Thursday, April 22, 2010

(Un)Exempting Churches From Gay Rights Laws

One of the concerns religious groups raise whenever they are confronted with gay rights laws is that they will be forced to condone something they consider immoral. “Nonsense!” say the proponents of these laws, “we’ll exempt religious organizations from the law.” Well, England has now shown exactly what those exemptions are worth, and churches are right to be concerned -- especially since British leftism eventually infests our left as well.

Some time ago, England passed laws forbidding discrimination against homosexuals in hiring. At the time, those laws included an exemption for religious groups that consider homosexuality immoral. In the past month, the British Labour Party has tried to pass a law “clarifying” those exemptions. What they tried should send up huge red flags to anyone who thinks that people have the right to maintain their own beliefs.

Specifically, Labour tried to pass a law that expanded the anti-hiring-discrimination laws to all aspects of religious organizations, except for the hiring of clerical personnel. That's right, everyone except the actual priests, ministers, rabbis, shamans or imams.

Calling this a “cautious aim” and “fairly modest,” The Economist said:
“[The government] was not questioning the right of religious bodies to follow their own beliefs when hiring priests or imams; it merely wanted to clarify that, in recruiting for non-religious jobs (accountants, for example), churches must obey the law and refrain from discrimination against gays.”
Oh, is that all? So churches have the right to their beliefs, but they can only exercise those rights in rare occasions -- when it comes to choosing actual priests. For all other jobs, they need to follow the beliefs established by the government, instead of their own?

Does anyone see a problem with this? The Economist surely doesn't because they don't really believe churches should be doing this. But I wonder how they would feel if we looked at this principle more broadly. Indeed, while we’re busy defining when you can and can’t exercise your beliefs, why stop with sexual orientation? Why do we allow religious discrimination for example? Shouldn't we force churches to hire atheists? So long as we don’t require them to hire atheistic priests, then we aren’t really questioning their right to follow their own beliefs, are we?

No doubt The Economist would approve of that because they have over the years shown a pretty clear dislike for Christianity. But Christianity isn't the only religion. Maybe we should force Mosques to employ Jews and Synagogues to hire Muslims? I can't see why this would be a problem so long as they were free to pick their own imams and rabbis?

By the way, if you think this can't be a problem, let me point out part of an argument before the Supreme Court this week. In a case where the court is deciding whether universities can ban Christian groups who refuse to admit gay members, one of the justices asked the representative for the gay group: if we don't let the Christian group control its own membership, what keeps others who disagree with their views from flooding into the group and voting themselves into the leadership and, basically, taking over the group? The answer: well, they could go form a new group if that happened. Seriously? Ok, let's run with that...

With that in mind, let's not forget that these laws apply well beyond religious institutions as well. So shouldn't gay groups be forced to hire devout Catholics and Muslims. . . except for their most senior positions of course. Though, now that I think about it, I'm not even sure why we should exempt their senior positions as those aren't "religious" positions, are they? And while we're on a roll, why shouldn't pro-abortion groups be required to hire devout Roman Catholics? Shouldn't feminist groups be required to hire devout Muslims? And if not, why not. . . as The Economist says, it’s not like this will interfere with their beliefs. And if they don't like it, they can just go form another group, right?

Seriously, this shows the left’s promises for what they are: lies. They promise an exemption and then quickly redefine the exemption into absurdity and then eliminate it all together.

It also show the danger of letting the government decide what you can believe and when you can act on those beliefs. If we take this law seriously, then no group can be safe from a determined opposition seeking to infiltrate the group and destroy its message. . . all sanctioned with the force of law.

If you believe, as I do, that people have the right to their own beliefs, be they right, wrong, stupid, offensive or otherwise, then this is the sort of thing that should scare you: the government telling you when you can and cannot exercise your beliefs.

And if these things do happen, then activists on the right should get their resumes ready. It's open season on leftist interest groups!


[+] Read More...

Question: Take Me To Your Leader

Let's get a little science fictiony today. How would it change your thinking if aliens landed tomorrow and asked our planet to join the Gallactic Federation? Do you think that would change your views on economics, human nature, religion, right and wrong, the meaning of life, or anything else? If so, how. . . why? [+] Read More...

San Francisco Diary--Journal Of An Exile

The annual Fleet Week festivities are not until October, but I found this picture of the Blue Angels flying over the Golden Gate on my desktop, and it just felt right for publishing today, even though it's still early spring and the skies are gray. Skilled pilots, ready to use their training in dramatic flying to protect us in real wars, always seem an appropriate theme.

NOTE: A tragic and somewhat mystifying story has developed regarding the violent death of a San Francisco man on the streets of Oakland, and the serious injury of his son. Jin Cheng Yu asked his father, Tian Sheng Yu, to accompany him to Oakland for a quick shopping trip. The elder Yu hesitated, telling his son that he thought Oakland was a dangerous place. The son convinced him there was nothing to worry about. He should have paid heed to his father's concerns. Shortly after they arrived at the area around 19th Street and Telegraph Avenue (which leads into Berkeley), they were accosted by two local thugs. The father was pushed around some, but the son wasn't aware of it until the thugs moved on and his father told him about it.

The son, with his father in tow, then caught up with the thugs, and demanded to know why they had treated his father so roughly for no reason. The verbal argument got heated, and in short order the thugs had beaten up both the father and the son. The beatings were so bad that the father's skull was cracked on the curb, and he died the following day. The son is still recovering from his injuries. The thugs were caught on the cameras of a local business, and they have been arrested and held on several felony charges, including one count of murder.

That's the tragic part. Now here's the part that mystifies me. The thugs were African-Americans, the victims Chinese immigrants. The reaction of the community and the family of the victims seems very odd. At a meeting of the Chinese community held at the Oakland Asian Cultural Center, the grieving widow and several speakers caused the memorial to turn into "a rally against violence, especially attacks on minorities and the elderly." Have things become so politically-skewed and reactions to racial tensions so pro forma that even the loved ones of innocent victims can't identify the actual underlying problem?

First of all, aren't blacks and Asians "minorities?" Who are the "majority" that are expected to refrain from beating up and murdering minorities and the elderly? Black on Asian crime has become a wildfire in both San Francisco and now, apparently, Oakland. How does such abstract talk about "minorities" and "violence" help to solve the real conflict? Zhi Rui Wang, the widow, said: "Even though my husband is gone, I will be strong, because I want us to join together to make sure that this won't happen to another family." That speech was given in her native Mandarin Chinese. My heart goes out to her, and her sentiments are certainly logical and understandable. But who is the "us" who are supposed to join together to solve the problem?

One of the local residents who attended the memorial, a young man who lives in the same neighborhood where the assailants come from, told a TV interviewer that he had a different perspective on the beatings. "They came into our town, and they don't speak English we can understand (the father spoke very little English, still knowing Mandarin only) and that causes misunderstandings. That is probably what caused the argument." As if that explains beating a man to death, and grievously injuring the other. The son speaks rather good English, though heavily-accented. Since he spoke in that accented English when asking the thugs why they pushed his father around, does that justify assault, battery and murder?

Elderly Asian immigrants have been shoved, pushed, threatened, robbed and even pushed onto the tracks in the path of oncoming commuter trains in both Oakland and San Francisco over the past few months. Many of the assaults were caught on-camera, and all were committed by young blacks. There's an epidemic of violence, all right. But pretending that there isn't a clear single racial issue involved is not going to do a thing for curing whatever ails the perpetrators. And pleading for love and understanding is not going to protect the Asian immigrant community. It's time to call for special task forces, increased patrols, serious investigations, and meaningful prosecutions.

The recent tragedy occurred at 19th and Telegraph in broad daylight. The local news described the area as relatively safe and crime-free. Relative to what? That whole strip is very dangerous during the day, and a war zone at night. Between there and 12th and Broadway, office workers in the financial district who work late shifts are escorted by the police and local patrols to their cars or the lines of waiting cabs so that they don't have to walk more than a block unprotected. Back in San Francisco, all Asian immigrants, and particularly elderly Asian immigrants taking late trains and buses at night take their lives in their own hands at certain well-known stations and bus stops. The crimes, the criminal areas, and the profile of the victims are all well-known to the police. So let's quit pretending that the problem is merely generic "violent attacks on minorities and the elderly."

NOTE: Former San Francisco Supervisor and current attorney/consultant, Michael Yaki (aka Yakkety Yaki) has decided he hasn't screwed up San Francisco enough, so now he's going to criticize Arizona. You know what he's up to as soon as you read the opening paragraph: "The Arizona legislature--a body known for, among other things, it's [sic.] 'open carry' law and trying to impose strict financial liability on property owners who require citizens to check their open-carry firearms in the [sic.] case some other nutball in the place opens up with a Glock and injures someone--has presented to the Governor a bill that would make Arizona the least hospitable place in America to be an immigrant or first-generation American."

