Thursday, December 9, 2010

Success Breeds Excess

The Civil Rights movement and legislation in the 60s brought a sea-change to race relations in America. But there was still much to be done. Giving poor blacks in the South equal rights wasn't the same thing as allowing them to exercise those rights. Many fine organizations which advanced what the Civil Rights statutes had only put into books grew up. One of those was the Southern Poverty Law Center.

Co-founder Morris Dees has been a tireless worker for equality and racial justice since the SPLC was created in 1971. He has successfully sued racist domestic terror groups, putting several of them out of business entirely. He expanded the mission of the Center beyond its Southern roots in recognition of the fact that there was still considerable institutional racism in the North. Even into the 80s, the SPLC was breaking ground for recognition of the effects of de facto segregation and very real racial discrimination. It was particularly effective in shutting down violent racist groups by use of civil lawsuits.

Still, like so many formerly excellent and dedicated civil rights groups, the SPLC has done such a good job of defeating the enemies of racial justice that they have largely run out of major targets. There will always be racism and violent racists to exploit it, but 2010 is not 1970. Much of the work is done, daily vigilance is being exercised, and almost all governmental agencies are on-board and vigorous in enforcing both the words and the intent of the civil rights statutes.

But Dees has built a huge organization with a large campus of its own and branch offices. The organization is registered as a not-for-profit corporation, and all indications are that it remains so. It is not profit that motivates Dees and his lawyers. It's a palpable dedication to liberal-left social engineering, using the law as a sword more than as a shield. The organization's mission has gone beyond ending racial hatred and violence against racial and ethnic minorities, and has moved onto the "everybody's a victim" stage. When the organization found that the big dragons had been slain or subdued, it was time to move on to smaller and occasionally imaginary dragons. Dees is one of those very fearsome creatures called "true believers."

Following the lead of political grandstanders and demogogic people-dividers, Dees has decided that since the Ku Klux Klan is now a pathetic shadow of its former monstrous self, he might as well go after the Family Research Council. The SPLC's mission is now to fight "hate" and "bigotry" in all its forms, which mostly includes any organization that doesn't have the same socio-politico-religious goals as the Center. Dees knows that the legitimate use of the words "hate group" have genuine meaning as a result of the success of the civil rights era. It worked with racist bigots (easy to recognize one), so use it to denigrate any group that disagrees with you. From skin color to opinions and beliefs is not any easy leap, but Dees is not a simple man.

What "don't ask, don't tell" has to do with Southern poverty or race is beyond me, but Dees sees it as a crystal clear. Some people think that openly gay people should be allowed full access to the military. Others don't. The former are the champions of truth, justice and the American way. The latter are hate groups. Now is it clear to you? If there aren't enough hate groups around to support your immense staff of do-gooders, create them or simply name a few that aren't of your own particular philosophy.

Dees has named the Family Research Council as mentioned above, along with the American Family Association, the Christian Anti-Defamation Commission, the Family Research Institute, the Illinois Family Institute, the National Organization for Marriage, the Coral Ridge Ministries, Concerned Women for America, Americans for Truth About Homosexuality, Mass Resistance, Liberty Counsel, and the Traditional Values Coalition. He has put all of these groups in the same category as the Klan simply because they disagree with him on the issue of homosexuality and the military.

Former Attorney General Ed Meese says "I think it is attacking them for exercising their freedom of speech and their freedom of religion." Meese is a much-honored purveyor of the law, but he missed the memo about "no freedom for 'hate speech'" and "freedom from religion." Meese accurately points out that Dees and the Center have cited no evidence of any kind that the Family Research Council or any other major pro-family traditionalists are hate groups.

Some of the "hateful lies" that the conservative groups are alleged by Dees to have used is that gay men have a lower life expectancy. Dees gives no explanation for how this is hateful, and in addition ignores the fact that studies made at liberal universities have found life expectancy for gay men to be 8 to 21 years less than the general male population (the higher mortality figures were reached during the height of the AIDS epidemic). But if you point that out, even sympathetically, you're a hater. Likewise for the suicide rate. Clearly the Center has gone from being a respectable defender of racial minorities to becoming a full-fledged political advocacy group.

The point of this article is not to debate or re-debate the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy. We've already done that, several times. The real point is that certain major civil rights groups have lost their original raison d'etre and have moved on to attempting to force their own social views on the public by use of lawfare. The Southern Poverty Law Center, and Morris Dees himself have become the shock troops of the most dangerous kind of zealots. When advocating the murder of a black person or denying him his constitutional rights solely because of his race becomes muddled up with military policy towards openly gay men and women serving in the military, fascistic personal values have replaced both the Constitution and the right to disagree on religious grounds.
[+] Read More...

Wednesday, December 8, 2010

TV Review: Have I Got News For You (1990 – )

By ScottDS
While BBC America airs many fine British TV shows and films, they also insist on airing American shows like Star Trek: The Next Generation which, let’s face it, can be found on several American networks and local stations where it airs several times a day. (Not to mention the people who sunk hundreds of dollars into the DVD boxsets – people like, uh, me.) The one show that currently airs on the BBC in the United Kingdom that I feel we’re missing out on is Have I Got News For You. Produced by Hat Trick Productions and currently airing on BBC One, Have I Got News For You (HIGNFY) is a light-hearted news quiz show.

I can’t think of anything like it in the States, at least on the national level. Sure, we have Real Time with Bill Maher, The Daily Show, and Red Eye, but the programs that, in my opinion, have the most resemblance to HIGNFY would be NPR’s Wait Wait... Don’t Tell Me!, certain segments of Dennis Miller Live, and the much-missed Tough Crowd with Colin Quinn which aired on Comedy Central from 2002 to 2004. In terms of politics and to the extent of my knowledge on the subject, the show leans a little bit to the left (or whatever its British equivalent is) but it’s all done with a smile. There’s no vitriol, no mean-spiritedness (i.e.: no comments about Down syndrome kids), and most of the jokes are obviously reserved for British politicians. Guests have included both liberals and conservatives and while certain conservative politicians (like Anne Widdecombe) may find themselves the butt of a joke more often than others, liberal politicians aren’t spared either. The show goes after nanny staters, religious hypocrites, clueless news broadcasters, and empty-headed celebrities with equal aplomb. For an independent like me, it’s all gold.

