush’s surge in Iraq would be Obama’s greatest policy achievement, Joe felt ready for the big leagues. So he took on Dick Cheney, the boogey man. He lost. But in his defense, he was sabotaged by. . . himself. Get ready for. . . The Weekly Bidenism.

You may or may not have heard that Dick Cheney accused the Obama administration of not taking terrorism seriously. Cheney had some reasons, though no one apparently told Joe what they were, because Joe’s defense was summed by Joe as such:

“I just think he’s wrong. He thinks I’m wrong. I think he’s wrong.”

Now that is one compelling argument. It’s logical, it’s laid out so anyone can see that Joe is right, and oh! the command of facts! I must admit, I’m almost convinced. If only Joe could give me one more reason to think that Cheney might be wrong. . . perhaps impugning Cheney’s motives? Let’s ask Joe:

“I’ve never questioned another man’s motive.”

Oh come Joe, pretty please?

“I mean, it’s almost like he forgot he left us a $1.3 trillion debt. There were two wars going on, one that was ignored, one was -- wasn’t going all that well.”

Thanks Joe, I knew you could come up with a reason that Cheney must be lying, he must be trying to cover up that horrible Bush record. . . wait a minute. What’s this about a $1.3 trillion debt? The debt under Bush was $9.9 trillion, the deficit was $200 billion. I wonder what Joe could be talking about? Maybe Joe was just angry when he said this -- Joe has admitted that, kind of like the Green Hulk, he exaggerates when he gets angry.

Oh wait, I know! He’s talking about the $1.3 trillion deficit (not debt) that Obama racked up last year (or maybe he means the $1.6 trillion deficit he’s planning for this year -- you never know with Joe)! So if a $1.3 trillion deficit discredits a man, then Joe has just discredited Obama. Nice Joe, truth suits you. . . you should try it more often.

And what’s this about one war being ignored and the other not going so well? Didn’t you tell us last week that Obama’s biggest achievement was Bush’s 2007 surge? How could Iraq not be going well? As for ignoring Afghanistan, I seem to recall one simple Senator from Delaware swearing that a surge wouldn’t work in Afghanistan. . . of course, that was before Obama implemented an Afghan surge.

But it wasn’t just Biden’s blasting of Obama/Cheney that caught my attention last week, no, no, no, no. What I found truly interesting was Joe’s attempt to assure us that Obama has made the country safe from terrorism. Let’s listen to Joe, as he soothes our fears:

“We have made more progress in dismantling the hierarchy of Al-Qaeda central [nah nah nah, we killed more bad guys than you did]. . . and evidence of that is, now they’re going to lone bombers as the means to get there [you mean like the suicide bombers they’ve used in every attack other than 9/11?]. … I'm more worried about, and harder to detect, and I'm very concerned about a terrorist attack in the United States along the lines of the 'Christmas Day bomber.' You get a disgruntled student, someone who has some relationship with the United States who is -- able to be recruited quickly, able to be indoctrinated quickly. And they say, basically, 'Here's a bomb. Go do it,' as opposed to the kind of planning that's needed to pull off -- a very complicated 9/11. Am I less worried about an attack? No, I'm worried. Am I less worried about a catastrophic event? Yes.”

Because planes blowing up is not a “catastrophic event” unless there are several at once? And did Joe just say that by succeeding against Al Qaeda, Team Obama has made them more dangerous? And is it really smart for Joe to assure us that this administration is on top of the terror issue by telling us how worried he is about this “new” (read: ancient) threat of single bombers? Maybe we should avoid planes and other public transport, just as he suggested during the swine flu faux-crisis:

"I wouldn't go anywhere in confined places now… When one person sneezes it goes all the way through the aircraft. That's me. I would not be, at this point, if they had another way of transportation, (be) suggesting they ride the subway."

Ah Joe, you make scaremongering an art form, even when you aren’t trying.


[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Anti-Intellectualism Is Not An Answer (By Itself)

I've been around the political world long enough to watch the possession of a degree from an elite university go from being a nice thing to have when you're running for the presidency to a "credential weapon" to beat your opponents over the head with. This is an unhealthy development which has produced an anti-intellectual backlash which is equally unhealthy.

Right at the moment, I'm in "a plague on both their houses" mode. Waving one's lack of education around (or the alternative of a degree from a lesser school) is no better than waving around an Ivy League degree which is supported by no accomplishment and no paper-trail (Obama, anyone?). If you're lacking in the "fancy education" department, prove your worth with intelligent words and deeds. If you're waving around the degree from Harvard or Columbia (or UC Berkeley, LOL), prove that your smarts and acts match your lofty degree.

I've expressed my low opinion of what passes today for "higher education" in past posts, as well as my admiration for people with common sense and good instincts. But I have also made it clear that if you can put common sense and good instincts together with a couple of hard-earned degrees in serious academic disciplines, you might just have the recipe for the perfect candidate.

The latest round of anti-intellectualism and pride in lesser education clearly revolves, in large part, around Sarah Palin and Barack Obama. The moment Palin became the Republican candidate for vice-president, Obama and Biden trotted out their educations (questionable as both are). At first, Palin replied with excellent and funny counter-attacks. Today, I have begun to sense that the battle has hardened into something much more sinister--on both sides.

The Democratic elites are determined to paint Palin as a country rube with little formal education. Palin has rightly struck back by pointing out her accomplishments so far (which I'm not here to dispute). But "so far" is the key expression here. She has yet to show the political acumen, stick-to-itiveness or intellectual rigor that I tend to favor in a presidential candidate. But she might yet do so if she doesn't fall into the elitist trap of pooh-poohing everyone with a degree from the Ivy League or other elite universities.

Since there is no question that I would be more than willing to vote for a high school graduate with the proper temperament and intelligence against an over-degreed intellectual snob, it falls to me to point out why I am defending intellectuals in general while at the same time pointing out the problem with the intellectual elite of the past two or three decades. Part of my higher education was learning to separate an intellectual from a pseudo-intellectual, particularly in the political arena.

This preoccupation with college degrees serves some purpose. It can be a measure of determination or intelligence. But basic education has been so dumbed-down and politicized that smart kids who didn't have the means to get a college education are frequently simply eliminated from the "good jobs" pool by rigid employer rules requiring the possession of a college degree. I would have been one of them had it not been for the California State Scholarships and NDEA loans that made it possible for me to wend my way to Berkeley. As much as you may all have read about radicalism at Berkeley, the simple fact is that all the elite schools I referenced still maintained the old academic standards, remained politically-neutral, or nearly so, in classes, and expected nothing less than high academic performance, or bye-bye. This was all before grade inflation and social promotion.

Today, academic achievement and just plain "smarts" at the lower levels of education no longer are the main criteria used to choose the freshman class at the elites and the Ivies. Much of that derives from the "social experiments" with education over the past two or three (or even four) decades. The public schools today are in dreadful shape, and for a very long time have been the producers of most of the future college professors and college students. The public schools have been the cauldron in which all the crazy ideas of progressive education and social experimentation have been boiling since at least as far back as the late 60s.

The old concept of the rigorous grammar school or Latin school for public school students is dead, dead, dead. Smart parents who want their children to get a good education are left only with good parochial schools and even better private schools, both of which are often far outside the ability of the parents to pay for. Many have resorted to home-schooling, and though that has proven to be highly successful for those who have the brains, time and the means to do it, it is a limited option. Why else would you think that the elites love public schools, but send their kids to expensive private schools and oppose voucher programs?