Now you know why we called him Yakkety Yaki. In one paragraph, he has summed up Arizonans as gun-nuts and irrational xenophobes. What ticks him off, of course, is that Arizonans got fed up to the neck with the massive influx of violent illegal immigrants coming across their southern border. There is next to zero help from the Border Patrol, I.C.E. or any other federal agency which is supposed to be guarding our borders and picking up illegal immigrants. So the Arizona legislature is empowering its peace officers to do what the feds should be doing, but aren't. He is particularly annoyed that the officers will be allowed to use "reasonable suspicion of unlawful activity" as a ground for questioning people who seem coincidentally of Latin American extinction.

He compared it to the relatively unsuccessful and similar effort in Prince William County, Maryland. Well, what it did was drive the illegals out of Prince William County and into adjoining Maryland counties. That's a start. Apparently, Yaki doesn't recognize that a whole state can do a lot better than a single county. And has he looked at a map recently? Neither Prince William County nor Maryland shares a border with Mexico. Arizona residents have been murdered, their lands destroyed, and their well-being seriously threatened by the wave of illegal immigrants. The primary purpose of a government is to protect its citizens. Arizona is simply saying that if the federal government won't do it, Arizona will.

As for those dangerous "open carry" people, I suggest that if Yaki thinks they're dangerous, he should take his case to the streets. If he wants to find out what anti-immigrant violence looks like, perhaps he could set up his shop at 19th and Telegraph in Oakland. At least he won't have to worry about the cops.

NOTE: Well--here's a shocker. "A man suffered life-threatening injuries today when he was hit by a Muni trolley bus in San Francisco's financial district." Like we've never heard of a Muni accident. I'm sure they'll take this up at Thursday's Board of Supervisors/Muni joint meeting where they will continue to discuss increased fares and reduced service. Some of the drivers may even sober up long enough to attend. The bus that hit the pedestrian was rear-ended by another Muni bus directly behind it. The only reason I'm not placing all the blame on Muni is that San Franciscans seem to think crosswalks are off-limits and traffic signals are Christmas displays. Jay-walking is as San Franciscan as sex tents.

NOTE: Awww. The San Francisco Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Pride Committee (SF Pride) has awarded its annual "Pink Brick Award" to, wait for it, a homosexual. The dubious distinction award is reserved for people who have done the least for gay causes and done the most to thwart gay agendas. This year's recipient is California state Sen. Roy Ashburn, R-Bakersfield. After a drunk driving arrest, Ashburn came out during a tearful radio confession. It seems he got drunk while attending the Miss Gay Latina Sacramento competition. He is also apparently well-known in most of the gay bars in Sacramento.

Ashburn is the first outed gay person to receive the award. He has one of the most consistent records in the state legislature for voting against gay-friendly legislation. Previous recipients of the award include Miss California Carrie Prejean, San Francisco Catholic Archbishop George Niederauer, Arnold Schwarzenegger, and Fox News pundit Bill O'Reilly. Ashburn's confession sounded a lot like "being gay made me drunk," but maybe I heard it wrong. But his opposition to gay measures are largely comprised of things I oppose as well, as do some of my gay friends in The City. Most of them say they just want equality, but most of these measures give them special protection that they feel singles them out for "helpless victim status."

Still, Ashburn didn't attack most of the measures on logical grounds. It was largely comprised of "they" are asking for special treatment as a lot of sinful perverts. That seems more than a little hypocritical to me as well as to SF Pride. I'm not quite sure who to root for in this dogfight.

NOTE: I'm sure some of you have noticed that I haven't been including the crazed Mark Morford SF Gate articles for awhile. I can't keep up with his wild ramblings, and each of his articles requires both a review and a complete psychoanalysis. But his latest caught my eye. "How many companies want you dead?" He didn't disappoint. It turns out, in case you didn't know it, that big life insurance companies are in cahoots with big fast food companies so the fast food joints can feed you food that will kill you and the insurance companies will somehow make a profit from it. Or something like that. If you need a good laugh, don't mind an occasional obscenity, and are not offended by what seem to be drug-induced visions of non-conspiracy conspiracies, you can read it here: Insured Indigestion.
[+] Read More...

Wednesday, April 21, 2010

Commentarama Book Club Meeting. . .

Book club tonight at 8:00 pm EST! Be there. . . or don't. This will be on the test.

Tonight's book is "Game Change" by John Heilemann and Mark Halperin. It's about the 2008 Election that gave us the TOTUS. Feel free to drop by even if you haven't read the book.

Instructions: When the thread opens at 8:00 pm, just write your name and say hello. Then wait for us to approve you to comment. Once you get the approval, start a' commentin'!



[+] Read More...

DC Statehood Dies. . . Again (Yay!)

It looks like the issue of statehood for the District of Columbia has died for the year. Good. This thing needs to die finally and stay dead. Unfortunately, it keeps coming back and some Republicans mistakenly support this policy because they think this will somehow endear them to blacks. This is a horrible idea. Let me tell you what we should do instead.
Why The Democrats Want Statehood
Every year, the Democrats try to push through statehood for the District of Columbia. Why would they want this? Try this, it’s 80% Democratic. Moreover, they’re loony Democrats. Nancy Pelosi would be considered a moderate in DC. It’s the kind of place where nepotism runs deep, the police force hires criminals, criminals walk away from jail and no one cares, potholes thrive, snow only gets removed from privileged streets, the politicians are drug addicts and thieves, and the residents fight about whether particular candidates are “black enough”. . . all of the common characteristics of the worst banana republics. And if the District gets statehood, they would get two guaranteed Senate seats and probably three guaranteed House seats.

Why in the world would any Republican agree with that? Because they’re misguided.

Some Republicans see this as a way to show blacks that they aren’t racists. Talk about a stupid idea. I’ve talked about minority outreach before. If you want to reach out to minorities, you need to actually do it -- empty gestures, no matter how destructive to the nation and the party, simply are not enough. It’s time to stop viewing blacks as a group. Treat them like everyone else. Reach out to the ones who share our values and forget the rest. Stop trying to placate the ones you’ll never get. And holy cow, don’t give the Democrats two permanent Senate seats just to prove something that no one reputable believes anyway!

Even talk about giving Utah an additional House seat in exchange does nothing to offset this disaster.

Fortunately, the primary Republican offender on this point, Tom Davis of Northern Virginia has resigned. Davis got swept into the House in 1994 and he’s a turd. Since he’s been in the House, he has been the biggest proponent of increasing government pay and DC statehood in the Republican Party. Good riddance jerk off.
Why The “Moral” Argument For Statehood Is Crap
Proponents of statehood love to whine that there are all these poor people in the District who aren’t represented. They don’t get the vote, just like every other American. Boo hoo hoo. Well. . . move.

It’s not like we conquered the District and took away their votes. There’s no fence to keep them in. Everyone who lives there lives there by choice. They knew they would not have the vote when they got there and they know they won't get it if they stay. And if they want to vote, they can move a couple miles away to Maryland.
What Republicans Should Do
And that brings me to the solution. Rather than letting this issue drag on year after year with the danger that the Democrats some day might actually get statehood for DC (like they could have done this year if their leaders weren’t morons), let’s put an end to this charade once and for all:

Take the part of the District that includes the monuments and the neighboring government offices. No one lives there. Carve that out as the District of Columbia. Take the rest and hand it back to Maryland, from whence it came. Maryland, like the District is hopelessly corrupt and Democratic, so the former residents of the District will feel quite at home. Moreover, the District would fit in well with Maryland. In fact, when you are in it, you have no idea where DC stops and Maryland begins. They are identical twins separated at birth. Let’s reunite them. . . think of the children!

So I say, spin them off to Maryland and put this issue to bed before some Democrat actually gets this monster pushed through.

And while we’re at it. . . Hawaiian independence is looking pretty good. It’s the right thing to do. Sure, the Senate would lose two Democrats, but that's a small price to pay for undoing our evil colonial past! Heck, breaking California into two parts sounds pretty good too -- west coast and everything else. Maybe we need a new state right between Texas and Oklahoma?

Come on Republicans, think globally act locally.


[+] Read More...

Tuesday, April 20, 2010

Mischaracterizing The Tea Party

For those who don’t know, the Politico is an interesting site that gets a lot of good political stories. It also leans left, often very much so. In fact, a couple of their writers are little more than Democratic spokesmen (at least one has Soros ties). Now they’ve written a very deceptive article about the Tea Party. Basically, they’ve mischaracterized it as a gathering of Palin-lovers or Ron Pauliacs, even though the poll they are relying says the opposite.

Here’s what the article says. Let’s start with the headline: “Tea partiers in two camps: Sarah Palin vs. Ron Paul.”

Based on this, you would assume two things about the Tea Party. First, that it is split. Secondly, that its supporters by and large follow one of these two figures, both of whom happen to be the most controversial figures in the Republican Party. This, to the left, is like saying: “Tea Partiers split between Hitler and Satan.”

