The Latest Liberal Purge

Jonah Goldberg doesn't need any help from me in selling his book. But I used the front of his book to introduce this post simply because the title is exactly the first thought I had when I found out about National Public Radio firing Juan Williams for making one itsy-bitsy comment which diverged from the straight Progressive script.

Since I am about to go into full rant mode, I'll start out with a basic recitation of the facts surrounding Williams's firing. Last Monday night, Williams was making comments criticizing Bill O'Reilly's approach to addressing Islam. In particular, the discussion revolved around the now-famous The View exit of Whoopi Goldberg and Joy Behar because they were so horribly offended by O'Reilly saying "Muslims killed us on 9-11." Williams was cautioning against painting all of Islam with the broad brush of terrorism.

Of course, before making the "damnable remark" that got him in hot water with the left, Williams felt it necessary to point out his liberal credentials and his books about the civil rights movement. He prefaced his remarks with the obligatory "I'm not a bigot." It's very sad that anybody feels it necessary to prove his liberalism before he makes a comment that might not be pure liberal doctrine. And it didn't do Williams a bit of good anyway. After the standard liberal disclaimers, Williams blasphemously said something about his own guilty feeling of discomfort when "I get on the plane, I got to tell you, if I see people who are in Muslim garb and I think,you know, they are identifying themselves first and foremost as Muslims, I get worried. I get nervous."

It wasn't even on a par with Jesse Jackson's remarks from a few years back when he said "when I'm walking alone at night in D.C., and I hear footsteps and youthful laughter behind me, I'm ashamed to admit that I am relieved when I turn around and see white kids." But that was then and this is now. Progressives have become bolder and more vicious than they were just a few decades ago. Once the mantras "Islam means peace," and "9-11 was committed by a small group of radical Muslims who distorted Islam" were established, there can be absolutely no deviation from them.

So the self-righteous and obnoxious CEO of NPR, Vivian Schiller, made a public statement in which she hypocritically denounced Williams for stating his personal opinion in violation of NPR's super-duper standards for their "reporters." She was so far up on that high horse that if she slipped and fell, even her thick head would have broken open. And then she went that one step farther. She announced that if Williams wanted to tell people how he felt, he should have done so with his psychiatrist or his publiher. In other words, poor, stupid, ignorant, bigoted Williams expressed his nervousness about Muslim regalia for only one of two reasons: either he is crazy, or he is doing it to sell books.

Williams will land on his feet. He has a permanent spot as the devil's advocate on Fox News Channel. He has his own regular column at the Washington Post. And he has a series of successful books. If anything, Williams's stature has been improved by this contrived suppression of free speech. I don't think the same can be said of NPR.

The true liberals are coming out in force against this travesty. By "true liberals" I mean those well-meaning but mistaken people whose political philosophy counters conservatism. That doesn't include hardcore leftists, "Progressives," and crypto-communists who control much of the mainstream media. Noted liberal Democrat pundit Bob Beckel could barely sputter out his disgust for the firing. It's the first time I have ever seen Beckel at a near-loss for words. Democrat and former pollster Pat Caddell said that Williams was a sacrificial lamb in the war on Fox, and added "they've screwed with the wrong people this time."

Caddell added "they care nothing about the concept of open debate or free speech." Several liberals joined in noting that just prior to the firing, Nazi collaborator and present currency manipulator multi-billionaire George Soros had just thrown $1.8 million at his leftist hit site Media Matters and NPR. Several mentioned that NPR never batted an eyelash when their leftist commentator Nina Totenberg opined that she hoped someone would pass AIDS on to Jesse Helms or his grandchildren because he wouldn't support many millions of dollars in public money for AIDS organizations in Africa.

The trope that Williams expressed an opinion not allowed for the straight-laced NPR "reporters" is just pure baloney. Totenberg expressed a very clear opinion and a fervid hope that Helms and his grandkids would die a horrible death. Another NPR "reporter" expressed her opinion that Mrs. Clarence Thomas should feed her husband lots of high cholesterol foods so that he would die soon of a heart attack or stroke. As with Totenberg, there were no repercussions. Yet Williams did not even express an opinion. He merely admitted to a certain feeling of unease on an airplane where there are Muslims in Middle-Eastern garb. And he even stated that he felt bad about feeling that way. Sorry, Juan, insufficient mean culpa for NPR.

It's time to cut off all federal funding to NPR. This is not a new opinion for me. One of the reasons I switched to the Republican Party in 1994 was the promise in the Contract With America that funding for NPR would be cut off. It didn't happen then. It should happen now. As for their sources of private funding, I hope many liberals will follow Bob Beckel's lead and refuse to make any pledges to the organization this year (or any year, as far as I'm concerned). Nazi collaborator turned leftist billionaire Soros will probably make up any shortfalls directly and through his many surrogates, but at least a message will get out. And a trillion dollars for a network that nobody listens to or respects anymore is just money down the Progressive drain.

I am glad Fox will continue its relationship with Juan Williams. I enjoy shouting back at the television every time he lets loose with an Obama defense or stands behind the growth of government and the shrinking private sector. Except for sharing his nervousness on airplanes with potential jihadists aboard, I agree with very little that Williams says. But unlike NPR, I enjoy the marketplace of ideas. And unlike Williams, I don't feel guilty about my suspicions of people who look like they're on their way to an Al Qaeda conference.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Sharia Comes To New Jersey

Many of you are aware of a Supreme Court decision in the Islamic nation of the United Arab Emirates which recently held that wife and child beating are acceptable so long as the punishment wasn't "too extreme." But what you may not know is that a judge in New Jersey recently considered sharia law and Islamic custom in rejecting a restraining order requested by an abused wife.

There is a very disturbing trend in American courts that results in the negation of American law and custom in favor of politically-correct multicultural nonsense. Dangerous nonsense. Here's a quick summary of the case and the New Jersey judge's decision: A married Moroccan Muslim couple moved to New Jersey some years back. After suffering continued beatings and spousal rapes, the wife finally resorted to the New Jersey courts. The facts are undisputed. Police took photos of the battering, demonstrating multiple severe bruising over her entire body. A gynecologist testified to the forced sex. At the couple's house, blood stains were found in many locations, most noticeably on the couple's bed. DNA tests established that all the blood stains came from the wife.

The wife requested a restraining order against the husband. Slam-dunk prior to the latest abandonment of American decency and law. But these are very perilous times. Even the husband's imam testified that Islam requires that the wife must submit to her husband's sexual demands. But he refused to answer what Islam allows if she says no. The husband himself, citing his version of Islamic law, testified that he warned the wife that: "You must do whatever I tell you to do. I want to hurt your flesh. This is according to our religion. You are my wife, I can do anything to you." Had a cult fundamentalist Christian said the same thing by way of defense, the court would have laughed heartily before turning the husband over to the police.

The court made a decision that in my lengthy years in the law I never expected to hear from an American judge. First, the judge determined that the criminal acts were proved (this was a civil court, so the judge had no immediate jurisdiction over the criminal charges). BUT, he then unbelievably denied the restraining order. Without even the concurrence of the defendant's imam, the judge simply ignored New Jersey law and instituted his own version of Islamic/sharia law. He further held that the husband could not be culpable for the physically violent sexual assaults because, hold your breath, "he did not have the specific intent to sexually assault his wife, and because his actions were consistent with his religious practices." Therefore under sharia law this Muslim husband had the right to rape his wife.

In America, we are all supposed to be bound equally by the laws of our nation and our states. It has been the long history of American jurisprudence that you don't apply California law to an Illinois case, you don't apply British law to a federal case, and you don't apply religious law of any kind to any case. This creeping Islamism is an abandonment of the entire course of American jurisprudence. It is an early example of the "special treatment" for Muslims that no other civil or religious class of Americans is allowed. Furthermore, it indicates the willingness of damned fool liberal jurists to begin following the descent into hell already being experienced in Great Britain where there are government-sanctioned Islamic courts separate from the English judicial system.