Only in the private and parochial elementary and high schools is the "old education" preserved. That old education includes moral guidance, largely derived from religion and the ancient philosophers rather than from radical "educators." And it included what is often referred to as the basic "three R's." The even more rigorous "classical education" produced scholars who could do mathematical calculations without a calculator, quote Cicero in Latin, and write passable classical Greek. And that was only the "elementary" schools. Modern philosophers were rarely included at the lower-levels until the students had already studied the classics.

I have seen what National Review's Michael Knox Beran calls "degree fetish" advance from "you must have a bachelor's degree," to "you must have a master's degree," to "you must have a PhD (or its equivalent)." Today's PhD's have no more intellectual ability than the holders of bachelor's degrees that I knew in my youth. And today's PhD holders have exhibited a very old European attitude toward degrees--a PhD holder simply doesn't associate with a mere baccalaureate nor will he take anything the lesser-educated man or woman says seriously. This is the doctrine of unintended consequences writ large. The progressive education public schools were the progressives' way of "giving everyone the same educational advantages." Instead, they created a system in which the old high school diploma was at least equal to the new bachelor's degree. It led to the European-style elitism that we see today throughout academia, and which has been fully foisted on the American people.

So Palin has a degree from Nowhere U, and Obama has a degree from Columbia and a law degree from Harvard, and that put her at a disadvantage that required the educated elite, along with too much of the public, to snort at a level of education considered insurmountable. Obama's subsequent failure at almost everything since being elected, however, is not an excuse for anti-intellectualism. It is merely proof that a degree can mean a great deal, or absolutely nothing. What are they saying? What have they done? What are their plans for the future, and how do they intend to implement them while correcting mistakes made along the line? Those are the question that should be asked, not solely "what degrees do they have?"

Progressive education and the public schools have fortunately produced one excellent by-product. And that is smart people who instinctively knew they had been robbed of a real education, and found ways to get them on their own--with or without a degree. The cultural elitism and socialization that have replaced basic education have also left the average Joe with a foul taste in his mouth. As a result, there is a Tea Party movement, fully exhibiting the popular dissatisfaction with "in-groupness," herd thinking, and surrender to one's degreed "betters."

Today's higher-education, combined with all the preparation for it in the progressive social programs fostered in the lower-education levels, have led to a complete disconnect between phony intellectual elites and the realities of the American mind and soul. That doesn't disqualify highly-intellectual and well-degreed Americans from the right from participating fully in the American political process. If you think it does, consider the following: William F. Buckley, Jr. Whatever else she may think or ultimately say and do, Sarah Palin has gotten the underlying issue right. She espouses "American values" and contrasts those with the aspirations of "elite education." She points out the arrogance of the intellectual elite currently in power with the thoughts, dreams and aspirations of the common American. If she can stop there and not turn it into an "us versus them" know-nothing anti-intellectualism, she will do herself a very large favor.

I'm not sure where Palin derives her views on intellectualism, or even what they actually are. But she has gotten the concept of "show me, then I'll believe you" right. Lionel Trilling and Gertrude Himmelfarb (a disciple of Burke) said that knowledge and education, divorced from the moral imagination, are dangerous things. I would add that I believe that rigid application of standardized liberal academic concepts along with "pure science" when dealing with the real world of human beings are likewise very dangerous. They destroy the soul, the intellectual elite become the "higher power," and consensus quickly replaces debate and sound reasoning. And as a final thought, I remind everyone that the great intellectual, that selfsame William F. Buckley, said that he would trust the wisdom of any ten names randomly chosen from the phone book over that of the entire Harvard faculty.
[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Film School Follies: Part 15 – The Worst of Times III

By ScottDS

Science fiction author Jerry Pournelle’s "Iron Law of Bureaucracy" states: "In any bureaucracy, the people devoted to the benefit of the bureaucracy itself always get in control and those dedicated to the goals the bureaucracy is supposed to accomplish have less and less influence, and sometimes are eliminated entirely." Judging from my experience on this film, I would have to say Mr. Pournelle’s logic is sound.

Field Trip

At no point during pre-production did anyone say, "Well, it’s a good thing the script is finished! Now we can move on to more important things!" The script that we (Ryan, Jerrod, and myself) worked on would have to do – even though no one was ever 100% satisfied with it, including us – and the script that was revised behind our backs would be forgotten (though it was included in the wrap book). Unfortunately, while it was nice to have this debacle behind us (almost), it definitely made me paranoid, knowing that: a.) people worked on it behind our backs and what would stop them from doing something similar in the future (?), and b.) other people knew what was going on and didn’t tell us: "What did you know and when did you know it?" But we couldn’t rest, not on our tight schedule. One of the perks of shooting in 35mm was that we could go on location.

June 7th, 2004. This wasn’t an official [location] scout, just a preliminary scout to get some ideas. The usual suspects were in: Gema, Ryan, Jerrod, Will, Jeremy, Matt, and me. Dennis and Chris couldn’t make it. We went to Siemens first. They had a very nice building [seen in the film D.A.R.Y.L.]. The parking area was even rounded off with a little hill. I figured if we could shoot there, we could use the crane to get a nice Spielberg-style reveal, starting at ground level and booming up to reveal the building in all its form and splendor. However, it wasn’t meant to be. The frumpy Rent-a-Cop at the front desk said photography was prohibited so I wisely snuck my camera into my pocket. They did have a nice office – it looked like a big atrium, almost. Will did the talking. He asked the guy if we could speak to anybody about either: a.) taking some photos, or b.) shooting the exterior. We were denied. Will pressed the guy further. [The guy] called someone but I doubt he even rang an extension – he asked and was given a prompt "no" so we thanked the little troll for his help and left.

We drove a little further down the road to the next building. It was quite a sight seeing all these American flags at half-mast, what with the death of Reagan and all. We went inside the second building. Same thing: we asked, they said no. This time they gave us a business card but when we got in the car, Will realized there was no actual contact info on the card itself, just some hiring info. How disappointing. We passed by a third building of similar design, but we skipped it. We arrived at Kroger Center, a small industrial park on the northwest corner of Alafaya and University. Nice looking buildings, but with two caveats: palm trees and glass surfaces. We couldn’t shoot in front of a building with palm trees [for obvious reasons] and we couldn’t risk seeing our reflections in the building itself.

We also went to downtown Orlando. I was still more or less miserable but I think everyone enjoyed the day. I remember we spent a lot of time at the intersection of Orange Ave. and South St. just across from City Hall. I took reference photos and Chris and Jeremy no doubt tried to determine where we’d park the grip truck, set up craft services, etc. Shooting on location can be fun but there is a lot of work involved: city permits, county permits, parking, cooperation from law enforcement, etc. Every major city has a film commission but, given that we were students working on a non-profit short film, we may have been able to skip over much of this bureaucratic nightmare. The lone bright spot of our June 9th pre-pro meeting (in which we were to "vote" on scripts) was Will informing us that he may have secured an empty office location to shoot in! But like so many other things on this film, it was all for naught.

June 17th, 2004. I feel bad for Will after all he did in securing that building downtown. Ryan comes up to me a few days ago and says he doesn’t like it. Jerrod and I are okay with it. Matt thinks it’s a waste of time. I’d like the camera guys who want the experience to do second unit [shooting exteriors while we shoot interiors on the soundstage] but I’m not sure if we can do second unit and I’m hearing that we’re better off shooting at Full Sail [outside the building itself] since it’s closer, easier, and still counts for a location. Jerrod and I went to Bealls [a department store that Full Sail annexed] to check out their facilities. Jeremy told us it’d never work. The air conditioning would wreak havoc with the audio, there is only one bathroom, it takes forever to turn off the plumbing so we’d hear every toilet flush, we’d never be able to get in after hours to dress and decorate the set. The list goes on and on and on and on.