HIGNFY premiered in 1990 with Angus Deayton as host (chairman) and Ian Hislop and Paul Merton as team captains. Each team would also include a guest, usually a comedian, but politicians, news presenters, actors, and writers have all graced the stage. Ian Hislop is the editor of the satirical news magazine Private Eye and has never missed an episode, even showing up for a taping with a burst appendix. He also holds the dubious distinction of being the most sued man in English legal history. Paul Merton is an actor, writer, and improv performer whose jokes often border on the surreal. He’s a veteran of the Comedy Store and the original version of Whose Line is it Anyway? where he would sometimes break character and comment on the absurdity of the scene he was playing. Deayton was fired in 2002 after becoming involved in some personal scandals and the show currently features a new guest host each week.

The Format

Following an animated title sequence (which currently features President Obama shooting a basketball in the Oval Office... and missing) and a brief introduction, the guest host will show a series of video clips (“In the news this week...”) preceded by descriptions that may or may not be accurate. For example, “After a photo call at Downing Street, Gordon Brown tells colleagues that if any of them doubts his ability to win the election, they should come in for a private chat,” followed by a clip of Gordon Brown and his wife walking inside followed by several dozen people. The host will then introduce the two guests, usually accompanied by some jokes specific to that guest. This segues into the “bigger stories of the week” which involves showing the teams silent news footage – the players must identify what’s going on in each clip and elaborate. As for the humor, it’s all on the table: from dry British wit to very bad puns to countless John Prescott fat jokes, no stone is left unturned. The host will also read inadvertently funny lines from news publications which will flash on the screen (the underlined section): “David Cameron posed in front of Big Ben among supporters, tourists, and food stores. According to the Daily Mail, there was a whiff of candied nuts.

The next round is usually a picture game of some kind: for example, the “picture spin quiz” in which a photo is rotated and zoomed out from. Variations have included the “Wheel of News” and “Name That News” in which guest host Bill Bailey performed the news stories on his keyboard and the players had to guess the tune. I should mention that there is a point system at work but no one pays much attention to it. Following this round is the “Odd One Out Round” in which four photos are presented and the teams have to guess which one doesn’t belong as well as the (sometimes nebulous) connection between the other three. For example, Bill Bailey presented four photos: Richard Branson, Alfred Hitchcock, Fidel Castro, and Labour Party politician Hazel Blears. While Ian guessed that Castro was the odd one out “because he’s a dictator,” Paul correctly guessed that Branson was the odd one out since everyone else had made cameo appearances in films but Branson had just had his blink-or-you’ll-miss-it cameo cut out of Casino Royale during its in-flight run on British Airways. According to Bailey, Castro’s cameo was in a 1946 Lucille Ball film titled Easy to Wed in which he played a poolside spectator. “Or as it became known in Cuba, The Amazing Story of the Poolside Spectator starring Fidel Castro.”

The last round is the “Missing Words Round.” Every week, headlines are displayed, including some from obscure publications like Portable Restroom Operator and the Pylon Appreciation Society newsletter. Certain words in the headlines are blanked out and the teams have to correctly fill in the blank(s). For example: “I do _____ but I don’t _____, The Queen admits.” Guest Victoria Coren guessed, “I do anything for love but I don’t do that.” According to host Benedict Cumberbatch (a.k.a. the new Sherlock Holmes), the correct headline was, “I do get bored but I don’t let on” to which Paul replied, “She just has!” After this round, the host will tally up the points and announce a winner. From a cursory glance at Wikipedia, Paul’s team has won 220 times to Ian’s 113 with nine draws. The final gag sometimes involves a competition in which the players are presented with photos and have to supply the captions.

Notable Gags and Moments

Given the satirical nature of the show, the BBC has had to fend off countless lawsuits and was, in fact, fined £10,000 for High Contempt of Court in 1996 after Angus Deayton joked about two brothers who were about to go to trial for their involvement in a financial scandal. After Deayton was sacked, actor/writer Stephen Fry announced he was boycotting the show and hasn’t been back since. Conservative Party politician Anne Widdecombe also announced she’d never come back after hosting in 2007 and having to deal with comedian Jimmy Carr’s “barrage of filth.” After Labour Party politician Roy Hattersley’s third cancellation, the producers decided to pair Paul up with a tub of lard, renamed “The Right Honourable Tub of Lard MP.”

And then there’s Boris. Boris Johnson is a Conservative Party politician, former journalist, and the current Mayor of London, and has appeared on HIGNFY both as a guest and host. From my strictly American point of view, the man is just so prim and proper that to see him host a show like this… it makes for a funny juxtaposition. From the few episodes of his that I’ve seen (where he hosted), he tries to keep things on a slightly more dignified level but usually fails. Ian and Paul have labeled Johnson a “Wodehousian” character, referring to writer P.G Wodehouse, the creator of Jeeves and Wooster. Personally, I would compare him to Margaret Dumont in the Marx Brothers films. He once introduced himself by saying, “When I first appeared on this show I complained that the whole thing was scripted and fully rehearsed. I'd now like to complain in the strongest possible terms, that it isn't.”

Speaking of “fully rehearsed,” many critics have complained that the show has gone stale and that Ian and Paul and their guests know the answers in advance. Paul Merton has gone on record stating that they usually know the questions in advance but not the answers. Regarding the format, writer Dave Cohen once said, “[...] they're right, the format hasn't changed, but then why should it? Sixteen years on, the show is still pulling in eight million viewers, it's still funny, and it still makes waves beyond our little world.”