I wonder how the judge would rule if I beat the crap out him because my religious views allow me to physically attack judicial wrongdoers. In fact, I'd be jailed just for making the threat to throttle him. At least one state, Oklahoma, has begun the march that every state should join by amending its state constitution to forbid state court judges from considering sharia or the law of other nations in a purely state matter. I think it would be a great development if the US Supreme Court would also follow that lead.

Before packing my .357 Magnum and booking a flight to New Jersey, I found out that a New Jersey appellate panel overruled the judge's decision and ordered him to issue the restraining order forthwith (in legal parlance, "forthwith" means "yesterday, you idiot"). That does not alter the fact that an American judge was willing to ignore a very specific New Jersey anti-spousal abuse statute in order not to offend a practitioner of one single religion. It wasn't Christianity, or Judaism, or Buddhism, or Hinduism. It was the one religion that promotes hatred, male domination of women, jihad, and mass murder for infidels--namely, Islam.

According to current politically-correct thought, I'm now supposed to do a lengthy disclaimer that I only mean "radical Islam." Instead I offer the following, "radical Islam" is a redundancy. When an allegedly moderate imam can't bring himself to condemn spousal rape and physical abuse committed by one of his faithful, I have to ask "what is moderate Islam?" There is more to mainstream Islam than flying airplanes into skyscrapers. And if America ever allows sharia to enter the legal system in any form, America is doomed and the rule of law is gone forever.

Somewhat related note: On Wednesday, National Public Radio fired liberal contributor Juan Williams for making the very sensible remark on the Fox O'Reilly Factor that "when I get on a plane and see people in Muslim garb who identify first and foremost as Muslims, I get nervous." The rest of his remarks were sharply aimed at dispelling what he considered to be anti-Islamic stands taken by others. He has consistently been a promoter of the concept of "broad moderate Islam." None of that mattered when the leftists discovered he had made one small and rather innocuous remark aimed at fundamentalist Muslims of a very specific type. So far, the rumor is that CAIR (the Council on American Islamic Relations) called NPR and demanded Williams be fired. NPR is largely funded by taxpayer funds, so this is getting very close to government censorship of any speech that is even mildly critical of even minor factions of Islam. A judge happily applying sharia law. A taxpayer-funded national radio station firing someone for making a very minor criticism of Islam. A President who bows low to the Saudi king. Are you getting nervous yet?

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Stop Calling Me!!!!!

You may have noticed that it’s election season. How do we know this? Because we’re seeing a billion television ads telling us that someone who wants our vote will make the sun shine brighter and our food taste better. . . or will make the sun go dark and eat our children. And what’s worse, they have your phone number, and they aren’t afraid to abuse it.

Campaigns are expected to spend just over $4.2 billion in advertising in this election cycle. Most of that goes to television ads, but a good chunk now goes to robocalls. Not only are robocalls a waste of money, but I would suggest they actively hurt the candidate. Let’s start with television advertising because the difference between television ads and robocalls is what makes robocalls so toxic.

I honestly don’t care about television advertisements; I pretty much ignore them: “Oh look, my show is going on a three minute hiatus, where’s that remote?” Or else I mute them because the networks like messing with the noise level. . . apparently most people go deaf during the commercial breaks.

But even if they somehow continue to blare in the background, I use the ultimate self-defense weapon: indifference. Indeed, the only times I pay attention to ads are when something strikes me as odd about the ad, for example, when they go out of their way to avoid saying something (drug companies, finance companies, car dealers, etc.), or when they play race games (Vonage) or they try to sneak gay characters into ads (Digiorno, Progressive), or when they hire actors who are supposed to make you think of currently popular politicians.

But since they barely reach my consciousness, television ads don’t bother me. So go ahead and waste your money, you won’t hear me complaining. But robocalls are different because they can’t be ignored.

Robocalls are computerized calls where some politician or washed up celebrity records a message to you about one or more candidates that will be on your ballot. These things are so annoying, that they typically do more harm than good. Indeed, time and again politicians find themselves running to a microphone to apologize for something that was said in one of these messages or trying to pretend that they knew nothing about the call that suggested that Sen. Whatshisface is a cannibal or a crossdresser or a crossdressing cannibal. And did you know Sen. Whatshisface gets money from dwarves? His mother used to beat black orphans professionally! He even wants to put children into mines. . . which actually sounds like a better place to store them than your average high school.

Everyone hates these.

Oddly, politicians know these things backfire but they keep doing them. How do we know they understand this? Because they are constantly getting caught putting out fake robocalls “from” the other side, which are intentionally insulting or annoying. They wouldn’t do that if robocalls weren’t ticking people off. Yet, despite all the press conferences begging forgiveness and denying involvement, they continue to put these things out. Why? Because politicians are stupid; they operate on the principle of drooling moron see, drooling moron do.

So what makes a robocall so annoying? Well, for starters, I’m getting 3-5 a night. And unlike television ads, you can’t avoid them. What’s worse, they target times when no decent human being would try to get your attention, like when you’re eating dinner or Saturday morning when you’re trying to make up for all that lost sleep.

Moreover, talking to a machine is aggravating. At least when regular phone solicitors hire retarded chimpanzees or teenagers to call you, you can mess with them. For example, when they insist on calling you by your first name, tell them “that was Uncle John, who died last night when an alien burst out of his anus,” and then start sobbing. Or quiz them about their knowledge of America and throw in the occasional insult at India. Or when they try to fight with you after you tell them you aren’t interested, ask them what they’re wearing. That’s guaranteed to get them to hang up. But you can’t do any of this with a machine. No. Your best material goes to waste on these stupid machines as John McCain prattles on about the merits of someone he’s never met.

What makes candidates think that calling me 3-5 times a day at a time that is guaranteed to piss me off just so a machine can lecture me is going to make me feel favorably inclined toward said candidate? Do they not know that every time they call my house I consider not voting for them (or trying to find a way to vote against them more than once)?

Frankly, I hope the inventor of phone solicitation is rotting in a warm place with a pitchfork rammed up his posterior. . . and I feel much less charitable toward the inventor of the robocall. It’s time this practice stopped. It’s time candidates swore off this insidious advertising strategy, or maybe we should start striking back. Maybe we should start calling them at all hours, telling them why we’re better than the guy across the street? Maybe that will finally get the message across.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Let's Make A Movie

It’s time to pick your brains about the next great conservative American film. Today’s idea comes from something Joel said the other day. Here’s the set up. It’s November 2, 2010. Nancy Pelosi hops in her luxury taxpayer-funded plane to fly home so she can enjoy the surprise victory she’s expecting. The plane is forced down by mechanical problems in Nowhere, Kansas.

While they fix the plane, Pelosi visits the airport bar. After downing a few Bloody Marys, Pelosi returns to where the plane had been. . . but it’s gone. Taped to the glass overlooking the empty runway is a note from the pilots: “You lost the election and the American public called. They want their plane back now. They also cut off your credit cards.”

Pelosi calls a local booster for help, but they won’t take her call. . . nobody loves a loser. So San Fran Nan sets out on foot to make her way back to Sodom by the Bay; her only possession, an over-sized Speaker’s gavel.

Here’s where you come in. What happens next? Is she hunted by an evil cult? Does she fight a bear? Is she dusting crops where there ain't no crops? Does she turn to crime to pay for meals? Begging? Selling her body? Selling someone else’s body? And what happens when her Botox finally fails. . . would it be like the ending of Raiders of the Lost Ark? Or does she find romance? Does she live at peace among the animals of the plains? Does she learn a little something about America?

You tell us! Give us your idea for how this epic should end and give us your best plot points. And even more importantly, tell us what lessons Nan should learn on her journey!

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Halal No!

Do you know what “Halal” means? Halal is the method for preparing food required by Islamic law. This sounds pretty benign, right? After all, Islam is a religion and religions wouldn’t do anything that we would consider barbaric, right? And besides, it’s not like you or I need to participate in this. . . or do we? Believe it or not, you may be participating in this rather barbaric practice and not even know it. And there’s more.

In the past month, two things have come to light related to the issue of Halal dietary practice. The first involves the country of England. The second involves Campbell’s soup.