Katie showed us a small office in Full Sail 3. I think it could work but, on second thought, it’s too damn small. Matt said we’d never be able to put all our lights in there even though [the other] Scott said it’d work out okay. It was just about five feet too small on all sides. We’re going to build everything on stage. We might as well build an office that’s small. That way we can use wild walls [walls that can be moved] and we’d be able to light it the way we want. Claudia wants us to come up with a company name and perhaps an idea of what the company actually does. Ryan is insistent on calling it "The Company." I’d rather use a name. Jerrod, too. Ryan’s opinion is that the name/business isn’t important and he’s basically right but a name would add realism to the proceedings. I love that Claudia wants to design corporate logos, paperwork, etc. but I hate having her do it for "The Company."

Just like that, we went from possibly shooting in a real office downtown to shooting on stage in an office of our own design. Both had pros and cons but at this point, it just seemed like one disappointment after another. I never had an in-depth conversation with Will but he couldn’t have been happy. Besides, shooting downtown in a major city on a weekday – it would’ve been a logistical nightmare. I could just imagine a multi-car pile-up on the highway or someone parking the grip truck in the wrong spot and getting fined.

June 20th, 2004. We had our last pre-pro meeting a few days ago and I think it went reasonably well. Claudia pitched us an idea that we already thought was set in stone: the idea of shooting in a real bathroom. The bathroom in FS4 was mentioned and Bill told the three of us to take a look. I didn’t want to leave the meeting with Ryan and Jerrod, lest the others decide to turn our momentary absence into an all-out bitch session, but that’s just my paranoia again. Anyway, we went to check out the bathroom. Dennis came along with his video camera. We agreed that it was just a tad too small. We came back and told Claudia that we had every intention to build it. The only problem was that a couple of shots (ones I had planned) called for four walls. I decided, spur of the moment, to nix the offending shots. The rest of the meeting went fine. Claudia told us that she’d be quite busy this weekend. I offered to help; she politely declined.

We had to share the soundstage with the other two films and my first reaction after the guys outlined the available floor space was, "This’ll never work."

Perpetuum Mobile

After the meeting with Disco (discussed in the last blog), we agreed to another meeting at my place to iron out any and all remaining issues with the film. Bill didn’t show up but Will and several others did. It wouldn’t be our last meeting, either.

June 14th, 2004. After I compromise and agree to a meeting (mostly to avoid Disco’s wrath), [Bill] has the nerve not to even show up! Ryan showed up early. That was a little awkward. Jerrod showed up after that. Then Dennis with his video camera. He wanted to shoot some behind-the-scenes footage and interviews. I told him I’d love to be interviewed at a later time when I wasn’t expecting company. I didn’t want to be babbling about all the bulls--- in front of everyone. Will comes. He tells us Bill won’t be attending. Jeremy, Chris, Andrea, Matt, and Billy all show up in due course.

We talked about the title of the script. Some are concerned that we might be perceived as a Natural Born Killers spoof when that isn’t the case at all. I said to everyone: "We’ll keep the title for now. If anyone comes up with a better one before we’re done with the film, we’ll use it." [Another] thing was the ceiling tile gag, an idea from the infamous "behind our backs" script. Jerrod actually liked the idea when coupled with a line about "free healthcare." I did too, as long as the tile didn’t fall on anyone. I guess Ryan decided to do it just so everyone would be happy and forget about it. Kit did a rough count of our script the other night and we came down to about a 1.5:1 shot-take ratio. [For every one and a half shots, we’d only be allowed one take!] We wouldn’t be able to reshoot the ceiling tile gag if it didn’t work the first time. Billy said he wanted to use the car rig, which would allow us to film someone driving a car. We said thanks but no-thanks and Chris backed us up on this. It would be unwise to start throwing random shots in the movie just to play with new toys. If the camera crew wants to work on it during labs, that’s their thing.

This is what filmmaking is: lots of meetings. Between the camera crew not being able to play with the gear, the difficulties with the script, Ryan nixing Will’s location... it was always a question of, "What’s next?"

June 17th, 2004. [...] I think I feel a tiny bit better about last night’s meeting at Ryan’s place. Barely. At times, it seems Bill is almost too comfortable just a few feet away from the limelight. He doesn’t have as many responsibilities as he did in 16mm. Will thinks we’re on track just fine, I just hope he isn’t in denial. Dave doesn’t seem as open with me as he did just a month and a half ago. The rest (I think) are doing okay. Tomorrow I have my observation with Gema and Claudia of the [current class’] 35mm shoot. I just hope they don’t make me a door P.A. like they did to Andrea. Then, at 3:00, we have another pre-pro meeting with Katie. I hope all goes well and why shouldn’t it? We know what we have to do. Claudia needs to draft a final floor plan so we can do character blocking so Matt can decide where to put the camera so Jeremy and Chris can schedule the shoot so Demitris can tell the actors when to show up so we can make a movie!!

One of our pre-production assignments was to observe the making of a 35mm student film. Gema, Claudia, and I were assigned one particular timeslot in which to do so and we ended up helping the production assistants. This film (I don’t remember the title) was shooting on a set made to look like an old bookstore and I remember the assistant director telling us all the books needed to be piled in a cart and wheeled away so the art director could turn the set into something else for the next shot. So that’s what I did – I cleared bookshelves for thirty minutes before sneaking away and going home!

June 17th, 2004. The 1st assistant directors, Will, and Bill stayed along with Katie to have a little chat [while we went to check out the bathroom]. I stuck around the office [afterwards] so I could talk to her. At one point, Disco entered the room, then called for Matt a few minutes later. I just sat at Katie’s desk and worked on one of Spoon’s bulls--- assignments. An eternity later, Matt came out of the room. I tried to ask what it was all about. Matt said that some of the crew have been having some problems with him. I told him that, despite our previous difficulties, I have enjoyed the collaboration. I guess Matt has stepped on a few toes or gotten into some arguments. I really have no idea and it’s probably not my place to ask. I thought the little meeting was a "Which director should we fire?" meeting but Gema told me not to worry.

I did some rudimentary character blocking diagrams with a pizza in one hand and my trusty mechanical pencil in the other. I handed the sketches to Matt and he’s working on camera blocking diagrams as we speak. I also revised the shot list to reflect changes we’ve made, mostly deleting shots and relabeling others since one scene is actually two scenes. I wonder how that one managed to slip by.

June 23rd, 2004. I don’t know who told me this (Gema or Andrea) but I think we might have reached our peak with Sanguinity. After business class, I think everyone has graduation and careers on the mind. I think we’re all not as eager to impress as we once were. I’m also starting to think we made a mistake by not shooting either the office floor or bathroom on location especially since our sets are smaller than the already-miniscule office and bathroom they have elsewhere in the building. However, we [simply] wanted the extra control. Matt didn’t like the idea and I trust his judgment as DP. Or maybe I’m using his judgment to justify my own insecurities and worries. Jerrod and Ryan seem very lackadaisical on the subject, at least that’s the way I perceive it. Bill also got a little pissed off today, since we’re the biggest group and we have the least amount of work done. We are behind!! Thankfully, he managed to have four people stay for two hours after class to build. I would have stayed but I had to go home and eat.