NBC taped a pilot episode for an American version of the show back in 2009 featuring actor and Air America personality Sam Seder as host and comedians Michael Ian Black and the late Greg Giraldo as team captains. This was obviously not picked up. In my humble opinion, a show like this couldn’t get produced in the States. I know of no host that could keep things from getting viciously partisan and out of control (assuming guests were plucked from both the left and the right) and the closest person I can think of that compares to Ian Hislop would be P.J. O’Rourke (in terms of literary background, not political leanings). As for Paul, I’m not discounting his formidable talent but there are many improv performers and comedians that can do what he does... but could they keep their politics on a more or less even keel?

As I noted in the opening, the show doesn’t air in the US. There are compilation DVDs but they’re region-coded for the UK so you would need a DVD player that can play region 2 discs. As for me, I watch them on YouTube – just do a search for “hignfy” and sort by upload date to see the most recent broadcast. The show airs two seasons (or series) of eight to eleven episodes every year – one in the spring and one in the late fall. The BBC also airs extended versions of episodes, advertised as Have I Got a Bit More News For You. There are also books, including a companion guide and the official Have I Got News For You Guide to Modern Britain.

I’ve seen probably every episode from the last few years. Some of my favorite moments include:

-Flash Gordon actor Brian Blessed invoking his signature catchphrase during the opening (this entire episode is a laugh riot from start to finish)... turn down your volume!

-Bill Bailey (actor, comedian, and co-star of Black Books) reporting that Fidel Castro was being fitted with an artificial anus and then breaking into song with “What Happens When Your Anus Doesn’t Take?”

-a completely absurd non sequitur in which everyone tries to come up with a rhyme for “pot noodles”

-Top Gear star Jeremy Clarkson mocking the BBC’s attempts at fairness during a political debate, and then making fun of the people in the debate audience

-Host Alistair McGowan comparing an evolution/de-evolution chart to the five items or less line at a Plymouth supermarket, along with guest Alan Duncan MP’s reaction

-And finally, guest Victoria Coren (TV presenter, author, poker player, and future ex-Mrs. ScottDS) proves there’s nothing hotter than a hot Scrabble player

For more information, please visit the Have I Got News For You page on the British Comedy Guide website or the official BBC page for the show.


[+] Read More...

Did A Light Bulb Come On Or Go Dark?

So how do we interpret some of the moves by the incoming Republicans? In particular, we have a curious decision by John Boehner in his selection of Fred Upton (R-Mich) as chairman of the House Energy & Commerce Committee. Upton is the moderate Republican responsible for the light bulb law. . . yeah, that one. So should this bother us?

When it came time to select a chairman of the HEC Committee, John Boehner had a choice between Upton and Cliff Stearns (R-Fla). The former chairman, Joe Barton of Texas, was term-limited from receiving the chairmanship. Many conservatives wanted Stearns, but Boehner chose Upton. Should we be concerned?

As always, these things are hard to say until we see how Upton acts. For example, Upton is a member of several moderate Republican groups and he was the author of the evil ban on incandescent light bulbs -- a ban about which Dennis Miller quipped: “I don't care what my electric bill is. I haven't worked my entire life so that my living room can look like a Soviet Bloc stairwell during a James Bond fight scene.”

But Upton now says he was wrong to support that ban and he opposes the law he helped create. He also has pledged to block the EPA’s attempt to back-door a cap-and-trade bill by regulation. Those are both positives.

Moreover, Upton may not be the moderate he seems. For example, he is generally considered a fiscal conservatives. Additionally, he says he wants to repeal ObamaCare because the bill ignored the will of the people and because he believes that such a significant bill should not have been passed over strong bipartisan opposition. He also argues that the current level of debt means ObamaCare is unaffordable. Those are all solidly conservative positions.

He has social conservative credentials as well in that he opposes abortion in most circumstances, including partial-birth abortion. He opposes gay marriage, and has earned only a 15% rating from the Human Rights Campaign. He supports gun right generally, though he did support some gun control laws, including the Brady Bill in 1993.

So how do we reconcile his light-bulb hating moderate credentials with his conservative promises? It could mean he’s simply saying what he thinks the public wants to hear? Moderates in particular are good at that. Or it could mean he’s realized he needs to shift his politics to the right to fit in with the incoming “Tea Party” Republicans? Or maybe, he simply had an epiphany? If so, it’s the same one the voters had. And let me remind you that many of the most conservative of conservatives were once Democrats or moderates or worse. Only time will tell us which of these is the answer.

So what should we make of Boehner choosing him? On the surface, this is troubling. But keep in mind that politics is a strange game that rarely is as simple as black and white. For example, Stearns may have been the more conservative choice, but he may not have been the superior choice. It’s hard to tell as we don’t sit in on the committee and, thus, we don’t see how effective each is. It’s possible Stearns simply lacked the gravitas or personality to lead the committee. Also, over the past few years, the power of the Speakership has grown to the point that the Speaker can control an errant committee chair. Thus, it’s unlikely Upton could do anything Boehner did not approve. Again, we just don't know.

In the end, I’m left with little to offer as a conclusion. We have a man who appears to be a moderate, but is now saying the right things. He has been appointed to a position that appears very important, but ultimately may have little power if he crosses John Boehner. Will this work for us or against us? I don't know. But I do know that this one sits on John Boehner’s head. So let us leave it at that for the moment. Boehner has taken a risk and we will watch to see how his choice plays out. If everything goes well, then Boehner deserves great credit for recognizing Upton's conversion. But if Upton goes back to his light bulb hating ways, then John Boehner will have to answer to the voters for his selection.


[+] Read More...

Tuesday, December 7, 2010

Bush Tax Cuts: Democrats Set Themselves Up

Life has a way of getting even with you for past attempts to game the system. Just ask the Democrats. In the matter of the Bush Tax Cuts, we see this karmic axiom playing itself out with a vengeance. What a shame.