A recent Daily Mail investigation has revealed that schools, hospitals, pubs, restaurants, and famous sporting venues all over England (think Wembley) are now serving food that is prepared according to Sharia law. This includes schools that boast of a “strong Christian ethos” as well as schools that have done all the trendy liberal things from banning smoking to faking environmental data to refusing to invest in anti-liberal things like weapons makers and South Africa, etc. So now they’ve gone Halal. And we're not just talking about special requests like asking for a vegetarian platter. Indeed, England’s biggest restaurant chain has admitted that three-quarters of the poultry it serves is Halal chicken (usually procured from the country of Turkey).

Here’s the kicker: they’re doing this secretly. Yep. None of these institutions has alerted the public that the food they are being served was prepared according to Islamic law. When the big restaurant chain was asked why they didn’t disclose this information to customers, their spokesman gave the following bit of doublespeak:

“It is not mentioned on any of our menus because we don’t think there is customer demand for that information. But if people started asking, then we would definitely provide it.”

In other words, they justify hiding this fact because people haven’t asked them about it. That same reasoning could be applied to justify not telling customers about the health code violations, that the beef is actually human, that the chef has leprosy, or that the kitchen staff spent the night urinating in the soup pots. Oh, so sorry, you should have asked!

But, you ask, why would customers be upset about Halal foods? Here’s why: Sharia law expressly forbids knocking animals out before they are butchered. That’s right. A Halal butcher will slit the throat of the animal while it is alive and awake, allowing the blood to drip from the body as religious phrases are recited to praise Allah.

While Islamo-apologists claim the animals are dead within two seconds, research has shown that it can take up to two minutes for the animal to die because carotid arteries can contract after being cut, sealing the severed ends and maintaining blood pressure in the brain. (A grisly report on German slaughterhouses recently found similar issues where conscious animals were butchered or dropped into super-heated water to remove the skin while alive. But that was unintentional, Halal is not.)

Notably, animal rights groups are furious and they are demanding that Halal meat be clearly labeled, something typically required for the slightest possibility of unpleasant reaction in every other instance. . . but somehow not required in this instance.

And that brings us to Campbell. Campbell Soup of New Jersey is fighting a grass-roots boycott after its Canadian subsidiary rolled out a line of soups certified as Halal. Unlike the British problem, where the Halal sourcing remains a secret, Campbell at least is open about the Halal certification -- although I see no obvious markings on the packages, and it turns out that many things like tomato sauce or Romano cheese which you would think include only vegetables are made commercially using animal parts, which were procured using Halal methods.

But there’s an even bigger catch: the organization that certifies that these soups and other products are Halal compliant is called the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA). ISNA was an unindicted co-conspirator in the prosecution of a “charitable organization” called Holy Land Foundation, which funneled money from the United States to Hamas, a group that even the State Department recognizes as a terrorist organization.

Think about that the next time you see a Campbell’s advertisement touting their patriotism or their place in your family’s pantry. Not only are they now offering products that include meats from animals that were, for lack of a better word, tortured in the name of Allah, but they have hired an organization with terrorist links to certify that the animals were properly tortured to please this bloodthirsty Allah.

Campbell, like all corporate bad guys, claims the boycott is not hurting their sales, and thus refuses to change to a non-terrorist-connected certifier. (They also claim these products will only be sold in Canada. . . at least until they change their minds.)

This is just the latest example of large corporations and their government counterparts not caring anymore about the public. They would change their entire way of doing business to avoid offending a small group like gays or environmental extremists, but forget about them being sensitive to the concerns of the public at large. In this case, these behemoth organizations have chosen to cater to the primitive practices of Muslims, even though Muslims make up only 1% of the population in the United States and 3.3% of the population in Britain. But what’s worse, they are foisting this on the rest of the public and they have chosen to deceive the other 99% of us to make that possible. Could you imagine them doing the same for a Christian group? Or could you see them standing up for some bit of traditional Americana? No. . . I can’t see that either.

Maybe it is time for a little anti-corporate populism after all.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Unions Again Attack Conservatives--Illegally

The National Labor Relations Act, considerable legislation, and consistent court opinions all prohibit the use of union dues to support political causes, candidates and parties without a strict accounting to the membership of the funds along with some sort of agreement from the individual member that the dues may be used for this purpose.

Many, many union members are Republicans, conservatives, or Reagan Democrats and have never consented to such a use of their dues. But the National Labor Relations Board, whether Republican or Democrat controlled, tends to look the other way until a member sues the union for misuse of union dues for unauthorized political purposes. Nearly every suit against the unions on this issue has been successful, occasionally resulting in large awards of money damages to the membership. But the thieves and thugs who run the unions are always willing to take that risk. The law be damned, they have their agenda and nobody had better stand in the way.

Yesterday, the largest union organization in the nation, the AFL-CIO, through its political director issued a memo to his troops natiowide that is breathtaking in its scope. Can't wait to see how the MSM will bury this leaked memo, or ignore the illegality of the use of union resources forced out of the wallets of its members. The memo is aimed at defeating Republicans, conservatives, any candidate from any political party who supports right-to-work, and all candidates who are opposing card check, forced union membership and the reprehensible Police and Firefighter Monopoly Bargaining Bill.

Here are some of the jewels in this union crown of dirty politics:

Producing or funding TV ads that are last-minute ambush ads containing half-truths, legal distortions or outright lies. Can you say "foreign money in Chamber of Commerce pro-Republican ads?" What the Chamber is doing is perfectly legal (protecting its supporters by maintaining confidential donor lists), while what the AFL-CIO is doing is not (using union dues without specific permission for political purposes).

Suspending union activities such as organizing, ministering to its members, conducting labor arbitrations and contract negotiations, and supporting its members (all legal and the alleged purpose of unions). To what purpose? To put 2,000 of the national staff and 3,000 union local officials out on the hustings to campaign for leftist/liberal/Democratic candidates and against conservative Democrats and Republican candidates.

Making a goal of tens of millions of phone calls specifically attacking pro-right to work candidates (they have already made 23 million such calls on the membership's dime).

Sending four million mail hit-pieces every week until election day smearing candidates who oppose card check, forced unionism and union thuggery.

If this were not such a nefarious activity, the AFL-CIO would have trumpeted it to the public. But outside the halls of Tammany and the union offices, nobody would have known what they were up to if some fed-up union member had not leaked the memo. While demanding to know the names of each and every legal donor to the Chamber of Commerce ad campaign, the Democrats and the union bosses use sneaky and illegal tactics such as those listed while trying desperately to fly under the radar of public opinion. And if you don't believe me, I'll be sending two large SEIU thugs to your house to instruct you on the error of doubting the representatives of the oppressed workers of the world.

To compel a man to furnish funds for the propagation of ideas he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical. Thomas Jefferson


[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

The End Of Pelosi?

As we saw in the latest Commentarama poll, most of you (80% in fact) think Nancy Pelosi will be booted from the Democratic leadership after the November debacle. While I don’t dispute that the odds favor her ejection, let me point out why this might not be a foregone conclusion. Surprised?

The public has certainly soured on Pelosi. Indeed, the only public figures with higher negatives than Pelosi are Hitler and Satan, and Satan’s got stronger positives. But the public doesn’t get to vote on Pelosi. If they did, she would be tied to a stake right now blowing at the flames. In fact, it’s not even Democrats who get to make this decision. No. Only House Democrats get to vote on Pelosi, and they don’t think like you.

As far as the Democratic public is concerned, the argument for dumping Pelosi is simple. Beginning in 2006, the Democrats took over the House of Representatives and Pelosi became the media-anointed “most powerful Speaker in history.” But after four years of Democratic control over the House and two years of control over every nook and cranny of government, the Democrats have remarkably little to show for it. They passed a huge stimulus that went to waste. They passed a version of ObamaCare that was so watered-down the Kool-Aid flavor was barely recognizable. They did Wall Street’s bidding. They were corrupt. And now they’re about to hand power back to the Republicans in one of the worst tidal wave elections in history.