"All the world’s a stage..."

For those of you taking score at home, that’s three directors almost fired, one director of photography almost fired, and one location nixed. We didn’t have time to think about it because we had a set to build. Ryan’s script called for an office bullpen, a manager’s private office, and a bathroom with stalls and a connecting janitorial closet. The area we had to work with measured 28’ by 20’. By this time, my heart just wasn’t in it anymore and I spent many days during set construction either sulking or out in the hallway talking to my mother on the phone. Unlike 16mm, here we actually had a budget and if we went over, then it would be money out of our pockets. No one knew who was in charge during this phase. Was it Claudia? Was it the 1st assistant directors? Was it us? Each film had a set design lab assistant but Bill wasn’t too fond of our guy and would often come up to us and say, "Ignore everything he just said." At times it seemed like no one was on the same page.

June 23rd, 2004. Set design was a little hectic, or not hectic enough depending on whom you talk to. We didn’t have enough materials to work with until after lunch. Josh disappeared halfway through. Claudia and Jor’El worked on blueprints. I spent most of the time helping Gema and Dennis with a very annoying door. Dennis is cool but I think he got a little out of it by the end when the door wouldn’t open. He punched it, thus rendering the door useless. We had a new one in no time at all. Andrea helped out but because of an arm injury she received a couple months ago, she really couldn’t do any heavy lifting. We did manage to put up the paneling in Stanley’s office. It looks good – just the right amount of tackiness. It’s one of the few things we all like. I still think the office floor set is too small. I know most of the crew thinks it’s fine but this all goes back to us. Ryan, Jerrod, and I could have decided to shoot on location but it would’ve meant losing five hours a day for lighting and wrap and an extra hour on the last day. I didn’t want that and I don’t think [they] did either.

Sadly, sometime during set construction, Jerrod and Matt decided to nix our only crane shot – something the camera crew was looking forward to working on. Neither of them told anyone else so when Jerrod said, "The crane shot is out" during one of our meetings, Ryan and I could only look at each other and wonder what happened.

June 24th, 2004. Set design was hectic but productive. Jeremy and Dave went through hell trying to get lumber and paint. Claudia had a whole plan for the windows that Todd [our lab assistant] basically threw out the window (no pun intended). Camera lab was almost a joke. Jeremy chewed us out for not having our s--- together. I just sent him and Chris an e-mail explaining things. I feel awful about it. I know Jeremy’s a quick temper at times [but] I feel for the man. I think [Jerrod] took the crane shot out without telling us. Maybe he thought we knew. I don’t know. I hate to see the camera team disappointed, especially Billy who had mentioned using the car mount. He wants to learn the gear and, through our sheer incompetence, we’re not letting him. There’s always lab but I’m sure he’d like nothing more than to bring home the class DVD and show his family his handiwork.

Things have just been dour from the beginning. I don’t regret my decision to work on this film instead of In the Nude but I’m getting there. I felt awful at the meeting today. Jeremy threatened to quit. I know Bill wouldn’t bat an eye but I’d never be able to forgive myself. Am I placing too much blame on myself? Yes. Will Ryan and Jerrod admit their mistakes? Maybe. I told Andrea that I hate to think what the situation would be if it was just Ryan and Jerrod directing. I know it sounds egotistical but I couldn’t see it happening. She said they’d get walked all over. I want us to make the best movie we can but there is too much negativity.

There are [small] triumphs. Nick [from the Nude crew] helped us get the old cubicles from the DC soundstage. I hope tomorrow’s better. Having said that, I know it won’t be. It’s one step forward, three steps back. [Ryan and Jerrod] might think I’m too controlling but it’s only to compensate for their occasional lack of decisiveness. Ryan is so soft-spoken... hell, if he were directing solo, it’d never work out. Jerrod is somewhere in the middle. I don’t know if he’s still trying to make an impression on the Sanguinity vets but I think everyone likes him. I just couldn’t see him being very vocal. And worst of all, I lost a bag of Skittles!

Claudia was able to obtain a Canadian flag and had Kinko’s print a large banner that stated, "If it goes south, it’s food out of our mouth." She had to have them print it twice after they made a typo (and refused to acknowledge it, if I recall correctly). We had all the usual office tchotchkes, which were found in storage. The bathroom set turned out nicely, with authentic fixtures and stalls with hinged doors, though I don’t remember approving the color scheme. The bathroom ceiling had to be connected to a pulley system so it could be retracted when not in use (per the fire code). The janitorial closet was painted black (we had to steal the black paint) and, per the script, was supposed to be vandalized with anti-Canadian graffiti. At first, I used spray paint and later had to stop when it became apparent I was almost high. We decided to use chalk instead. (Bummer!) The closet scene required us to shoot the actors looking into it and from the point of view within the closet itself looking back at the actors. Claudia ingeniously had two separate sets constructed – a three-walled closet with a doorway for the actors, and another three-walled set with no doorway in front of which the actors would stand.

June 27th, 2004. Claudia is slowly going crazy, I felt like the captain of the Titanic post-iceberg when I was walking around the sets. I did smile for the first time during set design when I saw Chris and a few others corner Kit with paint rollers. The Paint Wars it was called. Fun stuff. I’m just sick of, "Scott, we need to have a talk." It’s not worth the trouble for me right now. If this means I’m not fit to be a director, then so be it. I’m dreading getting phone calls, hoping for the best but thinking the worst.

In my next blog, I’ll talk about casting. In my journal, I wrote: "...I fear that our initial trepidation which lead to a s---y set will translate to the screen and it’s bad news for a Full Sail film when, so far, the acting is the lone saving grace. I’M NOT HAPPY!!" And I will also talk about the tragedy that finally woke us all up.

To Be Continued...


[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Obama Has A Nuclear Plan

Oops--wrong picture. That's Iran's nuclear plan in the photo. I actually meant to talk about the President's plan for using nuclear power as a clean, safe energy source. Sorry if I scared you. Having discovered nuclear energy and declaring there is such a thing as "clean coal," Obama is getting nuked from the left.

We've all known for a long time that while the Democrats and their radical environmentalist cohorts have been so busy trying to sell us windmills, solar panels and other hare-brained schemes for the production of mass energy that they've ignored or denigrated nuclear power. But the news is that the left will no longer follow obediently in the Messiah's trail of hypnotized disciples. Obama has decided that nuclear energy is a good idea after all, and they're not having any of it.

Obama finally comes up with a reasonable idea that would create real jobs, utilize a power source that is abundantly available within our own country, produces almost zero emissions or greenhouse gases, and could reduce America's dependence on foreign oil by huge sums, so the left goes ballistic (no pun intended). He's willing to pump $8.3 billion in loan guarantees into the project of building two reactors in Georgia (not the Georgia next to Russia), and suddenly the left has discovered the word "billion." Huge sum (Oh yeah? Have you seen the deficit?). The Green people don't mind spending billions of greenbacks on their silly projects, but when Obama decides to spend the taxpayers' money on a proven power source, they become Ebenezer Scrooge.

We also know that Iran understands nuclear energy. After all, if it didn't work beautifully, why would they be buying all that enriched nuclear fuel when they're sitting on oceans of the oil that we're paying so dearly for in the Middle East? They wouldn't be trying to build a nuclear bomb, now would they? Obama understands that we must get into the nuclear race so that we get our abundant nuclear energy before Iran gets its abundant nuclear energy. I'm sure all this talk about Iran wanting the fuel for building nuclear weapons is just another one of those Israeli plots to take over the Muslim world.