For starters, in case you didn’t know, Obama and the Republicans agreed yesterday to a deal that will keep the Bush Tax Cuts in place for another two years. . . right into the 2012 election (violating Obama's biggest campaign promise). I am not a fan of those tax cuts because they are simply more of the same in our twisted tax system of carve outs, exceptions and favors; I would prefer a completely revised tax code. But they are better than nothing, so I will take them.

The Democrats, however, HATE them. Indeed, they hate the very word “cut” (which confuses them) and the fact that a single “rich person” (anyone with a job) will be “allowed” to keep what they’ve earned. Grrrrrr. And if you want to know why, check out this lunatic quote from Minnesota Democrat Rep. Keith Ellison: “think about what we could do with $700 billion instead of just giving it to people to buy luxury items.” Right, think about the unions that could be bailed out, the money that could be sent overseas, or spent on paying for abortions or blasphemous art, or siphoned off by Charlie Rangel and friends, or given to corporate donors. Yes, think about what the Democrats could do if we only let them rob us blind.

In any event, what truly galls the Democrats is that this deal is entirely the result of their own prior bad decisions catching up to them -- something which pathologically bothers Democrats, who believe in a consequence free world. Consider this:

First, they originally called these “the Bush Tax Cuts” because they wanted to tar the Republicans as the party of the evil rich. Now it bothers them that Bush is getting credit for something they will be forced to pass, and which the public believes must be passed to prevent economic ruin. Curses!

Secondly, they created this problem when they agreed to the idea that these tax cuts would need to be renewed. These tax cuts were originally passed to stimulate the economy and stave off recession. But the Democrats got cute about it. They figured the economy would be running at full steam by now and, thus, the public would be happy to let the tax cuts expire. Instead, the economy has “inexplicably” faltered and the Democrats now find themselves jammed up by their decision to make these temporary.

Third, that “inexplicable” I just mentioned isn’t really all that inexplicable. History has shown that when governments let recessions play out, they end fairly quickly. But Democratic policies have injected a great deal of anti-stimulus, fear and uncertainty into the economy, causing the recovery to sputter, die and never quite arrive. Thus, the need to extend these tax cuts continues because the Democrats interfered with the economy.

Fourth, by choosing to run wild to the left during the past two years, the Democrats squandered any goodwill they had with the public. Not only were they tossed out en masse, but the public has done a complete 180 on their policies. If they had been more sensible, the public might have listened to them on this issue. But as it is, no one will listen.

Fifth, the Democrats are whining that they were sold out by Barack Obama. As I’ve discussed many times before, Obama has a penchant for selling out his allies (except his union friends) in almost every instance. . . gays, environmentalists, socialists, anti-Wall Street types, foreign policy utopians, etc. This is the result of the Democrats picking an empty suit with no experience and no apparent ideological depth. When you buy a black box, you have no idea what you are getting, and Obama was the ultimate black box. Once again, their own choices come back to bite them.

And make no mistake, the Democrats are furious at Obama. New York Democrat Anthony Weiner compared this deal to “punting on 3rd down -- it seems the president is not seeing the value of being on offense.” One unnamed Democrat said: “What the hell? Could we have a little fight before we cave? Why go right to surrender?” Jim McDermott of the Ways and Means Committee, said: “We're going to find out exactly what this president is all about. . . . This is the president's Gettysburg. He's going to have to decide whether he's going to withstand Pickett's Charge . . . I worry.” Bernie Sanders said he would “do everything I can to stop the deal.” And so on.

They’ve even dug up psychologists to assess Obama (a nasty trick usually reserved for people like Hitler, serial killers, and noted Republicans). Their conclusion? Obama let himself be bullied. . . as if the President of the United States could be bullied!

Finally, we come to Dingy Harry’s attempt last year to sabotage what appeared to be a likely Republican majority. When it looked like the Senate was lost, the Dinge decided not to pass a complete budget because that would rob the Republicans of the power to use reconciliation as the Democrats had done to circumvent the filibuster. Without that power now, the Senate cannot push through the House version of the Bush Tax Cuts, which only continues tax cuts for Democratic voters. That shifted the power to the minority, i.e. the Republicans, and meant Obama had to strike a deal.

Nothing angers a Democrat more than being tripped up by their prior attempts to trip up the other guys. And nothing unifies and excites them more than having an enemy to hate. And in this case, that enemy is Barack Obama because he’s apparently not a team player and he put the good of the country ahead of the angry politics of the Democratic Party.

This is going to be an interesting two years.

(FYI, House Democrats are now threatening to vote down the deal.)

[+] Read More...

The Bureaucrats Prepare For Cutting Your Power

The hot air activists shown in the picture are the shock troops for the Environmental Protection Agency. The EPA is a mass of dedicated enviro-nuts who have managed to get power of unimaginable proportions in a few short decades. Having gotten CO2 (carbon dioxide) declared a dangerous greenhouse gas over which they have near absolute control, they have prepared a huge set of C02 regulations set to go into effect on January 2, 2011.

Despite years of relying on junk science and debunked theories supported by jury-rigged "hockey stick" graphs and outright fraud, the EPA will begin regulating CO2 emissions from power plants. It will have a devastating effect on all power plants fired by fossil fuels, but most of all could destroy the coal industry which provides nearly half of the electricity America needs. The EPA has done some very good things, but there was plenty of elected government oversight, and cleaning up America's air and water were worthy goals.

But like all gigantic bureaucracies, the EPA quickly lost sight of its intended goals, and instead sought to perpetuate and expand its own power and ignore the will of the people and the nature of the real world. Hare-brained schemes abound, and reasonable goals have gone the way of the dodo, to be replaced by magic schemes of "renewable energy." The agency heads have come to believe that all they have to do is announce an outrageous goal with a short compliance date, and technology will suddenly be able to do what it couldn't do the day before at a price that is no burden whatsoever.