But here is the view from the Democrats in the House. Pelosi has been a great Speaker. She managed to pass a wildly progressive agenda that died in the Senate. . . a den of cowards who subverted everything the House did. Moreover, the Democrats’ current unpopularity isn’t Pelosi’s fault, it’s the fault of a combination of two factors that include (1) a mysteriously bad economy that seems to be the result of collusion by Republican business interests refusing to hire employees, and (2) an Obama administration that has never once defended their values, which hasn’t had the will to follow through on its own rhetoric, and which caved to even token Republican resistance.

Additionally, Pelosi raised tens of millions of dollars for individual Democratic candidates, something she is very good at, and many of them owe her. Further, Pelosi handpicked almost all of the committee chairmanships, and thus, more Democrats owe her.

Then there’s something else to consider: who would replace her? Generally speaking, there are two House Democrats who have tangled with Pelosi. But neither appears up to the task.

The first was California Rep. Jane Harman (mucho bad blood). Harman was Pelosi’s biggest rival when Pelosi assumed the Speaker job. What’s more, Harman’s husband recently bought Newsweek, which could easily become the headquarters of an anti-Pelosi media campaign. But Harman is (wrongly) considered a “moderate” Democrat. Indeed, she once belonged to the Democratic Leadership Council, a group determined to pull the Democrats back from the brink of socialism. That’s a problem.

A similar problem exists for the other possible candidate: Steny Hoyer. Hoyer is the number two Democrat in the House, and he and Pelosi have a very strained relationship. Their bad blood began when Pelosi defeated Hoyer for the job of Minority Whip in 2002. Then, in 2006, Hoyer ran against Pelosi’s hand-chosen candidate (John Murtha) for Majority Leader. Hoyer defeated the scandal plagued Murtha 149 to 86. Since that time, Hoyer has campaigned heavily for other Democratic House members and has on some occasions taken stands that wonks have interpreted as intended to embarrass Pelosi, such as demanding that she push through with the full agenda even when it became clear the Senate would never vote on these proposals.

But Hoyer is a bit of an emotionless bootlicker. He’s not the guy to inspire passion in a party that traffics in emotion rather than reason. Moreover, while Hoyer is not a moderate himself, to pull off the 149-86 upset, Hoyer relied on the support of moderates. . . the same group to which Harman would appeal (although her appeal has been diminished because of an espionage-related scandal, where she was twice caught trying to lobby the Justice Department on behalf of Israeli spies).

So is the problem that Hoyer and Harman will split the moderate vote? No. The problem is that there won’t be any moderates left in the House after the election. All those “bluedog” Democrats the media likes to talk about were hand-picked by Rahm Emmanuel with the idea of taking Republican-leaning seats from the Republicans. Those seats will all change hands in November, along with quite a few Democratic-leaning seats. What will be left will be the Democrats in the hard-left districts, districts that match Pelosi’s politics.

Thus, in a contest between Pelosi, who delivered on a far left agenda, who raised money for most House Democrats, who appointed every committee chair and party leader except Hoyer. . . . and Hoyer, who is bland but has done some campaigning, the far-left nutjobs who get to vote are not likely to favor the rhetorically more moderate Hoyer. That means they are likely to vote for Pelosi again.

Could Pelosi really survive? John Boehner survived the debacle of 2008 to remain Minority Leader. The last Speaker to be tossed out of the leadership by their party was Republican Joseph William Martin, Jr. after the Republicans lost the majority in 1958. Before Martin, I’ve found none who were ejected from leadership as far back as the Civil War and probably a lot longer than that -- though several resigned and a couple lost re-election to Congress.

So what are the odds Pelosi will survive? That’s a lot closer question than you would think, isn’t it?


**** By the way, don't forget to pass around the Election Guide to remind people why they need to vote the Democrats out!****


[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Media Bias: Only The Left Can Offer Real Spending Cuts

Most people complain about media bias, but the media acts like it doesn’t know what they’re talking about. . . except when Fox News is being criticized. Bias takes many forms, from favoring one argument over another, to reporting one side uncritically while casting doubt on the other, to selectively reporting facts, to mischaracterizing one side, to demonizing one side while “humanizing” the other, to flat out lying, fabricating and/or distorting arguments or facts. Let's take a look at how the media has addressed the issue of deficit reduction for an example of a clear leftward bias.

Over the past year, the MSM has slowly walked through a series of attacks on Republican deficit reduction plans. Here is the how this attack went:

1. Republicans were first to demand spending cuts. The MSM immediately responded by attacking these cuts as endangering the economic recovery.

2. But the public wanted cuts, so eventually the Democrats came up with a competing plan. While this plan was less specific than the Republican plan -- suggesting only that someday they would cut wasteful spending and increase taxes on the rich -- the MSM immediately hailed the Democrats for putting together a “serious plan to reduce the deficit.” The MSM seemed to forget that until that very morning they were arguing that cutting the deficit would destroy the economy. At the same time, the MSM began criticizing Republicans for “not putting together any plan”. . . which begs the question of how they made the criticism in No. 1.

3. Once the Republicans began publishing their plan (to get around the media's attempts to ignore their plan), the MSM switched their attack to: “the Republican plan is vague and meaningless.” They never once said this about the Democrats, who offered even fewer specifics.

4. When this didn’t stop the Republicans’ popularity from surging, next came, “we agree with the need for cuts, but these are draconian.” So how does this fit with the prior argument that the Republican plan was vague and meaningless? Not coincidentally, the MSM never identified any cuts they would make.

5. Next the MSM touted the deficit cutting plans introduced by a handful of Democrats, which typically amounted to little more than a few pennies on every $10,000 of spending. No mention was made of the insignificance of these plans; to the contrary, they were hailed as “brave." The MSM then went back to criticizing the Republicans for not offering any alternative plan.

6. Then the MSM tried to turn the Republicans' refusal to propose tax increases as "giveaways" to large corporations and the well-connected. . . as if not stealing something is the same as showering the owner with their own property.

7. With the public still leaning to the right, the MSM next proclaimed that the Republicans weren’t actually serious about the cuts they proposed, and that they had no intention of following through. Of course, no proof was offered. They even had the nerve to ask why Republicans never submitted these before. . . even though they had, the Democrats just refused to vote on them.

8. When this argument didn’t work, they switched to the bizarre argument that the Republicans may be suggesting good cuts, but were offering them for the wrong reasons. . . seriously, they said this.

9. Then came “the Republicans won’t be able to deliver these kinds of cuts.” Yet, somehow the Democrats can? Actually, this has become a common argument in places like The Economist: only the left has the moral authority to make spending cuts or deal with unions or address Muslim countries, etc.

10. Next, they began attacking the specific people proposing the cuts, pointing out whatever scandal they could from the past. And when no scandal was available, they accused them of being too partisan and having angered a large part of the population, i.e. the hard left. They even attacked Paul Ryan for associating with. . . Republicans. Oh my!

11. Finally, when it became obvious the Republicans would win the election, the MSM returned to the idea that spending cuts would hurt the economy.

Notice that throughout this process, the MSM uncritically blessed any plan put forward by the Democrats as serious and likely to work, without ever addressing the plan's obvious flaws or asking why the Democrats couldn’t have done this during their prior years in power. Meanwhile, they repeatedly made arguments against the Republicans which were proven to be disingenuous once they moved on to the next argument, e.g. like when they suddenly argued a plan was "draconian" right after arguing that there was no plan.

Notice also that when they failed to win on the merits, they turned to impugning the motives of the Republicans -- as if it matters what your reason is for putting a good policy into place -- and then they finally attacked the individual messengers. With Ryan, they went for the ultimate tautology gotcha: we can find no fault with Ryan except that he is a Republican and therefore his plan is proof that Republicans are bad.

This is a classic example of bias. This is not analysis, this is advocacy. This is slowly walking through contradictory alternative arguments until you find one that strikes a chord. This is what lawyers do when arguing to an appellate court. Nor should it surprise anyone that the MSM outfits who made these argument were parroting Democratic talking points as they did. This is why people no longer trust the media.