The article then says the following, which confirms the assumptions we just made:
“The results, however, suggest a distinct fault line that runs through the tea party activist base. . .”
Note that a fault line, like a rift, is a split and implies a great deal of anger when used in describing human relationships. Do you see the Tea Party splitting in two? The quote continues:
“. . . characterized by two wings led by the politicians who ranked highest when respondents were asked who ‘best exemplifies the goals of the tea party movement’ -- former Alaska Gov. Sarah Plain and Rep. Ron Paul.”
There it is, the Tea Party is split into two diametrically opposed wings, one that follows the teachings of Sarah Palin and one that follows svengali Ron Paul. Note the particular use of the words "led by." What does that tell you about the relationship between Paul/Palin and the Tea Party? Clearly, the Tea Party is nothing more than a vehicle for Paul/Palin supporters.

To back up this claim of leadership, the article points to a poll. Read this closely:
“Palin, who topped the list with 15 percent, speaks for the 43 percent of those polled expressing the distinctly conservative view that government does too much, while also saying that it needs to promote traditional values.

Paul’s thinking is reflected by an almost identical 42 percent who said government does too much but should not try to promote any particular set of values.”
There you go, proof that they are indeed the leaders of the movement because Palin gets 43% support and Paul gets 42% support, right?

Actually no, not even close. This misleading quote is the writer trying to create facts that don’t exist. He gives you the truth, but he hides it under the spin. Palin’s support is 15%, not 43%. Paul’s support is 14%, not 42%. That’s 29% support for both combined, not the 85% that is implied by the quote. How can 29% support fairly be turned into the quotes above which suggest that the Tea Party is hopelessly split 43/42 between these two? The answer is that it can’t, but it’s what the left wants to hear.

The idea of painting the Tea Party as beholden to either Palin or Paul or both is ridiculous. In fact, when asked if they would support Palin if she ran for President, a full 53% of Tea Party people said they wouldn’t even consider voting for her. Paul does even worse, with 59% saying they wouldn’t even consider voting for him. That means that 15% support Palin, 53% don’t, and 32% would consider it. That’s hardly the makings of a Tea Party leader. Ditto for Paul.

So why describe the Tea Party as split between these two? Because it makes the party sound like two fringe groups battling for the soul of the right. Moreover, it makes them sound like they are worshipping the cult of personality, rather than presenting rational ideas. But nothing is further from the truth.

Consider that split on values. Seventy three percent of Tea Partiers are “angry” that the government intrudes too much into personal lives. That doesn’t sound like much of a split. In fact, anything above 60% is phenomenally uniform in a poll.

So where does this crap about a split come from? It comes from this. When asked whether the government should promote a particular set of values, 51% said no and 46% said the government should promote traditional family values. Oh my! Clearly, them’s fighting words. . . except that the writer doesn’t factor in one big detail. The biggest issues people identified (those about which they were “most angry”) were: the national debt, bailouts, earmarks and frivolous lawsuits. The least important were the social issues.

What that tells us is that the Tea Party is a happy gathering of people with a common purpose -- to oppose the government's continued interference in economic and regulatory matters. To the extent they disagree on social issues, they have apparently decided to agree to disagree. And that’s no big deal. It’s the same thing when Catholics and Protestants and Jews come together on common issues. They have agreed to put aside their differences to work toward their common goals. To spin such a gathering as a deeply divided group ready to split apart as they each fight for their theology is dishonest, stupid and wishful thinking.

The reason the left can’t understand this is because the Tea Party people have done something the little tribes on the left never could: they’ve put aside their individual issues in favor of working on the things about which they agree. The left can’t see this because they can’t imagine putting aside their issues. When you are an environmentalist, all other issues come second. Ditto gays, abortion, unionization, blacks, women, etc. To the left, the other guys are there to help you, you aren’t part of a team. That's why they don't understand the Tea Party. The Tea Party people are different. They are working for a common goal.

That must be terrifying to the left.


[+] Read More...

Book Club Reminder -- Tomorrow Night! 8:00 PM EST

[+] Read More...

National No-Prayer Day

The first national day of prayer was declared in 1775. The Founders at the national convention which became the Continental Congress asked itself and its fellow Americans to pray for the beginning of a new nation which had not yet declared its full independence from England. Each year since, it has been observed in some form since the founding of the republic. Sometimes there was a presidential decree, sometimes a Congressional session, but it was always there.

Still, it was mid-twentieth century before Congress passed formal legislation regarding a national day of prayer and authorizing the president to declare such a day each year. Ever since, liberal judges have been attempting to ban all references to religion from the public forum, to greater or lesser success. But this year we've encountered a genuine first. US District Judge Barbara Crabb, of the Seventh Circuit, issued a 60 page opinion finding the practice unconstitutional and ordering President Obama not to issue an executive order proclaiming the celebration.

I am not someone who needs a presidential proclamation or an act of Congress to lead me to prayer. But I always found the proclamation a reaffirmation of America's recognition of the role of religion in the founding and perpetuation of the republic. And though I could have continued my religious practice quite nicely without it, I now take great umbrage at an activist judge issuing a poorly-reasoned opinion which reverses 235 years of tradition and 60 years of law based solely on her own twisted version of freedom of religion. I particularly take issue with her crazed idea of what the Founders meant about freedom to worship when those very same Founders began the practice themselves.

To her minimal credit, the judge stayed her injunction against President Obama issuing the order pending probable appeal. But Obama's religious beliefs are unknown and unknowable, and about as deep as morning dew on a rose. He is certainly no Andrew Jackson willing to say "the court has made its decision, now let it enforce it." Had she not stayed the injunction, Obama would have obeyed. Not because he believes in the Constitution or has any genuine religious belief, but rather because he believes in judges who make up the Constitution and its meaning as they go along. Since 1988, the date of the celebration has been the first Thursday in May. We shall see what Obama actually does.

In 1983, in the case of Marsh v Chambers, the Supreme Court upheld legislative prayers on the grounds that they originated at the founding of the nation and with the men who wrote the Constitution (including the First Amendment). The judge in the current case strained mightily to find some distinction between the Congressionally-sanctioned presidential proclamation of National Prayer Day from longstanding federal proclamations of days of prayer, Thanksgiving, and fasting. After all, to whom were people giving thanks on Thanksgiving? And even if the answer is the currently-popular Gaia, so what? They're free to pray to any deity they wish--or to none at all. Still, the judge's decision is at least consistent with multiple other liberal decisions relating to crossing the line between observance and endorsement. Yet that is not the same thing as Supreme Court precedent.

Four of the five current Supreme Court Justices (Stevens not among them) appear to wish to severely limit the meaning of "endorsement" for constitutional purposes. The fifth, Justice Kennedy, takes a somewhat broader view of what constitutes endorsement, but his paper trail is already on record. In the 1989 case of County of Allegheny v American Civil Liberties Union, Kennedy specifically pointed out the National Day of Prayer as the type of practice which is well outside the arena of endorsement, and as a practice which ought to be upheld.

Though the Obama administration's heart won't be in it, it seems very likely that the government will appeal the case. First, because it's an election year with an angry electorate sick of being treated like ignorant hicks because of their religion, and second because the decision strikes down a federal statute and narrows the power of the chief executive. This is somewhat of a reversal of fortune for liberals. An activist liberal judge declaring that Congress actually has limited power and the chief executive can't be in cahoots with them.

But this liberal judge has picked the wrong issue. Liberal judges are supposed to tell the states they don't have the power to enact any meaningful legislation, that Congress has plenary power over every facet of what citizens say, think and do, and limit the executive's power to pursue a war successfully while supporting any executive action domestically so long as it "serves the public good (which public good is defined solely by the courts)."

Unlike the far left Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, the Seventh Circuit is neither reliably liberal nor conservative. It would be unlikely to uphold the judge's decision if the appeals court sticks to Supreme Court precedent. But if it can carve out some small deviation from high court norms in the act that produced the National Day of Prayer, it could conceivably uphold the judge. Unless Obama gets an opportunity to appoint a third Supreme Court justice, it is nearly a certainty that the high court will reverse the judge (and the Seventh Circuit, if necessary). In which case, this will all have turned out to be another failed attempt of the religion-haters to ban religion in any form from the public forum. But don't worry--they'll keep trying.
[+] Read More...

Monday, April 19, 2010

Yoo and Liu--A Tale Of Two Lawyers

The University of California at Berkeley, Boalt Hall School of Law currently has two professors who are on the minds of those who are not even lawyers. One is a nominee for a position on the US Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals bench. The other is not. The president announced that he wants an Asian-American on the court. The president has chosen the wrong one.

Barack Obama has nominated Goodwin Liu, a radical, outspoken and very public opponent of constitutional restraint for the spot on the appeals court. He should have appointed John Yoo. But Obama being Obama, he nominated the radical Liu while sicking his attorney general on constitutional scholar and former Bush administration adviser Yoo. I did a post on John Yoo back in July. Although some of the information is now dated (much has happened in the Obama version of law, including Eric Holder's retreat from his attacks on Yoo), you can still familiarize yourself with him here: Yoo Who?.

The more recent post I did on Liu expressed my view of the nominee (A Perfect Nominee). I also discussed the possible future of the Supreme Court in light of the retirement of Justice John Paul Stevens (What's In Store). In an edition of The Wall Street Journal this week, Yoo discussed national security after Stevens leaves, and why the appointment of someone to the Supreme Court with views similar to those of Stevens are a threat. I'm sure that Yoo would agree that someone like Liu would be a danger, but even someone as "moderate" as Stevens would continue the current confused and over-analytical court decisions that leave American soldiers and security operatives exposed overseas.