New York Times enviro-hack John Broder has built an entire article around his contempt for Obama's abandonment of the anti-nuclear power greenie-weenies. He carefully interviewed many "experts" in the field (environmental extremists, all) then produces the article in that unique "settled science" way we've all come to know and love from the kooks. First, Broder ignores all the possible uses and costs of nuclear energy, and chalks Obama's stance up to "trying too hard to placate the Republicans." Thus, Obama is a know-nothing about science in Broder's mind, and he's willing to go off on a tangent just to satisfy Republicans. Broder is willing to impute ignoble motives to The One rather than consider that the President may be acting sanely for the first time in his entire occupancy in the White House. I think Broder's a racist. Why else would he insult the President?

Broder avoided the New York Times editorial and its experts. The editorial opined that "President Obama's decision to commit $8.3 billion in loan guarantees to help build two nuclear reactors in Georgia and restart the American nuclear power industry makes good sense. We know that many environmentalists want Mr. Obama to put all of his chips on energy efficiency and renewable fuels, like wind and solar power. But nuclear power, which generates far fewer greenhouse gases than ordinary fossil fuels, should be part of the energy mix as this country and others move toward a less-carbon-intensive world." The editorial continues in the same vein, but you get the idea. The editorial staff doesn't really agree with Broder, but that didn't stop him.

Bill Snape at the Center for Biological Diversity was quoted by Broder as saying: "I think we all had higher hopes. We expected a lot in the first year, and everyone agrees they didn't quite live up to it. But there is recognition that [Obama] and the whole administration will get another stab at it." Not content with his disappointment on nuclear power plants, Snape had to add that the president was also ignoring his favorite subject. "You can't get anything right unless you get the polar bear right."

Another Broder expert, Frances Beinecke of the Natural Resources Defense Council expressed disappointment in the focus on nuclear power, but felt he also had add his contempt for clean coal technologies, which Obama spoke of in the State of the Union address. A cynical ploy to get votes from the states dependent on mining coal or that burn it for electricity, Beinecke says. Broder quotes Beinecke as saying: "N.R.D.C. knows there is no such thing as 'clean coal.' Every single step in the coal power cycle is dirty, from the profoundly destructive mountaintop removal mining to the smokestack emissions, which are responsible for 24,000 deaths a year." Beinecke didn't state whether polar bears were included in the death toll.

Broder also cites Daniel J. Weiss, who is the president of the ultra-liberal Center for American Progress. Weiss not only attacked the idea of nuclear power generation, but jacked up those all-important "billions" to $54 billion to include projects not yet on the drawing boards. Weiss doesn't want to spend money on nuclear power, so he wants you to know how much money he doesn't want to spend, including guesses. Says Weiss: "The president's embrace of nuclear power was disappointing, and the wrong way to go about winning Republican votes. Mr. Obama should not be endorsing such a costly and potentially catastrophic energy alternative as bait just to get talks started with pro-nuke senators."

Weiss was actually Broder's only "expert" who even bothered to address a direct criticism of nuclear power plants by calling them dangerous. Almost nobody believes that anymore. The potential is always there, but Three Mile Island is no longer the technology being utilized, and Chernobyl was the result of doing it on the cheap and not caring who might get hurt. Europe is heavily-reliant on nuclear power plants and has been for decades. Not a single major accident. And if Weiss is talking about security from terrorist attack, even Obama sees that danger and plans to make sure the developers work with national security on protecting the plants. Maybe Weiss is referring to the ecoterrorists that he sympathizes with.
[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Re-Booting The Star Trek Re-Boot

The new Star Trek movie didn’t thrill me. Sure, as shallow summer CGI-blockbusters go, it was acceptable, but it wasn’t anything more than that. This movie had none of the depth and sophistication of the original episodes, nor did it have the essence of what made the characters so great. It was little more than Pirates of the Caribbean In Space meets Star Trek Babies, and I guarantee you this new franchise has at most two more movies in it before the audience loses interest in the big shiny explosions. But I’m not here to rip this movie apart. Instead, I’d rather talk about what would have made a better re-boot.

What kind of Star Trek reboot would I have done? For starters, I would want something that kept the original spirit, only updated it with a more intense story and better effects. It would need to be something that both the fans of the original could like as well as non-versed new comers. So why not start by taking a few of the better episodes, combining them, modernizing them, and adding a few twists.

Just as importantly, we need to keep what made the characters work so well (there is no way that any of these Star Trek Babies grows up to become the series characters) and it would be a nice touch to explain some of their idiosyncrasies. Finally, because it costs us nothing, let’s respect the series history rather than throw in a ridiculous time change cop-out (which still can’t explain why they’re all at the Academy together and suddenly the same ages).

I would begin with the incident mentioned in Obsession (gas cloud monster) where eager young, by-the-book Lt. James Kirk of the USS Farragut freezes up for a split second, leading to the deaths of several officers including the captain he idolized (Captain Garrovick). Kirk freezes because shooting the gas cloud would have killed his then-girlfriend (who is the science officer on the Farragut). When he freezes, it attacks the rest of the landing party and kills them. This gives us the question of whether or not Kirk can make the truly hard decision of sacrificing someone he loves to save others.

Fast forward several years. A no-longer-by-the-book, Kirk boards the Enterprise for the first time as Captain. He is replacing the very popular Captain Pike, which gives us a chance to see if Kirk can win over the crew.

Spock, who is already on the Enterprise, was Pike’s science officer and represents the voice of reason. Sulu, also already on board, represents the voice of Pike’s crew. McCoy comes on board for the first time with Kirk, but has not previously known Kirk -- he will be the voice of the audience. Also coming on board with Kirk, as second officer of the Enterprise, is Kirk’s best friend from Academy days. These characters will let the audience see Kirk’s actions being judged from different perspectives.

Kirk’s first assignment is to take a science team to the outer rim of the galaxy to investigate and cross over an energy barrier that rings the galaxy and seems to hold it together. The science team includes Kirk’s (now ex) girlfriend from the beginning of the film. She still pines for Kirk, but he has an aversion to her because of the bad memories of the Farragut incident. This gives us a potential romantic interest and lets us see how Kirk is dealing with his own past. Moreover, you can add the element of him trying to resolve the conflict between wanting a relationship but simultaneously believing that would interfere with his duties as Captain.

Kirk tries to take the ship through the barrier, causing the ship to become damaged (see Where No Man Has Gone Before). Several people die and a handful of people start developing strange ESP powers -- including the ex and the best friend.

As the crippled ship heads to the nearest Federation outpost, things start to go wrong. First, they encounter the remains of an alien spaceship. During the next hour of the movie, Spock will slowly decode that ship’s logs. He will learn that the crew came under attack from both within and outside of the ship, and that the alien captain blew up his own ship, but they won’t know why until near the end of the movie.

In the meantime, strange things start to happen. They discover a ship following them on their sensors, but can’t get near it (like a sensor mirage). It’s like they are being stalked (see Balance of Terror). People also start to see visions of ghosts walking the hallways and hear things pounding on the hull. Soon people are hallucinating, with deadly consequences.

In this portion of the film, I would go for a level and style of horror similar to The Grudge -- uncomfortable and disturbing (a little shocking), but not gory.