So what examples of media bias have you seen lately?

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Will California Learn From Texas?

I was born in Illinois, and have spent most of my life in California. Both states are in serious distress, with California about to drop over the bankruptcy precipice. Unemployment continues to rise and the social democrats in charge of the state refuse to reach a budget and cut billions in frivolous state spending. Both states could learn a lot from Texas.

Back in the 80s, my office manager was a displaced Texan. I used to tease him about the great Houston skyline. It had those very airy skyscrapers that didn't spoil the view because you could see right through them. The windows were unfettered by any humans actually working in the buildings. Texas had depended too much on oil, and had very little else going for it. Meanwhile, California was booming. What a difference a couple of decades can make.

California boomed in more ways than one. State spending doubled, tripled and quadrupled, without attendant increases in productivity. But the Democrats controlled the legislature, and Republican governors after Reagan kept misplacing their veto pens. Government burgeoned, while yuppie punks and politicians like Jerry Moonbeam Brown taxed what production there was at an ever-increasing rate. By the late 90s, the San Francisco skyline was beginning to resemble the one in Houston that I had made so much fun of. Bye-bye, Levi Strauss. Bye-bye Southern Pacific Railroad. Bye-bye Standard Oil. Bye-bye Bank of America. Yes, and even bye-bye Rice-A-Roni, the San Francisco treat. Some companies moved to more rural, lower-taxing cities, but many simply closed their doors or moved out of California completely.

As the decades wore on, California adopted every silly, mega-expensive fad imaginable, while killing off its businesses. Public employees bred like rabbits, and government went berserk in its efforts to control every facet of California's society. The greatest agricultural state in the union has watched its Central Valley go from a farming wonderland to a desert as ecofreaks cut off the water in order to save a fish that nobody ever heard of and which serves no known purpose on God's now-brown earth.

The citizens got fed up with Jerry Brown clone Grey Davis, and elected a movie star who claimed to be a conservative. That lasted about two weeks before Sacramento and Hollywood merged and became the two poles of airy-fairy land. That selfsame governor now thinks that if Californians would just give up their carbon-fueled automobiles and turn to green hydrogen-powered cars that haven't been invented yet, all of California's problems would be solved. And as he prepares to leave office, he still hasn't learned how to pronounce the name of the state he allegedly governs.

While California went from middle of the road Republican government to left wing Democratic control, Texas went from racist-dominated oil monopoly Democratic control to moderate, then conservative Republican government. California led the nation in nearly everything for nearly half a century. Now it's Texas's turn. As California sinks slowly into the west, Texas is a vital, independent, proud and growingly-prosperous state.

Nothing could be more demonstrative of this fact than the employment figures coming out of DC's own Bureau of Labor Statistics. During the height of the Great Recession, from August 2009 through August 2010, 214,000 new jobs were created nationwide (not the b.s. "created or saved" figure) in private business, and Texas alone created 119,000 of them. While California and Illinois bleed jobs and productive workers, and each has an unemployment rate officially at about 11% (which means that counting those who have simply given up trying to get a job the number is close to 18%), Texas is building, growing and hiring.

I don't want to paint too rosy a picture. Texas is part of the United States, and can't avoid being somewhat affected by the spendthrift, tax and spend, profligate central government's attempts to destroy all private businesses. It has suffered along with the rest of the states. But it's feisty defiance of Washington and its bad habits have led to a firm belief that we can yet get out of the woods if we just follow the Texas example.

Texas unemployment jumped after the big crash, just as it did everywhere. But while California experienced an 8.7 percent decrease in peak employment in the past year, and the nation experienced a 5.7 percent decrease, Texas held it to 2.3 percent. Government expenditures in California comprise 25.5 percent of the state's GDP, nationwide it's 22.8 percent, but in Texas it's 17.3 percent. Texas has no income tax, while California has one of the highest in the nation, with the most repressive tax rates of all at the higher levels. California the dog is wagged by the union tail, while Texas is a right-to-work state that doesn't force unions on unwilling employees.

While Texas encouraged private employment and business development, California taxed, regulated and interfered with both. So while Texas was creating 119,000 net new jobs, California was losing 112,000. I may be mistaken, but I think I see a pattern developing here.

California led the nation in just about everything since the 50's. Unfortunately, it continued to lead the nation in destroying jobs and businesses by the turn of the century. The nation now has two choices. Follow the old leader off the cliff, as the central government in DC has been doing for decades, or follow a new leader, Texas, to a brighter and stronger future. As a Californian, I say "lead on, Texas."
[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Truth Be Told...

“We’re not losing.” -- Nancy Pelosi

“Yes, you are.” -- The Public

Have you noticed the Democrats running around pretending they’re going to win in November? They know they won’t win, but they’ve decided to lie to keep their base from getting demoralized. But it that really a good strategy? I don’t think it is.

If there is one thing I know about the American public, it is that the public is very forgiving. Maybe this goes back to some Christian tradition, maybe it’s just human nature. . . maybe we’re just suckers. Whatever the reason, in this country, you can be “worse than Hitler” one week and find yourself cheered on as the quarterback of the Philadelphia Eagles the next. Indeed, the American story is the story of redemption and renewal: it’s in our culture, it’s in our laws, and it’s in our very way of thinking.

But there’s a catch: people want to believe you’ve become genuinely contrite before they will forgive you. It’s really not that complicated. They want to believe that you’ve learned your lesson, and that you won’t ever do anything wrong ever again.

And that brings us to the Democrats.

They blew it. They were given control over the government and they ran wild with influence peddling, rampant corruption, abject stupidity, utter incompetence, and a power-high unlike anything seen since Russia, circa October 1917. Not only did they do nothing to benefit the public, but they actively endangered our country and our economy in the process, and they seemed to revel in antagonizing and taunting the public.

And now that the polls show they are in deep trouble, their answer is to lie about the polls in the hopes of tricking enough of their voters to turn out to prevent November from turning from a debacle into a rout. . . or is it the other way around?

Wouldn’t they be better off tapping into the redemption theme that weaves its way throughout our history? In other words, rather than lying about the polls, wouldn’t they be better off admitting the truth:

“We blew it. We did a lot of things wrong and we’re very sorry. We know you want to punish at the polls in November, but we are asking for a second chance. We understand why you’re upset, and we intend to fix that, and we hope that you’ll give us that chance.”

It may sound corny at first, but if you think about it, it really could prove to be a highly effective strategy. Right now the public has lost faith in the political parties and in individual politicians, and I don’t see how this relationship can be repaired by choosing a strategy of telling obvious lies in the hopes of tricking a handful of non-observant voters. That just highlights the problem, and by doing that, it becomes impossible to convince the rest of the public that they’ve changed and to ask for a second chance.

And it’s not just lies about the polls. The Democrats have been running around lying about. . . well, everything. They lie about their voting records, they lie about their "independence," they lie about things they’ve said, they lie about where they get their money, they lie about what their legislation will do, and they lie about what they want to do if reelected. I understand their reason for telling these lies (the public is angry), but this just seems like a bad idea -- they are trading all future trust for a long shot of short-term gain.

It’s not just the Democrats either. The same thing applies to the Republicans. The more I see them try to repackage the same old policies as something new or as evidence that they understand the public’s anger, the more it seems obvious that they have chosen to go the route of deceit and that we can’t believe that they've changed their ways either.

The public does forgive, but needs a reason to believe you’ve changed. Continuing to tell obvious lies only reinforces the public's distrust. Honestly really is the best policy. Both sides should try it.


[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

New York State [Out] Of [Its] Mind - UFO Edition

As if New Yorkers don't have enough to worry about, now this? Yes folks, there was near panic in Chelsea this week. And no, it wasn't Carl Paladino shooting his mouth off again, or even anything to do with Al Sharpton. This time it was... a UFO! Yes, you read that right. On Wednesday October 13 at around 3pm, a UFO was sighted hovering over Chelsea...see for yourself, if you don't believe me.