Fossil fuels are a particular target since they produce large amounts of CO2 emissions (which are not nearly so dangerous or climatologically damaging as the ecofreaks would have us believe). But pictures of coal-fired power plants spewing black smoke into the air have become both ubiquitous and dishonest propaganda for the EPA. No fuel that is at all viable as a major power source is completely emission-free. Coal powered plants have become amazingly clean compared to the smoke-belching horrors depicted in the agitprop, and today's plants are not Birmingham, England in 1890.

The alternatives to coal and oil power are few, and even fewer are close to being viable within a short period of time. Nuclear power plants are the one proven alternative, and it takes considerable time to build them, more time to get approval of environmental impact reports from the EPA, and there are inherent dangers in them. The no nukes crowd has been relatively quiescent of late, but discuss nuclear plants, and the movement will immediately spring back to life. Wind-power produces very little power, takes up immense amounts of room, and is very cost-ineffective. Solar power has its small niche but is decades away from practical use as a major producer of power.

Bureaucrats have absolutely no conception of the interaction between what is viable, what may some day become viable, and what is necessary and tolerable in the meantime. Anything that burns is, in their mind, toxic, and therefore must be eliminated entirely regardless of its effect on the economy and the production of energy. The goal of cleaning up the air and the water has been replaced by the concept of immediate absolute purity. CO2 has been targeted as the engine that causes climate change (formerly global warming) and must be done away with forthwith. I wouldn't be surprised to see the EPA try to regulate human exhaling, since it is a major source of C02 production. Too much oxygen or nitrogen can be deadly, but only CO2 has been made the source of all environmental evil.

There is absolutely no legitimate scientific support for the regulation of CO2 and other greenhouse gases. Even the law appears to be against the regulation since the Clean Air Act does not authorize it. Only the complicity of an administration that loves bureaucracies and a Congress unwilling to do its job have allowed the EPA to become an evil empire of its own. Even the leviathan agency has admitted that if all its goals were reached, it would reduce the temperature of the earth by only fifteen ten-thousandths of a degree over the course of an entire century.

Still, the agency will try to go forward with its regulations in the new year. One goal is to reduce the ambient air-quality standard for ground-level ozone (smog) from 75 parts per billion to between 60 and 70 parts per billion. That may not sound like much, but in fact it's a 9.3% to 20% decrease, something that it took five decades to do previously. The reduced power-production and the horrific monetary effects this attempt would produce would be unacceptable in a robust economy. Doing it now is a guarantee of economic chaos.

Too many solid conservatives have been so involved in stopping the Cap and Trade money-making scheme that they haven't noticed that the only difference between Al Gore and the EPA is that the EPA can accomplish its goals without Congressional oversight or immense profits for Gore and his cronies. The result, however, could be as bad, or even worse. Profiteers are more easily stopped than zealots who have made earth-worship into a form of radical religion for which they are willing to sacrifice everything (except themselves).

There is a solution. I don't know if the Republican takeover of the House is enough, and may require adding the Senate and the White House to stop this juggernaut. As it stands, Congress (with the assent of the White House) has allowed the EPA to implement its "endangerment rule," which gives the EPA the power to decide which gases must be regulated for the "public good" without permission from elected representatives. This is a complete and probably unconstitutional delegation of power. A new Congress could simply enact legislation which eliminates the endangerment rule and therefore automatically removes the EPA's power to regulate without Congressional permission and oversight. With the power of the purse that rests solely with the House, a major monkey-wrench could be thrown into the EPA machinery by simply de-funding their major projects.

Fossil fuels currently light up 85% of America's power plants. It's a legitimate goal to reduce that percentage over the next decades as alternate forms of energy become viable and come on line. But to allow one agency to high-handedly and unrealistically wave its collective hand and say "abracadabra, we don't need coal, oil and natural gas anymore" is nothing short of insanity. A bureaucrat can't use a bathroom without twenty pages of regulatory rules. How can we expect a nation to survive having its entire energy policy run by people like that?

Unrelated note: I have not forgotten that today is Pearl Harbor Day. We should remember our honored dead and at the same time remember that for America, that day became a national day of dedication to victory. It's a concept that has become very scarce in America today.
[+] Read More...

Monday, December 6, 2010

It Couldn't Happen To A Nicer Bunch

Pictured are disgruntled future members of the Democratic Party expressing their sincere and intellectual disdain for the snail's pace at which Congress and the Obama administration are negotiating the return of the American Southwest to Mexico. The DREAM Act is headed for failure, and it didn't grant instant citizenship to all illegal aliens anyway.

The DREAM Act won't speed up the surrender of California, Arizona, New Mexico and Texas sufficiently since it is paperwork amnesty only for a small class of illegals. They must have entered the US illegally before the age of 16, lived off the fat of the land for at least 5 years, graduated from a US high school or gotten a GED or been accepted at a school of "higher learning," and be between the ages of 12 and 35 at the time of filing the application. Then there's that final requirement--"good moral character." That phrase has been interpreted as including "not having broken any state of federal laws." For many, their conscious entrance into the US fouls up the requirement.

If the Act is passed, and even loosely implemented, even the "family reunification" portions can't turn a minority into a voting majority fast enough for our friends in the picture. And even if they accomplish that, there's that pesky secession problem that was settled in the Civil War. This all makes the future Democrats of Northern Mexico muy furioso.

But wait! What's that sound I hear? It's the sound of their champion riding to the rescue! Rep. Luis Gutierrez (D-IL) says he's going to break with the Democratic Party if Obama, Reid and Pelosi don't move a total immediate amnesty program into place--now. Gutierrez is upset that a new Congress has been elected and that the Obamists didn't pass even simple amnesty when they had control of the White House and both Houses of Congress. War, the economy, health care, unemployment--what are those compared to the need to create an instantly borderless America?

Gutierrez admits he hasn't thought this out carefully. But at a gathering at a local Catholic Church, he nevertheless tossed out some of his ideas. Says Gutierrez: "We need to decouple the movement for comprehensive immigration reform and justice for immigrants from the legislative process and from the Democratic Party process. They are too linked." Where he plans to go with that, I'm not sure. I assume he isn't expecting the support of newly-elected Senator Marco Rubio of Florida.