Professor Yoo points out as a young naval intelligence officer, Justice Stevens was part of a team that heard the Japanese radio transmission which led our pilots to shoot down the plane carrying the mastermind of Pearl Harbor, Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto. In 2006, Stevens told the Fordham Law Review that he regretted that "there wasn't a lot of deliberation before before deciding to go along with the plan--they had no humanitarian concerns at all of the kind that troubled me." Shooting down the plane carrying a high enemy military officer during a time of war without due deliberation bothered Stevens. Nearly 3,000 Americans were killed at Pearl Harbor, and nearly 3,000 were killed in New York City on September 11, 2001. Are you beginning to see the parallel? And the danger of jurists such as Stevens? If they can't see the clear need to kill enemy combatants, what are they going to do with terrorists nine or ten years after the fact if and when they come to trial?

Stevens expanded on his idea of killing Yamamoto. "The targeting of a particular individual with the intent to kill him was a lot different than killing a soldier in battle and dealing with a statistic." Does Stevens think that a soldier in the field, taking aim at an enemy combatant, is planning on killing some abstract "statistic," or that the soldier doesn't have the killing of an individual in mind? Is an enemy combatant on his belly preparing to kill an American soldier any different from a command officer flying to the scene of the next battle he will command? Or for that matter, from the high command officer flying back to his headquarters to plan the next massacre of Americans?

That kind of illogical, unclear, morally-confused and dangerous thinking clouded all of Stevens's decisions about the death penalty, but at least there is a clear delineation between an execution after trial and conviction and the killing of enemy leaders during wartime. But Stevens and his ilk can't even see that clear distinction. Yoo asks: "If Stevens thinks killing Yamamoto raised 'humanitarian concerns [that should have required lengthy deliberations],' can you imagine his view of US Predator drones raining missiles down on the heads of al Qaeda leaders in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Yemen?"

That kind of agonizing deliberation is what costs American lives and loses wars. If our current military can put three Navy SEALs on trial for not treating a terrorist murderer with the proper white gloves, imagine what a Stevens-type Supreme Court could do to soldiers who figured out where bin Laden was hiding, broke in on his planning party, and killed him. Or what that court might consider doing to a president who ordered a drone in to take bin Laden out, particularly if bin Laden were located in an area not deeply within the war zone.

Any nominee of Obama's to replace Stevens is likely to share Stevens's views, or worse. As it is, "Stevens waged a five-year campaign to upend long-held understandings of the Constitution in wartime--as part of a slim 5-4 majority of the Supreme Court" Professor Yoo points out. In 2004, Stevens wanted to free Yaser Hamdi, a Saudi Arabian born in Louisiana who had been captured with an AK-47 fighting with the Taliban in Afghanistan. Stevens failed to get his majority in that case, but later that year put together a 5-4 majority in Rasul v Bush to allow al Qaeda detainees at Guantanamo Bay to seek release in American civil courts.

That latter decision led to the 2006 decision in Hamdan v Rumsfeld which blocked military tribunals from trying al Qaeda terrorists for war crimes. The technicality that the decision rested on was that Congress hadn't specifically authorized such military tribunals, which was corrected by Congress enacting the Military Commissions Act. But even though the military tribunals were blocked in that case only, the decision established the far broader, and never before granted, right to seek habeas corpus by foreign combatants, captured on a battlefield.

In other words, terrorists caught in war zones and detained at Guantanamo now have the right to challenge the legal basis for their detention as any American common criminal in jail has the right to challenge the basis of his arrest and subsequent detention. This is part of the Obama/Stevens thinking that war should be conducted in the same manner as civilian law enforcement, with the same rules and constitutional restraints. Given all the actions of the Obama-Holder Justice Department, there is little reason to believe that Obama will nominate a candidate to the Supreme Court vacancy who is any less "concerned" about terrorist civil liberties.

Professor Yoo points out that prior to the Stevens majorities, "The court deferred to the president and Congress on detention because 'trials would hamper the war effort and bring aid and comfort to the enemy.' Civilian judicial proceedings would create a 'conflict between judicial and military opinion.' Interfere with military operations by recalling personnel to testify, and 'diminish the prestige of a field commander' called to account in his own civil courts, and 'divert his efforts and attention from the military offensive abroad to the legal defensive at home.'"

Those predictions in earlier Supreme Court decisions over a period of nearly two hundred years have proven to be prophetic. The Christmas panty-bomber, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, was read his civilian Miranda rights almost immediately after being taken into custody. Attorney General Holder claims that his office did not order that, but it's really not relevant, since the detaining authorities have been so constrained that they believed granting those civilian constitutional rights was required of them, rightly or wrongly. Holder also made the decision that the very architect of the 9-11 mass murder should be tried in a civilian court located within walking distance of the ruins of the World Trade Center. Though massive protests from common citizens and public officials caused Holder to back off on the New York trial of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, as recently as last week's Senate hearings, Holder has still refused to commit to taking the case out of the hands of civilians and putting it back in the hands of the military where it belongs.

Professor Yoo sums up the danger: "For his presidency to succeed, Mr. Obama must prevail in no less than three wars. He must withdraw American forces from a stable Iraq, defeat a resurgent Taliban in Afghanistan, and crush al Qaeda's remaining elements. Realizing this, the Obama administration has hewed to many of the same legal positions held by the Bush administration. Specifically, it continues to defend the president's constitutional right to detain terrorists without trial, to use military commissions to try them, and to use Predators to target them abroad."

"But if President Obama appoints someone to the Supreme Court who thinks like Justice Stevens, he will be fooling no one. He cannot keep his promise to the American people to fight al Qaeda with all of the tools at the presidency's disposal if he appoints a justice who will continue to obstruct and second-guess the decisions of our military and intelligence officials."

I would point out that by hamstringing our interrogators with narrow rules and "humanitarian concerns," the Obama administration has already taken a major step in hampering our war efforts. But as far as Professor Yoo's overall conclusions go, that's a mere quibble. It only means there is probably one less issue for the Supreme Court to mess with in the event that a Stevens clone, or worse, is appointed to the high court.

Yoo also says: "To satisfy his base, President Obama will have to nominate a justice who is pro-choice, favors racial preferences and likes broad government regulation of the economy. But he also has the flexibility to choose a justice who believes in a return to a restrained judicial role in war and national security. Senate Republicans should support the president's nominee if he does." As much as I admire the good professor, I find that to be rather naive.

The chances of finding a pro-abortion, race-skewing, socialist-statist nominee who also supports the traditional presidential war powers are about as good as locating the leader of Communists for Capitalism. At best, we can hope for a moderate-liberal appointee who will not have the credentials or the smarts to convince four other justices to go along with the judicial usurpation of the powers of the Congress, the president, and the people. As for the loathsome Goodwin Liu, this is a simple reminder that an appointment to the Court of Appeals is one of the best paths to future appointment to the Supreme Court.
[+] Read More...

Question: Favorite Character Actor

Some people are characters. Other are actors. Still others are character actors. You know these people. They toil away in movies making the whole thing work, and yet, you never bother to learn their names. Sad really. Who are your favorite character actors? [+] Read More...

It’s Time To Ban Class Action Suits

One of the plagues of our time is the class action suit. I understand the reason for them, but they don’t work. At this point, they are nothing more than enrichment vehicles for a small group of attorneys. We should ban them to protect our economy, to protect injured people, and to protect the integrity of our legal system.

Under our legal system, legal rights are inherently personal. That means that only the person who has been injured can sue, and they can only seek compensation for the injury they themselves suffered. But class action suits are different. They let one person sue on behalf of millions of others, and that’s the problem.
History of Class Action Suits
Class action suits first arose in the United States in 1833. They were created out of a doctrine called “virtual representation,” which was created to allow judges to settle all of the property interests of a deceased person’s estate. Without that doctrine, anyone trying to settle an estate would need to obtain jurisdiction over every person potentially interested in the estate before the matter could be resolved. This would be potentially impossible (as many could not be found and some wouldn't even be born yet). By using the virtual representation doctrine, this requirement could be skipped.

Between 1833 and 1966, this remained essentially an “equitable doctrine,” which was used mainly to prevent injustices that might otherwise arise because of legal procedures. The example of settling the estate is a classic example where such a doctrine could be used to prevent injustices.