Okay, before you panic, this time it turned out to be a bunch of metallic balloons that escaped a childrens' party, but this isn't the first time a UFO has been sighted over New York City. Don't get me wrong. I believe in the possibility of other, more advanced life forms out there, but I really doubt that space aliens are going to land in broad daylight in midtown Manhattan in the middle of a sunny afternoon. If they are truly intelligent lifeform, they would know that Mayor Bloomberg would be forced to levy a hefty commuter tax or just ban them outright because space aliens flying around midtown Manhattan can't possibly be good for anyone's health! But then again, we are a designated Sanctuary City...

Anyway, this got me to thinking about a public access T.V. talk show I saw years ago. The host and a guest were having a very sincere discussion (at 3am) about how good and benevolent space aliens from beyond the Plaeides were on their way to Earth and would be landing around 2012 purportedly to save us from some other bad space aliens who were on their way to Earth to destroy us. I am not sure how the guest obtained this information, but I seem to remember human/alien hybrid babies and bodily probing may have been involved!

So, here's a Commentarama Probing (tee-hee) Question: What do you think President Obama, Joe Biden, Nancy Pelosi and/or Harry Reid will do if/when the space aliens land in 2012? [+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Michelle Votes

Pictured is the First Lady casting her early ballot in Chicago on Thursday. As usual, she was very understated and went about her private business of casting her citizen's vote quietly and without fanfare. After casting her ballot, Michelle commented to reporters: "That's the second time I've been proud of America. We didn't even need the New Black Panthers to protect the polls."

All right. I made that up. But Princeton and Harvard graduate and legal genius Michelle (Wikipedia says her occupation is "lawyer," so it must be true) decided to hold an impromptu political rally inside the Chicago polling place. She told some of her fellow voters that she had voted to support her husband and to help Democrats who need to be in office for the betterment of America. The average person might be a little annoyed by the partisanship, but an alleged lawyer is supposed to know, well, the law.

And Illinois law is clear. No kind of political speech within the sanctity of the polling place. A lawyer would know that expressing her view of why she voted the way she did, and for whom, is political speech forbidden by the law of her home state. On a scale of 1 to 10, with 1 as cold oatmeal and 10 being a tsunami hitting New York City, I make this a 2 or 3. The exact wording of the Illinois statute is: "No person shall engage in any political discussion within any polling place or within 100 feet of any polling place." So obviously, this is a rather technical violation that a layman could easily make without thinking.

But two things occur to me. First, the Obamas hold themselves out to be ethical, knowledgeable followers of the law and the Constitution as well as practitioners of law. Lawyers are supposed to be held to a higher standard of care and knowledge, most particularly about the niceties of the most important act a free citizen can accomplish--the vote. Lawyers have been disciplined, suspended and disbarred for far more technical and much less far-reaching unprofessional acts.

Second, there is the mainstream media non-coverage of the event--very much in keeping with yesterday's discussion. If Laura Bush had done something half this bad, the press would have made it the biggest story of the week, complete with calls for her husband to take her out behind the woodshed and administer punishment. The screams of agony and indignation over Laura's attempt to derail the democratic process and unlawfully influence voters would have been heard 'round the world--twice. And Laura was a librarian, not a "lawyer."

Michelle the Lawyer didn't actually electioneer--which is what most people would think of when considering speech at a polling place. But the Illinois statute was written broadly to avoid any hint of politics or influence where people are voting. Section 17-29 of the Illinois Elections Code goes beyond electioneering, forbidding any political discussion in or near a polling place. Michelle clearly suffers from attacks of logorrhea, but this one time she should have been able to control it.

It is also important to note that though she did not make those remarks at the site directly to reporters, she knew full good and well they were there, listening and recording. So she wasn't really just having a little kaffee klatsch with a couple of local private citizens. Her "sincere" reasons for voting for Democrats and her husband's policies were meant to be heard far beyond the polling place. Which would be perfectly fair politics if the remarks had not been made within the polling place.

So Michelle's message didn't get out to the vast audience she intended it to reach because to do so would require the MSM to highlight the fact that Michelle, plainly and simply, broke the law. Some publications printed the message anyway, and ignored where the comments were made. Others, if mentioning the location at all, denigrated the idea that this was anything more than a simple slip-up. The networks either ignored the whole thing entirely, or mentioned a controversy stirred up by anti-Obama Republicans who were creating a tempest in a teapot (at a Tea Party?).

So even though I'd give her a slap on the wrist and a pass for this breach of ethics and decorum, and violation of election law, it's still an important story, if only because once again, the MSM is still participating in the perpetual political campaigns of the Obamas.
[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

All The News That's Printed To Fit

The Democrats and Barack Obama, along with their suck-ups in the mainstream media are diligently searching for the names of foreigners whom they claim, without any proof of any kind, are spending money illegally on pro-Republican ads. It's a search that reminds me most of O. J. Simpson looking for the killer or killers of his wife. It's phony, it's ludicrous, and most of all, it's intended to be a distraction from what ought to be the real headlines and news stories of the day.

You want slimy politics and slimy politicians? Look no further than the MSM and President Obama. You're worried about where the money for these ads is coming from? How about we talk about the billions of dollars of free puffery and free coverups of criminal/ethical violations Obama gets from the press and TV? From the newseditorial offices of the press to the newseditorial offices of the networks, Obama is praised, but rarely criticized. So let's talk for a few minutes about the recent stories the media giants either ignored or moved to the style section.

Since I was born in Chicago, my favorite disappearing headline is the story of the $18 million in stimulus payments sent to 72,000 dead people. Obama and his gang have outdone the Daley family. I know that dead people in Chicago vote all the time, but have the Democrats gotten so desperate that they have to bribe dead people to vote? The story got a quick mention in intros on ABC and CBS on the early morning shows, but with no followup story. NBC didn't even mention it.

Then there's the story of the Justice Department's miserable attempt to try a Guantanamo terrorist detainee in civilian court. A Clinton federal judicial appointee barred major testimony form a co-conspirator terrorist because the investigators shouted "boo" at the guy. More proof that civilian trials of war criminals doesn't work. So how did the MSM handle it? The CBS Evening News allowed Katie Couric to call it a setback for some nebulous "federal prosecutors." No mention of the fact that it was the Obama/Holder DOJ that made the stupid decision in the first place, and failed to get the testimony allowed in. ABC and NBC took a pass on the whole thing.

Two notorious Democrats are facing serious ethics charges. Charlie Rangel and Maxine Waters are both accused of taking federal funds for personal use, avoiding taxes by lying on the paperwork, and using their personal influence to get loans and stimulus money for their personal friends, relatives, and political allies. In an unusual public statement, ethics committee Republicans directly accused committee chair Zoe Lofgren of purposely putting the trials off until after the November elections. MSM coverage was nonexistent. Only the delay itself was reported, as if it just "kinda happened."

Well, I'm sure you all read or saw the coverage of the panel, assembled by the White House that said the administration was either "not fully competent" or "not fully candid" with the American people about the extent of the BP oil spill. Never mind the weeks and months of breathless reporting about the big bad oil spill causing the end of the world as we know it. Those dirty oilmen and rotten capitalists killing all those cute animals! But when it turns out that the president's own panel states that the administration underplayed the original spill then overplayed the ultimate result, you could hear a pin drop at the MSM. Don't feel bad if you missed the story. So did about 300 million other Americans.

Then there's the story of a whole new round of subpoenas being served in the John Edwards case which could establish that Edwards (former Democratic vice-presidential candidate) used presidential campaign funds to pay for his mistress. It got a quick mention on NBC's Today show, and nothing, nada, zip from ABC or CBS. I guess it's just not as juicy a story as the Republican who played footsy in the men's bathroom. So unless you're a regular subscriber to The Enquirer, you probably missed that story, too.

Then there's the fact that ABC had its own headquarters in the White House during the health care debates. Number of negative burps about Obamacare from ABC? You can count them on the non-existent sixth finger of your right hand. Maybe they were too busy visiting the bedroom next to theirs, where SEIU president and quoter of the Communist Manifesto Andrew Stern had a nearly-permanent place to flop. The story behind Stern's sudden and unexpected resignation from the SEIU and the leaks of pending criminal investigations against him also seem to be missing from the MSM's "news" coverage.