Gutierrez babbles on: "When black people in this country decided they were going to fight for civil rights and for voting rights, they didn't ask if the majority leader was with them and when they were going to tee up the bill." Now I know I'm picking at nits, but isn't there a bit of a difference? Almost all American blacks originally came here very unwillingly, were sold into slavery, and were treated like cattle and other property. The generations following the Civil War were born here as free American citizens (the real purpose of the 14th Amendment language regarding "born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof"). That doesn't sound at all like "snuck across the border or born in the US to a mother who snuck across the border."

Furthermore, there was no provision in the enabling legislation following the adoption of the 14th Amendment allowing former slaves to bring all their relatives to the United States on a fast-track to citizenship. Nevertheless, gays have adopted the civil rights language of the 60s revolution, so Gutierrez figures he might as well try the same thing for illegals. I know of more than a few black intellectuals and legislators who are not too pleased about having their genuine struggle to gain their Constitutional rights compared to sodomy and border trespass rights.

While the Democrats are smacking their lips at the "internal war" between the Tea Party and the traditional Republicans (a "war" that doesn't seem very likely or very serious), the Democrats now have the problem of facing another disenchanted "victim group" whose loyalty is in question. Unlike the Republican Party, which to a greater or lesser degree bases its common ground on the Constitution, the Democratic Party relies entirely on herding the cats of angry factions (neatly described by James Madison in Federalist 10) and special ethnic/racial/poverty classes without regard for either the Constitution or a common American purpose. Rep. Gutierrez has just served notice that one of those special groups is very unhappy with the Democrats.
[+] Read More...

WikiWrap-Up On WikiLeaks

Over the past couple of months, WikiLeaks has been dripping out classified US government documents by the hundreds of thousands. Now that we have a good idea of what they reveal, let’s address the issues.

Point 1: What the heck was the government thinking?

Lost in this whole affair is the first question we should all be asking: how did a nobody Army Specialist, Bradley Manning, download several hundred thousand sensitive documents about two separate wars and 250,000 diplomatic cables (11,000 of which were marked secret or “nofo” meaning they could not be shared with foreign government) to a personal computer so he could hand them over to WikiLeaks? Who designs a system for storing classified documents that allows such wide-ranging access? Moreover, they apparently only caught Manning because he went online and bragged about being the source. How can that be?

This is the real issue that needs to be solved and the total focus on WikiLeaks' founder is a distraction from the real scandal.

Point 2: What revelations?

Perhaps the most fascinating aspect of this affair has been the utter lack of revelations. The media claims to have found some, but not a single piece of information produced wasn’t already widely known. Consider these:
● Many governments are run by sexual predators, incompetents or criminals.

● Putin and Berlusconi like to party, as does Gaddafi, who also likes to pout.

● Medvedev is a puppet of Putin, and Russia’s bureaucracy really runs the country.

● Yemen let US troops kill al Qaeda terrorists within their border and tried to pass this sophisticated attack off as having been done by its own primitive security forces with a few US advisors involved.

● Obama used promises and threats to win support for his Copenhagen non-deal deal.

● Mexico’s drug war is not well-focused and is not going well.

● Various Arab states hate and fear Iran, and a couple pleaded with the US to bomb Iran to keep it from getting an atomic bomb.

● Venezuela is not well-liked in the region.

● Iran heavily supported the insurgency in Iraq.

● China is slowly turning against North Korea.

● China authorized cyber attacks against American companies, including Google, and the US Embassy.

● The British royals are inbred idiots who say stupid things.

● Karzai is an erratic jerk who believes in conspiracies and plots but knows little about governing, and his brother is a drug lord.
Anything shocking there? Anything you didn’t already know? I thought not. In fact, the only real revelation of which I am aware is that North Korea managed to send a number of sophisticated missiles to Iran, missiles that are capable of carrying a nuclear payload.

So why is the lack of revelations so interesting? Because it shows us that our government actually is very good at being open and honest with us. And since that is a necessary cornerstone of democracy, this bodes well for our system.

Point 3: Is this disclosure good for democracy?

WikiLeaks founder Julia Assange claims that he leaked this information because secrecy is anathema to good government. To a degree, I agree with that. I am a firm believer in requiring “full disclosure” by government because our government acts in our names and we can only judge our government if we know what it is doing. But the key word there is “doing.”

“Doing” does not include advice given to leaders by their advisors. When you make such advice public, the advisors stop providing complete and honest advice and instead become concerned with how they will appear to the public when their advice is disclosed. That cripples the government because it can no longer get a full picture of its options or the likely consequences of its actions.

“Doing” also does not include information that was provided to the government in a confidential manner. Whether this is corporations sharing trade secrets with the government or individuals turning in neighbors who may be terrorists, allowing the disclosure of such information will prevent people from coming forward with similar information in the future. That prevents the government from getting the information it needs to do its job.

WikiLeaks failed to protect either of these types of information. By turning over private assessments of foreign leaders, WikiLeaks makes it harder for future diplomats to share their private opinions about foreign leaders, which makes it that much harder to spot the potential Hitlers or Ahmadinejads -- which means the US is more likely to work with budding dictators in the future. Likewise, soldiers will now censor their reports, which means the likelihood of casualties (civilian and military) goes up.

WikiLeaks also turned over information that has endangered individual informants. Said a former British military intelligence officer: “Assange has seriously endangered the lives of Afghan civilians. . . the logs contain detailed personal information regarding Afghan civilians who have approached NATO soldiers with information.” This release will prevent future informants from coming forward, and will thereby help terrorists and dictators suppress their people.

Even some of the leading opponents of government censorship have strongly denounced WikiLeaks. Steven Aftergood, editor of Secrecy News, says: “WikiLeaks routinely tramples on the privacy of non-governmental, non-corporate groups for no valid public policy reason. . . this is not whistleblowing and it is not journalism. It is a kind of information vandalism.” Aftergood notes, for example, that WikiLeaks has also published the “secret rituals” of a women’s sorority, “the private rites of Masons, Mormons and other groups that cultivate confidential relations among their members.”