But in 1966, the rule was amended dramatically. This change created the problematic modern version of the class action suit. In 1966, Congress created what was called the “opt-out class action.” What this means is that once the suit is classified as a class action, anyone who wants to bring their own suit needs to “opt out” of the suit or their interests will be decided as part of the class.
The Theory of Class Action Suits
In theory class action suits make sense. If a million people are injured or might still be injured, rather than having a million suits filed and clogging the courts, each needlessly duplicating the efforts of the others, you could have one suit filed that represents all million people. This dramatically cuts down on the burden to the person/company being sued, it cuts down on the burden to the courts, and it makes it easier for injured persons to obtain justice, because they don’t need to go through the trouble of bringing their own suits. Moreover, this theoretically prevents any one plaintiff from draining all of the assets of the company before others can bring suit (often, others don’t even know yet that they’ve been injured when these suits are settled). So far so good. But like all things lawyers touch, this has become corrupted.
Why Class Action Suits Don’t Work
Modern class action suits are dominated by a small group of predatory firms -- you’ve seen their ads on television. They spend their time frantically searching for the next big hit: be it a drug with side effects, harmful chemicals in products, or obvious dangers that hillbillies ignore when they go off-roading on ATFs at high rates of speed through the woods. When they find one of these, they scramble to find the most horrifically injured plaintiff they can, who also must live in a jurisdiction with favorable laws. Then they rush out and bring suit. Once the suit is filed, they move for class certification. To get this, they need to show that it will be impossible to identify everyone who was (or will be) injured and that their plaintiff will be fairly representative of the others.

Only one class can be certified and it's first come first serve. So once the class is certified, that suit becomes THE class action and that plaintiff becomes THE plaintiff -- everyone else becomes part of the class. At that point, the battle is over. The lawyers sit back and negotiate a settlement. One huge fee later, they leave the crumbs in a pool for each of the injured people to fight over.

The reason this is so attractive to these lawyers is that while they might have gotten a few hundred thousand dollars from suing on behalf of one client, they can get BILLIONS from a class action suit. They also rarely need to take these to trial, whereas individual defendants usually need to go trial if they want full compensation.

The problems are this. First, there’s an incredible incentive to bring these suits, far out of proportion to what the incentive should be for lawyers. In a normal suit, a litigator is likely to get 40% of the proceeds. That means $400,000 if their client gets a million dollars. But for the same amount of effort, a class action lawyer can walk away with a hundred times or a thousand times that because now they are technically representing thousands of plaintiffs. . . even though no additional effort is required. Thus, lawyers push these things like drug dealers pushing crack.

Further, because the potential damages are so high -- most class action suits will kill companies -- the companies have a major incentive to enter into settlements just to survive, even if they did nothing wrong. It’s the same principle as extortion. Give us 80% of what you have or we’ll take 100%.

Third, and most importantly, these suits are intensely unfair to anyone except the lawyers. In a regular suit, there is no need to fight about how to split up the verdict or settlement. In this case there is. That means that each plaintiff needs their own attorney just to get their share out of the fund that gets created. That means a 40% fee on what they recover, which is already reduced by the 40% taken by the attorneys who brought the suit in the first place. Thus, whereas a regular plaintiff would be assured of collecting 60% of whatever is recovered, most class action plaintiffs are, at best, looking at 36% -- even if we assume the split if fair. . . which it isn't.

When a class action arises, many more people are added to the class than would otherwise have sued. Indeed, many people whose claims are very minor or even frivolous suddenly are added to the class, as are people who are "expected" to become plaintiffs -- even if they never do. This means that more people split the pot than would have if each suit had to be examined on its own merits. That means that the legitimately injured receive a smaller share than they should have.
Conclusion
As the system currently sits, it’s bad for companies, bad for the victims, and bad for the integrity of the system. The only people who benefit are the lawyers. While it might be worth it to reform the system by dramatically cutting the attorneys fees, that still won’t solve all the problems. . . especially as lawyers will be doing the reforming. Thus, I think the time has come to simply ban these suits.

[+] Read More...

Sunday, April 18, 2010

Then We'll Fight In The Shade

Iran's crazed leader has threatened to wipe Israel off the map. Emperor Barack Xerxes Obama cannot have his subjects fighting with each other, and since Iran is an older part of his empire, he has decided that Israel must bow to Iran or the arrows of Iran will darken the sky. The emperor will do nothing to stop it. Since the empires of China and Russia will not cooperate in restraining Iran, Israel is on its own.

All right, that's enough of the tortured 300 references. But you get the idea. Obama, in his deluded arrogance, has decided that it has no real stake in defending our ally, Israel--the only genuine pro-western democracy in the entire Middle East. As the blundering president and his state department kowtow to Islamic potentates and Muslim zealots and dismiss our allies with a wave of the hand, he weakens the ability of the United States and the west to protect themselves from nuclear rogue nations. Obama sends his emissaries into Israel to dictate the future of the small nation by repeating Palestinian demands for the creation of a separate state with headquarters in the heart of Jerusalem. Then he schedules nuclear disarmament talks which exclude Iran and North Korea while maximizing the humiliation of Israel.

Depending whom you listen to, Iran is somewhere between three months and three years from having sufficient nuclear-grade materials to produce atomic weapons. Obama knows this, but he's too busy unilaterally disarming America to be bothered with the problem of preemptive disarming of Iran. His disarmament initiative is the most feeble plan to reduce the global nuclear threat since Rodney King asked "can't we all just get along?" As Wes Pruden said in The Washington Times, "[The recent maltreatment of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu when he was a guest in the White House] now looks like an exploitable opportunity for the man who learned about who's evil in the world from a crazy, Jew-baiting preacher in Chicago."

Even the tone-deaf Obama can't be oblivious to the fact that if the United States, its allies, and the autocrats in the East do not destroy Iran's nuclear facilities, Israel will have no choice. Better to risk annihilation during a lopsided war with the Muslim world than to surrender to the near-inevitable annihilation raining down from a nuclear Iran. But as long as Obama is president, our allies have no faith in America's will to stand firm, and the Russian and Chinese autocrats laugh at his silly attempts while sabotaging his ludicrous efforts to get real, crippling sanctions against Iran. He views the Iranian leader as a rational though vicious opponent, instead of the madman Ahmadinejad truly is.

Obama thinks even a tyrant will yield if he's given enough love, and is occasionally warned with meaningless threats. As an "expert" on Islam, Obama should know that death is not a threat to a madman who believes that if Iran were nuked out of existence, the Twelfth Imam would lead all the faithful to paradise. Death is only death to the infidels, but a Muslim martyr's death is the sure road to the garden of celestial delights. If the Iranian nuclear facilities are not utterly destroyed and its people freed to rule themselves, Israel will risk its own destruction rather than wait for its assured destruction from Iran.

Obama simply has no compunctions about abandoning Israel to its fate while seeking the good will of Islamic and Latin American dictators. America's long affinity for the tiny Israeli democracy is to be replaced by the hope of friendship from people who clearly hate us. Pruden channels Obama by asking: "Why retain an emotional attachment to the sources of American law and literature when you could bow to the Saudi king and and court the leaders of Iran, Syria and Venezuela?"

There is still time for Obama to avoid the inevitable violent clash between Israel and the Muslim world, but there is no reason to believe he will grab the opportunity. His roots are far too closely enmeshed with those of Kenya, Indonesia, his leftist mentors in Hawaii and Chicago, and Islam to allow him to see that the interests of America and Israel are far more natural than any he would prefer. This skewed and dangerous view comes from the man who proudly announced that America is one of the largest Muslim countries in the world. Not only is that factually untrue, but it is philosophically, intellectually, and unpatriotically delusional and disengenuous.

Instead of pulling the world away from the brink of nuclear war, Obama's policies are the most dangerous kind of naive foolishness that history tells us leads directly to war. Negotiation from a position of weakness and idle threats only embolden bloodthirsty tyrants. And the first victim of his feckless behavior will be the State of Israel, which Obama compares constantly to "The Islamic Republic of Iran." That appellation alone tells anyone who is paying attention that Obama simply has no conception of the enemy that Israel, America and the entire world actually face.
[+] Read More...

Film School Follies: Part 20 – Dancing into the Fire III

By ScottDS
In a seventh season episode of The Simpsons, a Hollywood studio comes to Springfield to shoot a movie based on Bart’s favorite comic book character, Radioactive Man. Bart’s friend Milhouse gets the role of Radioactive Man’s sidekick, Fallout Boy: "Ever since I became a movie star, I've been miserable. I had to get up at 5:00 a.m. just for makeup. I like the way the blush brings out my cheekbones, but it's not worth it. And making movies is so horribly repetitive. I've said ‘jiminy jillickers’ so many times, the words have lost all meaning." At that point, the ponytailed director walks in and says, "We’ve got to do the ‘jiminy jillickers’ scene again!"

The following consists of iChat conversations Mike and I had over the span of three days in February. And yes, I transcribed all of this!

Day 1 at UCF: July 25th, 2004

Scott: "I have to ask: was I the first person to tell you about Jeremy?"

Mike: "No. Phil was the person who called me because I was back home for the little hiatus [we had]. I was in my family room watching TV and I got a call. It was Phil and I was like, ‘Hey’ and he goes, ‘Hey, what's going on?’ He said something else first, then he [asked], ‘Were you good friends with Jeremy?’ I was like, ‘No, not really. I don’t think I talked to him more than once.’ And he told me what happened and it floored me in the sense... like ‘Wow’... [because of] how young he was and it was shocking but not painful because I didn’t know him and I think [that] makes a difference. It did shock me and I did respect what a tragedy it was."

Scott: "The night before day 1... what was the vibe?"