As these events begin, the crew believes that they have intruders aboard. Then they start to think they brought something back from the destroyed ship. But as Kirk’s friends gain more and more ESP powers it becomes clear that they are manifesting these nightmares. Further, as their powers grow, they start “losing their humanity” as their powers corrupt their thinking. This lets you play with the “power corrupts” angle and the “fear drives us to do bad things” angle.

As these powers grow, they become increasingly menacing to the crew. Spock tells Kirk they cannot be allowed to reach a populated planet -- he also discovers that this is why the alien captain destroyed his own ship, so his ESP-enhanced crew would not be unleashed on a populated planet. At the same time, McCoy is working on a cure, but likely won’t find one in time.

Kirk is now facing THE choice -- egged on in multiple directions by Spock (“act now”) and McCoy (“give me time”). He can’t let his friends reach the nearest outpost, and he must protect his crew, but can he kill his friends in cold blood? That is the very issue Kirk could not resolve at the beginning of the film with the gas cloud.

In terms of adding a little action, as Kirk is making the decision, I would have the “sensor ghost” (now nearly fully manifested) finally attack the Enterprise. This would be the final trigger that pushes Kirk to make the decision. So does he kill them? Of course, because he’s Kirk and he makes those kinds of hard decisions. But if this is written well, the audience should not be sure until he does it that he will actually do it.

Then wrap it up with a speech about duty, and stressing that while space exploration is dangerous, it is in our natures to take risks.

The end.

I think this movie does a good job of keeping the spirit of the original, updating it, and creating a movie that is both challenging to the audience and yet accessible without being lost in Star Trek minutia. Also, this movie leaves the door open for all kinds of stories in the future because it’s character-driven and you can go in any number of ways with future scripts (kind of like the new Doctor Whos). By comparison, the reboot they actually made can only lead to more CGI action flicks.

That’s my opinion, and I’m sticking to it.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Boxer May Be Down For The Count

I'm not quite sure what Madam Senator Her Royal Highness Barbara Boxer is doing in the photo, but I'm pretty sure it's not a gesture of surrender. More like, "Oh, please, you can't possibly think I'm going to lose, can you?" But despite her bravado, even she can't be so stupid as not to know she's in serious electoral trouble.

Boxer was originally elected to the office after the retirement of the effective Democratic Senator Alan Cranston when he decided honorably (unlike some of his fellow Senators) to leave office after he admitted to his involvement in the Keating Savings & Loan scandal that ultimately resulted in massive government seizures and the creation of the Resolution Trust Corporation to salvage what assets remained. Boxer had previously served five terms as the very liberal House Representative of Marin and Sonoma Counties. She also spent liberally, being one of 450 Congressional Representatives involved in the scandal of writing large overdrafts on her Congressional checking account. Practice for the future, I suppose.

In her first run for Senate, she defeated TV personality and political novice Bruce Herschenson by 4.9%. And that was only after her campaign committee ran a late hit ad attacking Herschenson for having attended a strip club. Six years later, she defeated lackluster Republican candidate and former State Treasurer (who at least knew how to balance a checkbook) by 10%. In her most recent bid for re-election in 2004, she defeated Republican opponent, the stolid, fiscally responsible, and uninteresting Bill Jones, former California Secretary of State by a twenty point margin in a state increasingly becoming spending crazy and naturally Democratic (they're really good at spending the taxpayers' money). Needless to say, California is now facing the biggest state financial crisis in U. S. history, going from the richest state in the union (and fifth or sixth largest economic governmental entity in the world) to the closest to absolute default on all its debts. The state's bond rating is currently one step above "junk bond" rating, and for all intents and purposes is already there. Yes, California does indeed lead the nation.

A September 2009 poll showed Boxer at 41% approval rating, with a 44% unfavorable rating. A March 2009 Field Poll had shown 44% "likely to vote against her" and 43% "likely to vote for her." All of that occurred before the Obama programs she strongly supported began to become increasingly and vocally unpopular. It was also prior to the Virginia and New Jersey gubernatorial surprise Republican victories, and the Massachusetts Miracle of the election of moderate/conservative Scott Brown to replace, of all people, the late Teddy Kennedy. His Democratic opponent ran a terrible campaign, and got last minute support (of a sort) from President Obama, but he was really running against the leftist Kennedy's agenda.

Boxer will now be running on her own liberal record, in an anti-incumbent, anti-liberal Democratic year. Californians have increasingly come to understand why businesses and middle-class resident are fleeing the state in droves, and with them go those all-important taxpayers. And they aren't headed for other tax-and-spend states.

Recent polls have put all three potential Republican opponents in the general election within the margin of error. Tom Campbell and Carly Fiorina are within four points, and Chuck DeVore is within five points. Likely Republican voters favor Campbell by a decent margin over the other two. The margin of error is not only very close, but may not take into account the fully-energized Republicans, conservatives, and moderate independents who are definitely facing a dispirited Democratic Party which does not have a coattails president to help (Obama's support has been fatal in every major race he has "helped" with). Race is not an issue this time, which puts the black vote back into traditional low turnout likelihood. Liberal free-spending Democrats are currently about as popular as a warthog at Easter Sunday services, even here in California (never mind the Jerry Brown sure-thing for governor, even Brown doesn't know where he stands on just about anything).

Boxer has a very slim record of individual accomplishment. Can you think of the name of a single Boxer/Senator X bill that became law? Either can I. No Boxer/Feingold, no Boxer/Kennedy, not even a Boxer/McCain that I can recall. But when she votes, it's a sure thing. She'll be with the far left wing of the Democratic Party, joining Pelosi in condemning Obama for being too timid. And speaking of Barack Obama, he won California by 61% just a little over a year ago. Boxer's current numbers are less than 50%, and she is currently hovering in the mid to high 40s, along with all three of her potential Republican rivals. The combination of an incumbent with less than 50% and potential opponents within the most liberally skewed margins of error is a very dangerous thing for Boxer.

The liberal Los Angeles Times recently headlined: New poll--Now, signs of real vulnerability for California's Democratic Sen. Barbara Boxer." The equally (if not more so) liberal San Francisco Chronicle recently proclaimed: "Court campaign ruling puts Boxer on alert--and in trouble." The most favorable Chronicle headline in SF Gate (the online version of The Chronicle says "Boxer still leads, but opponents closing in," in a reprint from the online San Diego Newsroom article by Emily Holding. The latter sounds a lot like whistling past the graveyard.

No matter what happens in the primaries, Boxer will actually have to face down serious Republican opposition for the first time. Bad year for Democrats everywhere, and even the most RINOish of the Republican potentials, Carly Fiorina, is very rich, has a huge war-chest, and is very articulate and a good public speaker, though she lacks solid political experience. And Fiorina just ran an attack ad on Campbell entitled "Demon Sheep" which made next to no sense at all, and drew national guffaws from the left and the right. It made the rounds of the internet as a sick joke, and proved her early political ineptness. Yet even Fiorina is within 4 points of Boxer. The subject of her primary attack, Tom Campbell, is a solid conservative with a good political record, and though he runs as a very traditional, thoughtful Republican, he is also extremely internet savvy, and loves Town Hall type meetings, in person and online. He is also within 4 points of Boxer, gaining ground, and now raising good sums of campaign funds using the internet "money bomb" that served Democrats so well a year + ago, and served Scott Brown in Massachusetts even better.