So how can it be good for democracy to have a group of information peeping Toms releasing information that (1) prevents government advisors, diplomats and soldiers from being honest with their bosses, (2) prevents non-government people from sharing information with the government, (3) gets people killed for getting involved with the government, and (4) will make the government much more obsessed with hiding information in the future? If WikiLeaks’ purpose was to open government and make it more responsive, then this is called a “backfire.”

Point 4: What if this had been Bush?

Finally, it is amazing to see the difference between how these leaks are being treated now that they are affecting Obama, rather than Bush. Under Bush, the left was demanding that Bush release the very type of information just released -- they even sued him to get some of it. And they poo-poo’d the Bush Administration’s claims that the release of this type of information would be dangerous.

So they should be happy that this information is finally coming out, right? Wrong. They are treating Assange like a war criminal. They want him hunted down, they don’t even object when people talk about putting him on the terrorist “kill on sight” list. They are happy to believe the rather ridiculous rape charges as true and include that in every mention of his name. They raise no complaints about various governments (possibly including our own) using cyber attacks to keep WikiLeaks offline, nor do they complain when the government leans on and threatens ISPs that host him. It’s amazing how right and wrong changes for the left depending on who is getting hurt.

And let me add another interesting piece to this puzzle. Remember how Obama promised to run the most open government in history and how the left relentlessly pounded Bush for his supposed secrecy? Well get this: last year, the Obama administration marked 54.7 million documents as secret, that’s 10 times the number marked “secret” in 1996 and more than double the maximum amount marked “secret” in any year under Bush. Yet the left says nothing.

I guess “open government” only matter when it’s a Republican president?

[+] Read More...

Sunday, December 5, 2010

Split Personality At 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue

As the White House and the Democratic czars of political correctness lecture us on "watching what we say" in order to avoid Islamophobia and violence against Muslims, the President continues to treat with Russian leader Vladimir Putin through his puppet president Dmitry Medvedev. While Americans commit imaginary "hate crimes" against Muslims, Russian troops and operatives simply cut to the chase and murder Chechen rebel Muslims outright.

My personal view of the situation is that the best result would be that both sides do each other in and thus kill two vicious birds with one stone. But that's an unlikely result, and I'm not the President of the United States who must, Janus-like, have one point of view domestically and an entirely different one of foreign affairs. The Islamic "nation" of Chechnya isn't worth a bucket of warm spit to America, but Russia considers it important only because its lengthy presence within the Russian empire has produced a consensus among Russian leaders that its departure would be a signal to other provinces to seek independence. Unlike Ukraine and other breakaway republics which removed themselves from the former Soviet Union, Chechnya had almost no autonomy or recognition as a state within the Union, and its exit would be considered a breakup of mother Russia herself.

To add to the mix, Chechnya was originally a region that converted to Islam in order to form an alliance with the Ottoman empire to keep out the encroaching Russian Czarist empire. It was a lost cause, and it resulted in a Russian province populated almost entirely by resentful Sunni Muslims. That didn't set well with the Orthodox Christians and even less so with the atheist communist government that ruled after 1919. Today, Chechnya is viewed with the worst suspicions of both former (?) communists and the Russian Orthodox Church. Today's Russia is under the thumb of former President Putin who was also the former head of the ruthless KGB. In neither position did Putin much care about the sensitivities or religious freedom of the Chechens.

Islamic terrorists have given the Kremlin a very bad headache. But as our liberals say, "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter." Our happy-face President can't decide which they are, so he takes no stand at all. Meanwhile, this is a Russian public relations disaster. Revelations seem to be coming out daily about Russian barbarity during both the first and second Chechen wars and the current rebellion. Endangering their own lives, several Russian commanders have admitted that their troops have committed multiple assassinations and mass murder of Chechen rebels. Major Alexei Potyomkin admitted that a group of Red Cross volunteers was slaughtered in Grozny and made to look like the murders were committed by Chechens. A repeat of the murder of Polish officers by the thousands by communist troops at Katyn during WW II which they blamed on the Nazis.

Another Russian officer gave his "war" diary to the London Times which has reproduced it anonymously with its horrific recitation of Russian atrocities in Chechnya during and since 1999. Meanwhile, the Chechens have been busy themselves. In October of this year, rebels attacked the Chechen Parliament building in Grozny at the same time a high-ranking Russian cabinet official was attending a meeting of the Parliament. They have also attempted several near-successful assassinations of the Russian puppet head of Chechnya, Ramzan Kadyrov. The most recent attempt occurred while Kadyrov was in attendance at a fully-packed theater performance. Attacks are not limited to the capital and its environs. A mass attack by the rebels occurred at a crowded market in Kabardino Balkaria, an outlying area inhabited largely by ethnic Russians.

So why should we care if two opposing gangs are busily killing each other? A couple of reasons. First, it could be a chance for the United States to exploit Russian inability to control its own territories while at the same time making public hay about Russian oppression of Islamic peoples (of course that didn't work out so well in Afghanistan). But at the very least, we would be taking a stand against wholesale slaughter and subjugation of a people's desire for freedom.

Equally importantly is the fact that despite its constant public pronouncements of peace within its border, Russia has either created (or suffered from, depending on your point of view) a massive retaliation by Islamic Chechen rebels that brings instability to the region and danger within Russia itself. This greatly exacerbates the problems the West already faces with Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan and the Russian exploitation of Middle East animosities.

Part and parcel of that mess is the fact that the 2014 winter Olympic games will be held in Sochi, Russia. If this situation is not brought under control, the games could make Munich look like child's play. Sochi is far from Moscow, and in the volatile Circassian region which is as close to Chechnya as it is to the Russian capital. There's bad blood there as well since historically, the Russian empire under Alexander II conquered this Caucusus region, subjugating its Muslim population or expelling them to the Ottoman empire. Its peaceful and prosperous tourist popularity obscures the fact that there are ethnic and religious hostilities seething just below the public surface.