Mike: "Part of me was thinking I wasn’t going to sleep at all. I was just so incredibly geeked. It was like the day before my wedding – which was important at the time; it wasn’t all bad – or something like that. I believe I slept that night... I slept at Paul’s the whole time I was doing In the Nude and it sounds weird but it was because Paul wasn’t sleeping there. I woke up super early, got to school... we made a great plan of who was going to do what and who was gonna come load this and take [that]. So many people were excited because we were doing an entire day using two main locations."

Scott: "The only thing I remember from [that] morning was that everyone carpooled. We carpooled together. I’m not sure who else was in the van. I think James [from the Shooting for the Moon crew] might’ve been there since he was volunteering and we had Bill and a few people from Canadians because they wanted to know what it was like to actually go on a location that wasn’t five feet out the door!"

Mike: "Yeah, but Bill left halfway through the day, like, ‘Yeah, I got it now.’ It was probably the most crowded day of any shoot on any of the films. I think everybody went – just about everyone that I knew was there. People I didn’t even know, people from other classes, like how did they even know we were doing this?"

Scott: "All of our films had a few volunteers from different classes."

Mike: "I recall a conversation at some point with one of the producers [who said something like] this might’ve been one of the biggest location shoots Full Sail had ever done, which made me very proud. [The selection of passengers] in my van was not by chance. We got all the vehicles that were going, we assigned people to vehicles... we coordinated all that ahead of time."

In the Forrest Gump DVD audio commentary, director Robert Zemeckis tells us the difference between a good director of photography and a bad director of photography. A bad DP will simply show up on the day and ask, "So, are we shooting for day or night?" A good DP will go on the location scouts with a GPS unit and will say things like, "Well, if we’re shooting this on a morning in mid-July, we should probably move the set three feet to the right so we don’t get shadows." Of course, if the film crew consists of sleep-deprived students, you might get shadows!

Mike: "They say [you should] scout the location at the exact time you’re gonna be shooting. And we didn’t because none of us could make it up that early unless we had class! We did scout the location but, unfortunately, because we didn’t scout it at the same time we were [going to be] shooting it, we didn’t account for shadows. We all thought that the student union building was going to [cast] a shadow over the area we were shooting. But it didn’t, and since the 360 shot was going all around the actors, you would’ve seen the shadows of the crew and the camera on the actors’ faces once we passed in front of the sun. The 360 shot was supposed to be the first shot of the day so I made the decision to switch it around and shoot all of our close-ups first even though it might not match perfectly... hopefully at a certain point, the sun would be at a steep enough angle so when the dolly [passes] next to the actors, it wouldn’t cast a shadow. We ran into an issue with the student union building not being open early enough and that’s where our bathrooms were and all that stuff. It was a little hotter that day than we would’ve liked but we tried to keep our actors in the shade. There was a crane shot that I wanted but I ditched it because, time-wise, it wouldn’t work out. I turned it into a slow tilt but [even] that didn’t turn out the way I wanted it. We had originally wanted Chris to [create] a CG bird that would fly into the side of the building but we just ran out of time."

The final 360-degree dolly shot is very good, but not perfect.

Mike: "I just remember Tony saying, ‘Don’t take this away from me.’ It was never a problem but I was hinting that I wanted to get it done myself because I was a little worried about certain things. In the end, I kicked myself for not doing one take myself [operating the camera] and I should’ve because once he had two cracks at it, I should’ve just gone ahead and [shot] one."

Scott: "And after we wrapped at the union, we all packed up and moved to the Visual Arts Building."

Mike: "We [needed] to split up and that’s when I put my 2nd A.D.s in charge of setting up the hallway. When we did the 360 shot on the deck [in the union], I think Seth was [still] there but Phil was in charge of setting up the building and having it ready so when we got there, it was time to rock."

Scott: "Was it Seth and Phil who wrangled all those extras? I’m not talking about classmates but other people who happened to be there."

Mike: "Yeah, Seth and Phil. I don’t particularly know that they were responsible for every extra but they wrangled a lot of them and just threw everyone in there because, if we were shooting a period film, it wouldn’t have worked but we were all that age so any one of us could just jump in there."

Scott: "If I recall the hallway shoot, it’s a handheld shot of the three guys, then we hear Anna yell, ‘Oh s---!’ when she realizes her photos are back in the lab, then we cut to the handheld shot of the girls."

Mike: "You had Ed with the camera (Tony was too tall to get the angle Mike wanted), me with my hand on his back, and [my other hand holding] the VTR monitor. He actually did very well on that shot. He did very poorly on a shot later during Ryan #2’s day but that wasn’t his fault. The shot worked... it was handheld but it wasn’t too jittery. At first, the idea was [to use a] Steadicam there but I thought the handheld look was going to be better. I thought it was a great reveal." (The camera stays on the girls until they exit frame, which is when we find the guys who have stepped out into a small nook.)

Scott: "Any major problems on the first day?"

Mike: "Once we were in the hallway shooting all that stuff, there were some additional shots [we had to cut for time]. [Classmate] Debbie had a make-up meltdown because Laz had found this ex-KGB, Soviet expatriate make-up lady. She was Ukrainian or something and there was a bit of a communications gap. Laz tried to describe the character Debbie was playing, like she was ‘the flirty one,’ but he didn’t have to do that because nothing mattered with those characters. [The make-up lady] understood ‘prostitute’ so when I got there Debbie was kind of freaking out and I told her, ‘Just go to the bathroom and take it off.’ [Another little crisis] was when Phil and I were just standing there and this UCF faculty member who was walking through the building… we had black cloths but they were open, nothing was blocked... but this woman walked by – she walked in from the outside – and Phil and I are standing there talking. She looks at what's going on… mind you, she just walked in, it’s not like she ran into a problem and got upset... she walked up to me and Phil and said, ‘If that hallway is blocked, I’m going to call the police.’ And then she kept walking. Phil and I looked at each other like, ‘How can you go from zero to so incredibly negative so fast?!’ Other than that, it was one of the best days ever."

Days 2, 3, & 4 at Full Sail: July 26th – 28th, 2004

Mike: "I actually did a shot the very next day – the shot where Scooter is reaching into his bag [which was shot from a POV inside the bag] – in the parking lot while Ryan #2 was setting up his stuff inside. But we were scheduled for that. It’s a tiny little shot but it was important. The main thing to take away from that day was... Ryan #2 was just out of his league trying to do this and he was screwing some things up and I was pointing them out to him. What I should’ve done was take him aside but at a certain point... I was saying it to him but I wasn’t pulling him aside and I think it upset him but [...] his personality is to not tell anyone anything until he’s ready to explode, then he spews all his venom and he did that at a certain point and it pissed me off. Then I decided not to tell him a thing for the rest of the day. I’d just fix any mistakes of his [the next day]. So the next day (day 3), I got there early and ran through the VTR from the day before. A couple things I couldn’t fix. There was a terrible shot that Ed did on the crane because he was using the cranks to tilt up and down [when] he should’ve just moved the camera on his own. Ryan #2’s angle on those shots was poor. It was just dead on, totally tight. It was supposed to be at a little bit of an angle. But nothing I could do. I was steaming because I was totally open with him the whole time and obviously he wasn’t being open and I kinda saw his true colors."

Scott: "So... day 3 in the dark tank with Kit."

Mike: "This was a little different because I knew going into the day, I knew I needed to do everything really fast [to give us time] to [re-shoot some of Ryan #2’s] shots later. I remember going to [producer] Debbie and she said, ‘Well, you better do everything fast.’ But I think that was a real fun day for everybody because we built the camera rig using the car mount on the wall and a lot of people had fun with that. We were moving the crane within a shot... that had a lot of people psyched. [We] probably shouldn’t have put the [biggest] guy in the class on the crane when we were doing that shot because that caused it to bounce. (You can also see the shadow of the camera crane for a second in the film.) The shot didn’t work the way I wanted it to because we couldn’t move the crane fast enough and it bounced but I didn’t account for that. It was fun... [much of that day was spent] on the ground with the viewfinder trying to pick the best angles for the shots."

When the guys reach the dark tank, Scooter attempts to climb down from the vent but loses his grip and falls. When he rises from below the frame, there’s a picture of a horse’s ass stuck to his face. (And I don’t care what Mike says – that was my idea!)

Mike: "I was nervous about how the fall was gonna play out. When we did it, I don’t think I could’ve screamed more. I was like, ‘Yes!!’ I was so excited because it looked fantastic and we looked at it on the VTR and it looked great. We had Derek under the table in the dark tank who tossed up a developing tray filled with water [after Kit falls below frame] and that was a fun moment. Unfortunately, while we were at the VTR, the camera guys said there was an issue with the camera... a little hiccup (not a technical term). I was devastated, mainly because the shot was so good but because I’d have to ask Kit to fall again and he wasn’t 100% keen on doing it. So we did it again and of course in hindsight, our first take was fine. There was no issue with it and that’s the one we used. That was the day [Ryan from Canadians who was volunteering] burned his arm on a light. [35mm instructor] Rob came to visit that day – the only time he came to visit. I don’t think he [offered any suggestions]. He was really happy with what we were doing."