Now this is stuff that's happened just in the past few weeks. In 2009 and 2010, the list goes on and on and on. I'll just use shorthand for the stories that were either squelched, ignored, spun or lied about by the mainstream press and TV. Van Jones, administration communist and 9-11 Truther finally resigns after cruel accusations from the vast right-wing conspiracy. The Al Gore/Obama anthropomorphic global warming snake-oil salesmen get caught making s--t up. The Al Gore defense immediately went into effect--I didn't do it and I'll never do it again. The backup was the Al Sharpton defense--OK, it wasn't true, but it could have been.

The vast-right wingers also drove out a fine public servant in the Obama administration--Communications Director Anita Dunn. Dunn proudly announced that at the top of her list of favorite political philosophers was mass murderer and communist tyrant, Mao Tse Tung. Of course, Dunn is more politically-hip than I am, so she said Mao Zedong. I suppose it's possible that I just have the wrong person, right? MSM coverage counted her departure as a sad commentary on how dedicated public servants no longer wish to serve.

I'll use the shortest of shorthand for the distorted or absent coverage of the criminal activities of Obama's beloved ACORN. Need I say more? These are only a very few of the horrendous stories surrounding the dishonest, unethical, high-handed, government is everything, thuggish, race-baiting, criminal-coddling administration put together by Obama. If Obama had to pay hush money for the coverage he didn't get, he'd have to borrow a few billion from George Soros and the Red Chinese. Instead, he enjoys the free coverage and protection of the media while they help the Democrats search for some British citizen who may or may not have done something which may or may not be illegal by maybe giving some money to an organization that may or may not have put the money toward a pro-Republican political ad.
[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

And They Were Bored. . . The end.

For several years now, I’ve noticed that I’m getting less and less thrilled with the endings of movies. Actually, “thrilled” isn’t the right word, “bored” would be more correct. I’ve considered several possible causes for this, but nothing ever fully explained it. But now I think I’ve finally figured it out.

When I initially noticed this issue some time ago, my first thought was that perhaps our short-attention span culture was finally getting to me? Maybe decades of ever-shortening commercials and instant gratification was killing my mind and causing me to lose interest in anything lasting longer than a few minutes? But then I realized that my most favorite movies tend to be long films that take their own time, and I have no problems sitting through those.

Then I thought that maybe the issue was familiarity. Maybe the real problem was that I was watching movies I’d seen before, and since I knew the endings, there wasn’t a lot of point to sticking around to see them play out. This is the same reason I don’t watch reruns of sporting events. But this didn’t quite work either. For example, I can still watch many of my favorite movies over and over and I don’t turn them off before the endings. Indeed, it’s just not The Great Escape until you see Steve McQueen sitting in the cooler one last time, and it’s not The Empire Strikes Back until you see the Millennium Falcon disappear into the distance. So how could it be familiarity? Not to mention that I’m not just having this problem with films I’ve seen, but with most modern films even when I am seeing them for the first time.

So perhaps it’s a different kind of familiarity. Maybe the problem is that so many movies are so formulaic today? Maybe it’s a matter of “seen one, seen them all”? But again, how does that explain my willingness to sit through dozens of older films where I know the ending, even though I can barely get myself to sit through a film like Terminator Salvation without flipping on my laptop? Or maybe it’s just that the endings of films can rarely hold up to the promise they hold before they start having to answer the questions they posed when they began? But that same problem should apply to older movies I haven’t seen and yet I find myself much more interested in those than in new films I haven’t seen.

I could suggest that maybe I just like older films better, but that’s not true. I don’t succumb to nostalgia, I don’t prefer fakey effects, and I think story-telling techniques have continued to get better and better over time.

So what is causing this problem?

Well, after the last couple weeks of watching dozens of modern horror flicks, a pattern began to reveal itself. No matter how interesting these films started, when they got near the ending -- about twenty minutes out, the writers simply quit writing, and instead of anything plot related, they just inserted a constant assault of screaming, running and squirting blood. . . a mind-numbing assault.

And it wasn’t just horror movies. The last twenty minutes of every modern action film has become a videogame chase scene awash in gun play, wire fights, and unbelievable CGI escapes. The last twenty minutes of modern science fiction films have become shoot outs and scream-fests as the heroes run from space monsters while the space station explodes around them. Even cartoons are following this pattern.

Consider the movie Pirates of the Caribbean. The last twenty minutes of the first film were largely a combination of two fight scenes, though they weren’t super obnoxious and they involved breaks for plot. But the sequel ended in the now-standard mind-numbing Hollywood chase. The third film ended in an atrocity, a 30-plus minute special effects assault intermixed with a ludicrous CGI fight scene. Some of the CGI fight scenes at the end of the second and third Matrix films come close to 40 minutes depending on how you count them.

Everything I’ve seen lately falls into this same pattern: near the end of the film, the script apparently contains the words: “insert videogame, attention-deficit-disorder, assault-the-senses-arama here. . . roll credits.” It must be a macro.

But hasn’t this always been the case? Actually, no. And that’s why I’m finding that only modern films are boring me. Sure, older films followed a pattern of trying to put the climactic scene at the end, and that often involved a shootout, a chase scene or a fight. But they rarely ran more than a few minutes and they always left room for plot. Compare the famous car chase in Bullitt (which isn’t actually at the end), which lasted only nine minutes total, with the first two not really being a chase in the traditional sense, against the never ending CGI fights at the end of the movies listed above. Or compare the feel of the attack on the Death Star, which involved little action mixed in with significant dialog, against the videogame lightsaber fight and cliché-fest at the end of the third prequel.

What makes this all the stranger is that at the same time they are inserting these long, long pointless endings, they are editing them with ultra quick cuts to try to maintain the attention of the audience. When I saw Armageddon for the first time, I found the editing to be so obnoxious that I found myself counting the number of seconds between cuts; I never made it to 8. And while I thought that was a bad sign at the time, that’s the golden age compared to today. Today, waiting as long as 8 seconds to make a cut in a fight scene would be unthinkable. . . and that doesn’t even consider the vomit cam.

I think this is why I find myself rarely paying attention at the end of modern films. Once the fighting begins, everything of interest in the story is over. So I flip on my laptop, and I start doing something else. I hope Hollywood is paying attention, but I doubt it. . . there aren’t enough explosions in this article to get their attention.


[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Time Gets It Right!

Every once in a while, someone on the left gets a clue. This time it was Mark Halperin of Time. What has Halperin discovered? That Obama is failing badly. And for once, he makes some good points as to why. Of course, Obama still doesn’t get it, but it's interesting that someone on his side finally does!

Check out these quotes from Halperin’s article in which he discusses the scope of Obama’s problem:

“With the exception of core Obama Administration loyalists, most politically engaged elites have reached the same conclusions: the White House is in over its head, isolated, insular, arrogant and clueless about how to get along with or persuade members of Congress, the media, the business community or working-class voters.”

This view, according to Halperin, is shared by “executives and anchors at the major old-media outlets, reporters who cover the White House, Democratic and Republican congressional leaders and governors, many Democratic business people and lawyers who raised big money for Obama in 2008, and even some members of the Administration just beyond the inner circle.”

Sounds like a total loss of support except for the most brainwashed, doesn’t it? But it gets worse:

“Moreover, there is a growing perception that Obama's decisions are causing harm — that businesses are being hurt by the Administration's legislation and that economic recovery is stalling because of the uncertainty surrounding energy policy, health care, deficits, housing, immigration and spending.”

Wow.

Of course, Halperin concludes that Obama’s problems are largely the result of Republican obstructionism. But he doesn’t stop there. He also blames the media for allowing “the right’s activists and gabbers to run wild with criticism without furnishing legitimate alternative solutions.” No doubt he means something specific like “hope and change”?

But what’s even more interesting, he also blames Obama!