The Supreme Court ruling that gave equal standing to corporations with unions and individuals under the Freedom of Speech First Amendment has ticked off liberal Democrats, and particularly Barbara Boxer. She just recently shot hersef in the foot attacking the ruling because it gave corporations "too much power" and made them into individuals, or so she says. She is definitely no constitutional scholar, and followed the lead of her president, who also got it wrong. But for Boxer, this is a real problem. Though big corporations tend to be largely supportive of Democrats, Boxer has never been one of their favorites. By making the recent announcement she has both damaged what little standing she had with the big corporations, and energized the small to middle sized corporations who intensely dislike her. The big corporations are more likely to spend their money on shaky Democrats in states like Harry Reids's Nevada, where airtime is considerably less expensive than the San Francisco Bay Area, Los Angeles, and San Diego mass markets.

That leaves the field to her major corporate enemies, the smaller corporations who will be delighted to use their ancient, then removed (McCain-Feingold), now restored power to affect elections. The Republican National Committee is very likely to spend major funds on the California election, citing the state as the "next Massachusetts." And unlike Brown taking the seat of a deeply popular Kennedy, Boxer is highly unpopular among her non-supporters and her support among her friends is a mile wide and an inch deep. The Supreme Court ruling has lefties so frightened that crypto- commie and general all-around America-hating George Soros' online mouthpiece, MoveOn.org, has begun a petition to amend the Constitution to override the Court's decision. At least seven pieces of legislation are floating around Congress to try to end run the decision, as if the ruling didn't benefit unions every bit as much as it benefits corporations.

In a race as close as this one, large infusions of cash from non-corporate independent individuals and re-energized wealthy individual Republicans could easily tip the scales in the Republican candidate's favor. Boxer has never faced a truly tough, determined Republican opponent during an anti-incumbent year, and she has about as much charisma as a loaf of stale bread. In addition, her enemies don't dislike her, they hate her. Her recent arrogant treatment of a witness before her committee solely because he called her Ma'am in a very gentlemanly manner instead of Senator did not play well with anybody. It indicated both nastiness and a crippling need for respect she has never earned. Former Senator and Governor Pete Wilson, now chairman of the Fiorina campaign, has pledged to spend the committee's money to the tune of $40 million dollars, and the primaries are only now in high gear. Imagine what the Republicans are likely to come up with for the general election. And Boxer's fundraising activities are floundering, though she's not exactly broke, having raised almost $40 million dollars for her own campaign.

The bottom line is that Boxer is up the poo-poo creek, with a very weak paddle. But it's going to be very hard work. Incumbents are in trouble generally, particularly liberal incumbents who are in lockstep with Obama, but the habits of three former election cycles are not easily broken. Much of the decision may come from Boxer's lack of any deep personal support from most of her Democratic colleagues, and her acid-tongued way of saying the nastiest things to the nicest people certainly doesn't help. Her only genuinely enthusiastic supporter is her buddy Nancy Pelosi (a member of the Unholy Trinity of Boxer/Feinstein/Pelosi) who is also very popular in the liberal portions of the San Francisco Bay, but poison statewide, even in Los Angeles. And even Di Fi is not organizing any big bandwagons for her Senate colleague.

Stay tuned for future articles and updates. The political climate in California is in serious flux. The Republican primary is heating up, particularly between Campbell and Fiorina. If Campbell can pull it off (which is a distinct possibility), and DeVore throws his enthusiastic support to Campbell in the general election (don't expect enthusiasm from Fiorina, but it's not particularly important so long as she doesn't support Boxer in the general), this may very well be the first Republican Senatorial victory in many, many years for California. Although I have voted for the Republicans since 1994, I have not given personal monetary or financial support to any of the Republican Senatorial candidates, until now. My name is Legion (Lawhawk Legion, to be exact), and if I'm really into this election, I know others who have been tepid in their support of Republican Senatorial candidates are equally energized this time.

If one of the three Republican candidates wins the general election, it will be the first elected Senator from California with an R in front of his or her name since 1992. Pete Wilson resigned to run for Governor, and was elected to two terms. His interim appointed replacement (the eminently forgettable John F. Seymour) lost the special election to Dianne Feinstein. As we say in California, "pray for surf (and for the Republican candidate)."
[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Captioning: Jimmy Gets A Day Job

I think we just found out what Jimmy Carter did after he left the White House. Habitat for Humanity my butt. . . more like DeathStar for Democrats. Looks to me like someone's been running the evil Galactic Empire. The power to destroy a country is insignificant next to the power of the farce. . .



[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Question: Olympic Events

Olympics? What Olympics? Oh. . . those Olympics! The ones with curling! What are your favorite Olympic events? And, just for fun, what would you add to the Olympics if you could? Naked ping pong? Mascot basketball? Biden motorcade dodging? [+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

San Francisco Diary--Journal Of An Exile

We're having a break in the weather, but that doesn't necessarily mean a change for the better. It's still bitter cold, but not as bad as it was for awhile. And unlike poor Southern California, we're not getting torrential rains and landslides. But one thing I love--the fog is back. The fog San Francisco has long been known for has been very spotty over the past fifteen to twenty years. Must be global warming/cooling/climate change.

NOTE: Speaking of things related to the climate, "Sunshine on my shoulder makes me happy," but in the way of San Francisco, there are groups who want to decide how much sunlight is good for you, where it should be shining, and who's in charge of the sun patrol. Under the city government aegis, a group has been formed to decide on the proper ratio of sunlight to shade in San Francisco's public parks. And you thought sunshine and shade just sort of happened, didn't you? Not in San Francisco--we must form an action group, spend taxpayers' money, and decide that man proposes, but the Board of Supervisors disposes.

Most cities just check the trees out occasionally to see if they're healthy, but San Francisco is among the few who apply the careful scientific study of feng shui. Now understand, this event is not a new taxpayer waste. Awhile back, Supervisor David Chiu prepared an ordinance for the June ballot which was entitled: Park Sunlight Protection Ordinance. He had the support of four other supervisors, with the mayor in mild opposition. The ordinance tightened shadow restrictions already in place for downtown parks by taking away the discretion of city commissions to allow buildings that might cast a bit of extra shadow but provide other, better benefits that would offset the small loss of sunlight.

Taking away the powers of San Francisco's multiple conflicting and mostly useless commissions is serious business. If it weren't for the commissions, who would stop reasonable growth citywide and impose idiotic green restrictions on the developers? Answer: The Board of Supervisors. This is a big deal, everybody says. So aides to Chiu and Newsom are working with the San Francisco Planning and Urban Research Association with the catchy acronym SPUR. They all plan to work very hard, they say, and get these issues so vital to San Francisco resolved by early summer. Now you have those in favor of reasonable development, the Greens, the supervisors, the eco-freaks and opponents of tall buildings and tall trees all fighting with each other to prepare an ordinance in time for submission to the voters at the November election.

The Sunshine Patrol is essentially saying that the protection and regulation of sunlight is more important than any other issue that might shape how San Francisco grows and evolves. The United Nations Plaza had been a disaster and home for drug dealers and bums for many years. The ordinance would stop any plans to revitalize that area, along with the desperate need to revitalize the entire Market Street area from civic center to Sixth Street. It would also interfere with buildings and plans that have already gone through extensive public review. The attacks, which purport to regulate trees, have actually centered on the newly-finished One Rincon tower, and the San Francisco Federal Building, with nearly no discussion of the "shadows," just their height.