Mike had to shoot some close-ups to fill in some gaps from the previous day. Not everyone was happy about this.

Mike: "We were done with our shots but then we had to re-shoot some scenes from day 2 that weren’t done properly. There wasn’t enough coverage and I didn’t even discuss it with Ryan #2. At this point, I was directing my thing and Ryan #2 was directing his so I didn’t consult with him on anything. He completely stayed away from me that day. It was probably to prove a point, like, ‘See, I can leave you alone.’ So we set that up and there was an issue with Justin who didn’t… there was something he didn’t agree with. It could’ve been the way the light was set up or it could’ve been the fact we were doing the shots, period. The shots themselves... he didn’t feel like they were going to work the way I had set them up. He didn’t feel we had time for them and that they were unnecessary. I don’t know [what happened] but he challenged me in front of the crew and I basically said, ‘We’re gonna do them anyway.’ It worked out and those shots saved everything and I got big praise at the end of the day from [one of the camera lab assistants]. He thought we’d done a good job of making up for our prior mistakes."

Scott: "It was footage of them crawling in the ducts, right?"

Mike: "Yeah, it was coverage of them have a conversation... there were no shots of them having this conversation... no close-ups, no anything, so it was a big problem. We had to shoot them from the side at an angle. The lighting wasn’t exactly a match to what we had done the day before but we didn’t have time because there were lights inside the ducts that we couldn’t put back. For what we needed, it worked and I understood Justin’s concern but we needed the shots. It didn’t matter, as long as they were lit."

Scott: "And day 4? The only thing I remember was Carlo [a sound tech who did a terrible job and left during shooting to go to McDonald’s!] telling the catering guy some weird story. There might’ve been voodoo involved. I don’t know."

Mike: "I remember the caterer. He had a beard but he looked like he was twelve years old, like a kid who put on a fake beard. I remember spending a lot of time in the photography instructor’s office. You were in there [with the VTR equipment], Claudia was in there... I remember a lot of goofy stuff in there."

Scott: (sigh) "Not really."

Mike: "I remember watching the VTR and going to Steve a couple of times saying that Ryan #2 was screwing something up. Steve [would act as an] intermediary, going to Paul and Ryan #2, saying, ‘This isn’t covered properly.’ I was an extra in a shot with Jon [when the students evacuate], like, ‘Hey wouldn’t it be funny if we were having sex or something [in the dark tank when the fire alarm goes off]?’ You can barely see it in the frame but he’s putting his shirt back on and I’m zipping up. And I remember going and shooting the photos for the poster. We lit the false wall that we built and I shot the actors for that in between takes. And getting up on the twenty-foot ladder to shoot those photos was pretty interesting. The main thing I remember is the final shot of the movie... I wasn’t happy with how Ryan #2 had shot it. I was in the room and I remember saying, ‘F--- this’ and I went and told the actors to do it a different way. They did and it worked perfectly. I looked at Debbie and she’s like, ‘It’s your movie. If you want it done differently, go ahead and tell him.’ I was like, ‘Thank-you’ and basically took over the last shot and it worked out. The dolly was on a quarter turn. It starts behind Kit, and goes around him where he makes the decision not to look at the photos. Arnie comes up behind him and scares him. Then he goes, ‘Come on, dude. Let’s go!’ And he takes the photos. Kit says, ‘No, wait! Stop!’ And he slips and hilarity ensues. The way Ryan #2 had shot it was terrible. And that was a wrap. And everyone started hugging each other."

Scott: "Except me and Claudia! Just kidding."

Next week: post-production, an attempt to salvage the audio, drunken karaoke, and our aborted plans for In the Nude: Special Edition.

To Be Continued...


[+] Read More...

Saturday, April 17, 2010

New York State of Mind

It's been a big week for New York City. There were a few victories, a couple of arrests, a big protest, and lots and lots of naked men. If you don't recognize this building, it will become very familiar to you in the weeks to follow. This is the recently completed new home of Goldman Sachs at least before they are sent to jail. But more about that in the weeks to come. Let's get to victories and other naked truths about the city first....

Local - I don’t think I’ve ever told you about the New York Board of Education reassignment centers or “rubber rooms” as they are commonly called. These are holding facilities for NYC teachers who have been pulled out of the classroom for various and sundry reason from incompetence to assault. Since the United Federation of Teachers (UFT) protects teachers from being summarily fired without a fair hearing, the accused are parked in these rubber rooms with full pay until they have been either cleared of any wrong doing or in the most agregious cases, convicted of the most heinous crimes against children. They are pretty much paid to sit all day and stare, though one guy who's been in the rubber room for years has quite a lucrative real estate business. All the while, the City (and taxpayers) must foot the bill to the tune of $30 million a year. Yes, they continue to be paid while in these “rubber rooms” and it can take years for these cases to work their way through the system.

Well, we finally won a big victory this week for our school and our students when the head of the UFT, Michael McGrew and Joel Klein, Chancellor of the Board of Ed., came to an agreement to shut down the rubber rooms and streamline the hearing process. Instead of uselessly parking the accused indefinitely, the DOE will now have a limited amount of time to either formally charge a teacher. If no charges are filed, the teacher can get back into the classroom in a matter of few months rather than years. If they are to be further investigated, the Union has agreed that they should now have to work for their salaries in non-teaching positions until they are cleared or convicted. It’s a real victory for the teachers, the students and the taxpayers.

However, the NYC homeless may not fare as well. Mayor Bloomberg is floating the idea that the city should charge the homeless families for shelter. He wants to require that at least one member of the family have a job before the city will provide vouchers for housing. This is to encourage the homeless to participate in their economic recovery. Fair enough, but in our present economic climate, I am not sure what I think about this. The city has double digit unemployment and finding a job is hard enough for thoses who have a permanent place to live and money in the bank. Asking someone to get a job before they can get help seems unnecessarily harsh. And if there are that many job openings, why are there so many out of work.  I think this will be a no-go for Bloomberg.

Life in the Naked City (WARNING: Naked men ahead, approach with caution) – Bronze statues of anatomically correct naked men have been popping up all over Manhattan lately. Well, this week, one appeared on a ledge of the Empire State Building. It was just high enough to look like a real person and caused panicked pedestrians to dial 911 to report a possible jumper. The police rushed to the scene only to find that it was just a statue. The pedestrians had every reason to panic since only two weeks ago, some poor young soul actually did jump from the building’s observation deck to his obvious death. Though I don’t mind anatomically correct statues of naked men, I would think that an artist would have been a little more sensitive.

And as long as we are talking about anatomically correct naked men, New York had yet another first. The Museum of Modern Art introduced a new “performance art” piece comprised entirely of live naked people. As you can imagine, these nude “statues” were positioned throughout the museum to evoke various calculated responses from the observers. Yippee for art. But wait, that’s not the “first” part. In a museum first, a “piece of art” has filed its (his, her?) first sexual harassment complaint against one of the more overly enthusiastic observers. As a result, a long time museum patron was stripped of his membership and told never to return after he fondled the anatomy of one very shocked piece of art. This is probably the first piece of art to complain about a patron.

And finally – Tax Day Tea Party New York style -

We came, we chanted, and we rejoiced in the Constitution of the United States. There were about 10-12K of us, but who’s counting. So, enough about the Tea Partiers, I want to talk about the “anti” tea partiers. This was the first event where we actually had a real counter protest, so let me tell you what they look like.
Amazingly, they looked exactly like the Tea Partiers only more so. There were about 20 or so people from various liberal groups from around the city – some group from “BailOutCitizens.org”, a few sweet Coffee Party members, and one very misguided 911 conspiracy theorist who would not shut up. Not to put too fine a point on it, they were all upper middle class white people. But don’t let them know that or they may have to call themselves “racists rednecks” and that would make them feel bad about themselves, so they'll give up and stop protesting.

So anyway, I volunteered to be a “marshal” for our group [shameless plug] Teaparty365.org. This means that many of my fellow volunteers and I manned the frontlines for problems and directed attendees to the protest area. My little trio was first stationed at the corner of 31st and 8th Ave.  Lucky for us this was also the same corner where all of the counter protestors had to pass through first. I have to say it was a little scary when they all started moving towards us, but the cops were very close and ready to jump in, if necessary.

The “BailOutCitizen.org” people were the most vocal and strident. They were expecting us to try and stop them, but we just smiled and let them pass do what they were going to do.  They came ready to rumble and were disappointed that for the most part they were ignored.

My personal favorites were were the five very sincere “Coffee Party” people from Brooklyn handing out little cards. One very sincere guy pleaded with me to “keep an open mind” and beseeched us to“dialogue more” and protest less. I asked him why he assumed that I didn’t have an open mind. He responded that I was obviously sadly misguided and uninformed to be a part of such a mean spirited movement. Well, let’s just say I was polite and he left saddened that he couldn't inform me. For the most part, everyone was respectful and as far as I know I was involved in the only “police action”. One of the BailOut people who was obviously drunk got a little belligerent and had to be escorted away by a group of New York’s Finest. And as a follow up, Our Dear Leader once again leveled his scorn upon us.