Indeed, he notes that Obama “exacerbated his political problems” not only “failing to enact policies that would have actually turned the economy around, but also by authorizing a series of tactical moves intended to demonize Republicans and distract from the problems at hand.” In other words, not only have his policies failed, but Obama was more interested in demonizing the Republicans than getting things done. . . so much for the lefty argument about “too much bipartisanship.”

And who did Obama demonize? “Through out the year, we have been treated to Obama-led attacks on George W. Bush and Dick Cheney, Rush Limbaugh, Congressman Joe Barton. . ., John Boehner, and Fox News.” He then notes that even in the past few days, “we have witnessed the spectacle of the President himself and his top advisers wading into allegations that Republicans are attempting to buy the election using foreign money laundered through the Chamber of Commerce”. . . an issue that even the MSM has rejected as utterly lacking proof. In fact, Bob Schieffer of CBS News took David Axelrod to task for making this allegation without any proof. And when he was confronted with a demand to produce any evidence he had, all the stunned Axelrod could say was “do you have any proof it’s not true.” That’s called getting caught red-handed.

Of course, the media can’t quite bring itself to point out that Obama set up his campaign to avoid knowing if his campaign contributions were from foreign sources or that the Clintons were notorious for taking Chinese money, but at least pointing out the Obama lie is a step in an unexpected direction. . . toward the truth.

Halperin is hopeful that Obama will recover in January once he and his fellows can get back to blaming the Republicans for everything, but I think that's just more false hopes. Obama doesn’t get it. He has never been challenged in the past or held to account for his failures, so he doesn’t know how to deal with those now. In fact, the evidence for that is overwhelming: Obama’s approach is to get snippy and then walk away from problems.

What’s more, Obama can’t stop polarizing the electorate. Indeed, Obama is currently on a tour of black voters at black colleges and black neighborhoods where he’s been equating opposition to himself with whites trying to re-impose slavery. So while Halperin might get it, it’s pretty obvious Obama isn’t. And while the politically correct and the media will forgive him this, the voters won’t.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

The Left Gets Sidetracked With Impeachment

Figuring that the best defense is a good offense, The New Republic and its cruder, less sane cousin, Daily Kos, have already decided to prove Republicans crazy by imagining a "sure thing" Obama impeachment. Reliving the glory days of the unsuccessful impeachment of Bill Clinton, both publications are counting on the Republicans repeating their past foolishness. In fact, they're absolutely sure it will happen, and save Obama's presidency and the future of the Democratic Party in the process.

The liberals in the Democratic Party also assume that unlike the Democrats, Republicans can't learn from their past mistakes. They also count on the Republicans being unable to control their own fringe and impose party discipline. In the latter case, they're probably at least partially correct. Still, they count on the angry outbursts of a Darryl Issa (R-CA) and several other loose-cannon Republicans to convince the party to act on impeachment. More importantly, after two years of a social engineering presidency and six years of a leftist-dominated Congress, they think the Republicans will have nothing better to do than chase Obama's incompetent butt.

Says the execrable Jonathan Chait at TNR: "Hear me now and believe me later: If Republicans win and maintain control of the House of Representatives, they are going to impeach President Obama." Says tc59 at Daily Kos: "If the Republicans take control of the House of Representatives, Barack Obama will be impeached in 2011. Bet the house on it. How do I know? Because that is what Republicans do."

Why would Left and Lefter bother, with such certainty, to predict an impeachment in the middle of a battle for Congress? First, the obvious. They're going to lose the House (bet the house on it) so they might as well start planning ahead. But the real reason is that they have to set the stage for a do-nothing Republican House that will shoot itself in the foot by trying another time-wasting impeachment. They are hoping for that. They are goading Republicans to do that. And it's really not much more than whistling past the graveyard. If they can't count on those ignorant, foolish, racist Republicans trying to impeach the Messiah, they can't count on the Messiah fooling the American public twice in a row.

The Democrats need exactly such a distraction, so they're predicting it in hopes of making conjecture into fact. An impeachment would narrow the misdeeds of this president to a few specific charges that could not be adequately proven at the trial in the Senate. And that would mean the Republicans wouldn't have time to point out all the failures, devious deals, sneaky socialism, and government overreaching for which Obama actually is responsible. The political facts of the abominable Obama administration would get lost in the midst of procedure and legalisms.

There's a much better way of getting rid of Obama. It's called good Republican governance, political exposure of the many misdeeds of the Obamists, and earning and keeping the respect, hearts and minds of the American public. In other words, the presidential election of 2012. Unless the Republicans turn into Democrat-Lite again, or waste everybody's time with a hopeless impeachment, or nominate another muddled RINO like McCain, the presidency is theirs for the taking. Short of some absolutely devastating and unpredictable happenstance, Barack Hussein Obama is just another one-term wonder.

Although my opinion of the smarts of many of the movers and shakers in the Republican Party has not improved much recently, I still think that in the long run, they won't allow something as stupid as an impeachment to distract the public from the true failings and machinations of the Democratic Party and its hapless "leader."

Oh, sure. If it can suddenly be proved that Obama is taking personal money under the table from the Saudi King, or privately dealing away American security with the Red Chinese, or turning top-secret American military information over to the Russians, then let's impeach him and remove him from office. But ignorance, stupidity, arrogance and socialist leanings are not impeachable offenses, no matter how much the Republican fringe might think they are. Republicans need to ignore leftist goading and predictions of impeachment, control their own members, and get on with the business of running the government and returning Obama to the South Side of Chicago at the polls two years hence.
[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Commentarama Polls: PreElection Impression

Ok, let’s do a couple of polls to see how the Commentarama community is feeling about things. Don’t forget to leave comments below explaining your votes or just telling us rude things about our heritage. (And don't forget to join us election night for our version of coverage!)

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

The Elves Are Back. . . And They're Disagreeing

By the Boiler Room Elves

The Boiler Room Elves are, naturally, avid readers of Commentarama. In fact, it somehow got written into our union contract that we each get two extra 15 minute breaks every day, just to read the wise words of our BossMen. In general, we agree with those guys, but now and then, they say something that just burns our brownies.

For example, BossMan Andrew's take on toll roads the other day. He argued that there are certain functions that the government should not be ceding, and that roads are one of them. He made an extreme example of a patchwork of privately maintained toll roads crisscrossing the country like so many drunken spiders.

We Elves do not deny that mass privatization of roads would lead to chaos, but Andrew ignores a middle way, which would leave a sane road system while returning power to the individual.

The solution? The government should continue to own and maintain roads, which are a public good for everyone. But rather than a "hidden" gas tax and / or registration fees, money for the upkeep should come directly from a use tax, based on how much each individual drives. If you drive more miles, you cause more wear and tear on the roads, and you should pay more for the upkeep.

This brings the choice back to the individual - maybe I'll choose to walk to the store today, or maybe I'll move closer to the cookie factory. Not because the government or some environmentalist or city planner tells me I must, but because it saves me money that I don't want to spend. What could be more freedom-loving than giving an individual some control over what they pay for roads because they don't use them as much.

By basing our road fees on licensing and registration fees that are either a flat fee or that depend on the value of a car instead of usage, there is a total disconnect between what we pay and what we use. Where else does that work in a free market?

Now, some Elves have argued that we already pay for usage through the taxes on gas - drive more and pay more. But is this really true anymore? In this day of Priuses and SUV hybrids and 35+ mpg Hondas, who uses the most gas? That would be the poor people who cannot afford new cars and are driving ancient gas-guzzlers. (Anyone remember the 1972 ThunderSleigh? It had a "gallons per mile" rating! Boy, you barely got off the North Pole before you had to refuel that sucker, but what a ride!) Liberals should LOVE this argument because it would help the poor... oh wait, it would hurt those driving those Priuses...

How would it be monitored? Well, a state could require that you have to bring your car in once a year, as many states already do for an inspection, and the mileage is noted and handed in. You would have to note the mileage when it is sold, and both parties would use that number as a base for their taxes that year.

Not that we Elves are holding our breath for this system to happen (any more than we are revving up our credit cards for a national sales tax to replace the income tax), but we can dream of a day when our taxes are much more closely related to the externalities we create.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...