As one San Francisco writer has said, "Downtown open spaces aren't just sylvan retreats. Their urban setting can help make them thrive." In a vertical downtown like San Francisco's, the sunshine ordinance would simply bring all development to a halt. San Francisco needs to preserve its regional sustainability (this ain't a giant pasture), and the objections to tall buildings simply ignore the reality of developments like the Yerba Buena Center, which has plenty of tall buildings combined with well-maintained plazas and parks. Oh, and plenty of sunshine.

NOTE: This past Sunday, billionaire Larry Ellison won the America's Cup race with his high-tech state of the art yacht. It brings the Cup back to America for the first time since 1995, and it will reside here in the Bay Area. The winner of the Cup gets to pick the venue for the next race. Ellison wants to hold the race on San Francisco Bay. If you haven't ever seen the Bay, you may not realize how huge it is. The race would fit into the confines of the Bay with absolutely no problem at all. Sailboaters and yachtsmen sail the Bay almost every day of the week and some never venture beyond the Golden Gate and out to sea.

This creates two problems. Ellison has already spent millions just on the development and building of his winning Yacht, the USA-17. It's a trimaran, by the way. Ellison's largest opponent, and former winner is Swiss billionaire and rival yachtsman Enesto Bertarelli. It would now take millions for development of proper racing yacht facilities already available in Valencia, Spain (the site of the most recent race) and Auckland, New Zealand (the site of earlier races).

Bertarelli can match Ellison dollar for dollar if that's what it takes to build facilities. So Bertarelli has raised the second problem. The rules of the America's Cup Races in the original Deed of Gift says that the race must take place on "ocean courses, free from headlands." The only way to get around that would be by unanimous agreement of all the participants, an unlikely outcome. And it also turns out that Ellison has made the initial proposal without consulting The City of San Francisco, the other Bay cities, or the Port Authority.

If Ellison is determined to hold the event with an American port as the anchor, Newport, Rhode Island hosted the event from 1851 on, the original race being around the Isle of Wight. The schooner "America" beat a fleet of British vessels in the race, and thus the Cup became known as the America's Cup. So far, since the year 2000, Ellison has spent over $400 million on his venture. His local contact is the Golden Gate Yacht Club, which is where this trophy will be displayed pending the winner of the next race.

As much as I would love to see the race come to San Francisco Bay (I could actually see major portions of the race from my north facing windows), I just don't think it's in the cards. Oh, well, I'll just have to watch the regular sailboats on the Bay to relax.

NOTE: Harry Reid is coming to town. You better watch out, you better not pout, oh, forget it. Anyway, San Francisco is noted for its riotous demonstrations, and this was no different. But since conservatives don't riot, that leaves the field to the left. California's lefty climate suits Democratic politics just right, and San Francisco is not just the Golden Gate City, it's the Golden Goose City for Democrats--usually. Not so with Reid. He has earned particular enmity from San Francisco liberals who refuse to blame Obama or Pelosi for the failure of nearly every Democratic initiative in the past year. On Tuesday morning Reid arrived in town with empty moneybags waiting to be filled. He got some of that, but he also got a few unpleasant surprises.

One protest sign that was popular was a picture of two testicles, and the demand "Grow some." Also, there was "shape up or ship out--backbone needed." An expansion of the latter theme was "If you pass health care reform, you will be able to afford a spine transplant!" "You have a majority--Act like it." "At least Palin quit her job when it became too tough." "Health Care, not Wealth Care." And the inevitable, "Be more like Nancy." I think the one that said "Welcome to San Francisco" may have been insincere. LOL I don't remember that there were any window-smashings or bomb-threats, but otherwise it was the same kind of reception normally reserved for Republicans.

NOTE: Former San Diego Mayor and California Senator Pete Wilson has been made the chairman of the Team Whitman senatorial campaign, and he came out swinging. He said that he (not personally, of course) would match the $40 million dollars that former Governor Jerry "Moonbeam" Brown (currently California Attorney General) has set aside for dirty tricks against Meg Whitman. As Wilson said, "Game on!" He also said that "Jerry Brown and his allies are beginning the General Election today. We must respond." Brown has been playing reluctant virgin about an official announcement of his candidacy, and to the best of my knowledge, he hasn't yet officially declared. But since he has absolutely no serious rivals within the Democratic Party, maybe he just forgot, or I missed the anticlimactic announcement.

I'm not sure that Wilson's public declaration of a dirty war is the smartest thing to do. Particularly since he has criticized Brown's tactics by saying "They will use any means possible, including this multi-million dollar negative assault, to try to stop Meg's message of reform." If you're going to play dirty pool like the enemy, it's usually a good idea at least to pretend you won't, at least until you have the campaign funds in your hands.

NOTE: The San Francisco Chronicle poll has listed the ten most vulnerable U.S Senate seats. According to their poll, nine of them include North Dakota (Byron Dorgon, the Democratic incumbent is retiring); Delaware (Ted Kaufman, the interim Democrat Senator, is retiring); Indiana (Democrat incumbent Evan Bayh has just announced his retirement); Arkansas (Blanche Lincoln, Democrat, is to the left of the citizens of Arkansas, and is facing a conservative/Republican surge); Nevada (Democrat majority leader Harry Reid is simply intensely disliked in his home state); Colorado (Democrat incumbent Michael Bennet was appointed by an unpopular lame-duck governor, is facing a tough primary, and will face Lt. Gov. Jane Norton in the general election, who has great name recognition in Colorado); Pennsylvania (former Republican, now Democrat Snarlin' Arlen Specter, has made enemies in just about every camp); New York (incumbent Democrat Kirsten Gillibrand replaced Hillary Clinton, and seems to suffer from perpetual foot-in-mouth disease); and Ohio (The only Republican incumbent on the Chron's list, announced his retirement). Ohio is a hard one to call since the major recession brought Democrats statewide into office, but the ongoing fiscal crisis has brought Republicans and conservatives back into favor).

That's an interesting list. The Chronicle is an ultra-liberal newspaper, and tends to skew all polls toward Democrats. And yet nine of the ten "in-play" states have Democratic incumbents or Democratic leanings.

So who's the lucky dog who holds the tenth seat that the Chron thinks is in serious trouble? The winner is--California. Even the Chronicle has figured out that Barbara Boxer is an acid-tongued witch, with no real accomplishment, who is now facing some serious Republican opposition in a year where even Californians are fed up with liberal nostrums, by-the-numbers statism, and institutional fiscal disaster. This is going to be an anti-incumbent election that will toss Democrats out if they don't have a record of accomplishment and a certain personal appeal. Boxer has neither. California could just be the next "miracle state." More on Babs in my post tomorrow.

NOTE: Well, here's a new wrinkle. San Francisco's mercurial mayor has now decided that he might just like to run for Lieutenant Governor. This man needs to sit down, take a deep breath, and just decide what he wants to be when he grows up. He made just about every mistake that could be made before he decided to abandon his run for governor (largely in anticipation of a landslide loss to equally mercurial former Governor Moonbeam Jerry Brown. So now what? Does he think that Brown's likely victory in the governor's race (if he ever decides he's actually going to run) will make a victory for him easier? California has a long history of electing governors from one party and lieutenant governors from the other party. Only recently did that change, and right now the political climate for second-echelon Democratic candidates doesn't look good. Brown himself was scared to leave the state for political junkets and governor's conferences because his Republican lieutenant governor, Mike Curb, would quickly put things into effect that Brown opposed. When the governor is out of the state, the lieutenant governor under California law becomes the acting governor with the full plenary powers of the governor in issuing executive orders.
[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...