As I stare in disbelief, I can only hope that he'll change his mind in November.
[+] Read More...

Honduras Flopped. Obama Tries Ecuador.

After failing to threaten, bribe, cajole and trick Honduras into abandoning its constitution and perpetuate a tin-pot dictator, the Obama administration has fared much better in Ecuador. On the left of the picture is US Assistant Secretary of State for Western Hemisphere Affairs, Arturo Valenzuela. On his right is Hugo Chavez clone, Ecuadorian President Rafael Correa.

Earlier this week we discussed the systematic elimination of our western-style democratic allies from the president's guest book. Hillary Clinton has yet to inflict the coup de grace to Ecuador, but unlike the case in Honduras, our president's advance men have successfully ensured the permanence of another Latin American socialist president-for-life. Barack Obama seems entirely oblivious to the fact that every time a duly-elected, constitutional democracy falls, he helps to create not another ally, but rather another fair-weather friend who will stab America in the back at the first opportunity. All that's left now is for Obama to give Ecuadorian president Rafael Correa a big hug and smooch, just as he did with Hugo Chavez of Venezuela.

Correa was first elected Ecuador's president in 2007. He ran, among other things, on the desire of the people of Ecuador to create a new constitution more along the lines of the US Constitution, to avoid abrupt changes in government and protect against the accumulation of too much power in any branch of government or any single person. Correa was unfortunately elected by a very conclusive popular majority, and like someone else I can think of, Correa took that to mean that it was time to "fundamentally transform Ecuador." Correa, and his leftist allies in the unicameral Congress (called the National Assembly) held a powerful hand. The nation then conducted a national referendum that created the Constituent Assembly to draft the new constitution.

But Correa and his political allies in Congress determined the makeup and mode of election of the new Constituent Assembly. Once in control of that body, Correa and his friends engineered matters so that the Constituent Assembly was empowered to determine who in the current Congress would be allowed to remain in the legislature. In the event that Congress didn't cooperate with the Constituent Assembly (and by inference, with Correa), the Assembly granted itself the power to dissolve Congress. Though a minority, the Correa opponents still comprised a substantial bloc of the Congressional votes. When they objected to this broad grant of power to the Assembly, Correa did what all banana republic leaders do--he dissolved Congress and with the assistance of his allies, took on extensive "emergency" powers. He used the military and the mob to cow opponents into submission.

But before the new constitution could be approved by the voters, the nation remained under the existing constitution. The Congress had told Correa that it would not grant the Constituent Assembly the power Correa wanted, which resulted in its dissolution. In order to maintain the pretense of a government of law, Correa and the Assembly turned to the court. One small problem. The authentic constitutional court was not under the thumb of Correa, so the Assembly simply created one--the electoral court. That court confirmed the dismissal of the opposition members of Congress. The actual constitutional court stepped in and declared that the dismissed Congressional representatives had to be reinstated and Congress left intact until the new constitution was approved by a vote of the people. Correa simply ignored the decision of the duly-installed constitutional court, and the game was essentially over.

Trusting that this was merely a temporary measure to restore order, and quite possibly believing Correa's propaganda, the people of Ecuador accepted the dissolution of Congress, and voted heavily in favor of the new constitution that Correa's thugs had written. They didn't have much choice in any event, since any serious opposition had now been entirely silenced. The choice they were handed was to vote for the new constitution, or face a government with no constitution at all, since the Constituent Assembly had dissolved Congress and rendered the constitutional court impotent. So they would have gotten the Correa constitution anyway, only in a bit bloodier fashion.

It's a sad commentary on Ecuador, but if the Ecuadorian army had supported the duly-elected Congress, and enforced the order of its constitutional court, Ecuador would have ended up with a true government of laws, much like Honduras. The police who were sworn to protect the Congress and the courts cooperated with mobs that stormed the halls of government in support of Correa.

Correa has followed all the traditional patterns of dictatorial leaders. All opposition newspapers and television stations have effectively been silenced. Former members of Congress who were ousted by the Correa coup are forbidden to speak publicly. Even leftist reporters are not safe from the wrath of Correa and his gang. One of the few publications allowed to continue operation, El Universo, ran a less than complimentary assessment of Correa's rule. When a suspiciously "spontaneous" mob attacked the newspaper's offices, socialist columnist Emilio Palacio objected in print. Correa publicly stated that Palacio should be sued. Conveniently, Palacio was arrested, tried and convicted of criminal libel, and is serving three years in prison.

Back to assistant secretary of state Valenzuela (or is that Venezuela?). Valenzuela's people have been in constant contact with Correa since Barack Obama's election. Many of the career diplomats who surround Valenzuela were working behind the scenes to promote Correa even before Obama's election. In keeping with the public mouthings of the Obama administration, Valenzuela figured his position was so secure with Correa that he could question Ecuador's growing friendship with Iran. Valenzuela quickly found out how well making nice-nice with dictators works out. Correa read him the riot act, and told him that America should mind its own business (see, Hillary? It doesn't work with dictators, either).

Obama's half-baked diplomats not only consort with dictators and wannabe dictators who pretend to support Obama's America, but when dressed down by the likes of a Correa, they further damage American prestige by cowering in a corner. After recovering from the shock of finding out that even socialists in Latin America don't have much use for Obama, instead of asserting American opposition to authoritarian regimes, they promptly go into conciliatory mode. Valenzuela is now promoting another love-fest, much like the earlier hug and kisses meeting between Obama and Chavez.

Obama and Correa, sitting in a tree, k-i-s-s-i-n-g. For God's sake, Obama, wake up, grow up, listen up, and start acting like a president instead of some amateur self-help guru. Bullies take accommodation as weakness, and they are stopped only by standing up to them. "Can't we all just get along?" is just fine to say for great moral philosophers and statesmen like Rodney King, but it's beneath the leader of the free world. Your weakness and disdain toward our friends and your sneaky support of dictators are not proper American diplomacy.
[+] Read More...

Friday, April 16, 2010

Tea Party Update. . .

Yesterday, once again, the American people took to the streets in peaceful protest to take a stand against the abuses of our current government. Nothing makes me prouder of my country than seeing decent, average people standing up to a corrupt and tyrannical government. Indeed, yesterday was a great day for the Tea Party, and the country all around.

Not only did thousands of people gather to protest all over the country (here are some examples: Denver (2,000), Colorado Springs (2,000), Hartford (1,200), Boise Idaho (1,000), Oklahoma City (1,000), Tucson (2,000) and Washington, D.C. (“thousands”)), but they also finally released their Contract From America. This is a great document that was compiled by the votes of millions of Americans, and it outlines what the public wants Washington to do.

Said House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio), this document “captures the American people’s frustration with a government that has grown too big, too costly, and too arrogant.” Mike Pence (R-Indiana) said it’s a “good start toward the essential goals of individual liberty, limited government, and economic freedom. I hope that many conservative leaders will join with this bold initiative that’s marked by powerful ideas to get our government’s fiscal house in order.” Good words gentlemen.

Meanwhile, the media was still worried about the false racism allegations from way back when. Sure, whatever, like anyone's listening. In fact, let's ignore the media entirely because we have something better than an AP report -- we have actual witnesses to the Tea Party events of yesterday who have given us their reports.

First, we have Tam from Tucson:
I just got back from the Tea Party in Tucson. I had to leave early because I had to get my kid from school, but there were about 2,000 people there. All happy, positive, energetic, fired up patriots. There were even some *gasp* people of color...it wasn't all old, wealthy, white men. I wandered all around, talking to the people in the crowds. There was no sign of infiltrators while I was there, no angry mob, just very passionate people ready to reclaim our freedom. The thing I liked best about the people and the message was that it wasn't just about "Nobama" or repealing the health care, or stopping the takeover...it was all about what we want to DO to move forward! So much for the party of no! It was fantastic...everybody was discussing action, organizing meetings at schools, city councils, churches...supporting actions that will take back the incremental freedoms and choices we have lost over the last several years of complacency. I am attaching some pictures just in case you are interested in the experience in this neck of the nation.
Secondly, we have a report from my sister from Colorado Springs:
We hit the local gathering in Colorado Springs. We had beautiful weather and a great crowd. A local radio host, Richard Randall, did the emcee-ing and we were treated to a series of conservative, freedom-loving speakers, as well as candidates for the upcoming elections. Swamped in handouts, we can now turn to the internet to examine all the candidates more closely and make an informed decision. We did make sure to sign a petition to get a measure on the ballot that will preserve Coloradoans' rights not to be forced to buy healthcare and to be allowed to pay cash for medical treatment if we choose. There were a few protesters to the protest, but they were easily discouraged and gave up quickly when the 2,000-strong gathering chanted "USA" right over them. All in all, another great day, and another step closer to November. Thank goodness!
Now you know more about yesterday’s protests than you would have learned from watching CNN all day long.

Thanks for the reports. And thanks to everyone who went. Thanks for representing us all. Thanks for keeping the pressure on those jerks in Washington. And thanks for keeping the momentum going. . . right into November!


[+] Read More...