Obama owes it to the American public and the Western democracies to expose the Russian atrocities and call attention to the very real potential danger posed by the Chechen rebellion vis-a-vis the Olympic games and more importantly to its athletes and attendees. But considering Obama's tail-between-his-legs obeisance to the Russian bear, it's more likely he will continue to expand his efforts to ferret out the American terrorist Islamophobes who oppose the Ground Zero mosque.
[+] Read More...

Saturday, December 4, 2010

High On A Hill Stood A Lonely Goatherd

Unless you've been living in a cave for the past forty-five years, you know that what comes next is: "Lay ee odl lay ee odl lay hee hoo. . . ." The movie version of The Sound of Music included a puppet show performed by the Austrian von Trapp family and The Lonely Goatherd was the featured number.

It's hard not to yodel along with the goatherd, but in Austria today you had better be careful about trying that. Americans can look to Austria (and much of the rest of Europe) for the latest manifestation of political-correctness and fear of Islamic reprisals for any negative mention of the religion of peace. If we don't quickly restore the First Amendment as the Founders intended it, and get rid of all "hate speech" laws, we may find ourselves in an equally ridiculous situation.

Ignoring the fact that Austria is already prosecuting anybody who speaks ill of Islam, it could get worse. Absent a First Amendment, we could be prosecuted for whistling Dixie, but in Austria, yodeling is as Austrian as apple strudel. If we simply ignore free speech as an issue, we can understand how zealous prosecutors in Austria have gone after writer and university lecturer Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff for the crime of "prejudicial incitement." That's Austrian politically-correct speak for her having criticized Islam and Sharia laws at a seminar. But yodeling???????

A man so far identified in court documents only as Helmut G., a 63 year old Austrian retiree, was mowing his grass on a beautiful sunny afternoon. Helmut says: "And because I was in such a good mood, I yodeled and sang a few songs." He should have picked his singing style and neighbors better. You see, Helmut made the mistake of yodeling at the same time his adorable Muslim neighbors were having prayers in their house. Helmut was just singing and yodeling on his own property, while the charming neighbors were praying inside and broadcasting it outside in their yard with a loudspeaker. The neighbors were exceedingly disturbed by Helmut's yodeling during their special hour of loudspeaker prayer, and reported him to police for felony lawn mowing and yodeling during their special time.

As the saying goes, you can't make this stuff up. Here's how the ultra-sensitive practitioners of the religion of peace described Helmut's yodeling: "The yodeling sounded like the call of the muezzin (on that claim alone, Helmut should counter-sue for defamation)." Helmut denied their claim that his yodeling was an attempt to mock-imitate them. The court didn't care. It issued Helmut a substantial fine. If Austrians can't tell that the sweet sound of their native yodeling doesn't sound at all like the cats-in-heat muezzin, what hope is there?

Though we are far behind at this point, the Europeans are showing us the way on a case-by-case basis how to squelch freedom of expression by claiming it is the best way to prevent anti-Islamic violence. Americans are already self-censoring by trying to figure out which case might hold that the former rules of expression and debate have been changed. Islam has already cowed its critics and unintentional "disturbers of the peace" such as Helmut G. in Europe, and there's no sign that it's going to get any better. After all, the elites are simply forestalling violence and hate. Sounds a little like the Obama administration who told critics that "they had better be careful what they say." No hard rules or law, just make it up as you go along.

In order to avoid violence against Muslims, let's take a look at the American statistics on anti-Muslim violence and "Islamophobia." And I'm going to try to give it a little context as well. When I cite these incidents, you should keep in mind that these are reported incidents, including but not limited to incidents which have been investigated and in some cases prosecuted.

According to official government statistics for the year 2009, there were a total of 107 anti-Islamic "hate crimes" against persons and/or property totaling 128 individual counts and 132 victims. That is only slightly above the post 9-11 lows in 2008. The numbers have been steadily declining since the obvious year of 2001, when there were 413 incidents reported nationwide. Zero would be a good number, but this doesn't exactly sound like either an escalation or an epidemic. In fact, it doesn't sound like much of anything.

Let's look at what was also happening in 2009 in the non-Islamic hate crimes arena. Anti-Jewish incidents totaled 931. Absorb that--it's nearly nine times as many as anti-Islamic. And then there's the per capita rate. Government figures put the Jewish (religious/ethnic) population of the US at about 6.5 million. Coincidentally, the Muslim population is somewhere in the same neighborhood. But CAIR and other headline-grabbing, population-inflating Muslim organizations put the Islamic population figure at closer to 12 million. So let's use their figure and see that the per capita rate of anti-Jewish hate crime is more than seventeen times that of anti-Islamic hate crime.

Anti-black hate crimes reported totaled 2,284 and anti-white hate crime totaled 545. Hate crimes against "other" religions than Islam, Judaism or Christianity totaled 109. There were 89 reported anti-Christian hate crimes. At the extreme end, people were killed (murder or manslaughter) for being black, white, Native American, Hispanic, or gay. But not one single death has been reported on the basis of anti-Islamic crime. Despite the mass murder of 3,000 civilians in New York City by Muslims, Americans appear to be a very tolerant people--particularly toward Muslims.

As for 2010, the hysterical left and the radical Muslim groups such as CAIR, cheered on by the MSM, point to the cabbie-slashing and immense opposition to the Ground Zero mosque as evidence that anti-Muslim hatred is growing. That is not supported by the facts. Authorities nationwide are reporting figures that appear closer to 2008 than to 2009 (in other words, lower). The actual figures for 2010 will not be available until 2011, but even the burning of the Islamic mosque where Portland Christmas Tree bomber Mohamud Ahmed Mohamud prayed would increase the total 2010 incidents by exactly one.

To date, yodeling in America has not yet been added as a new anti-Islamic hate crime, but I'm sure Eric Holder is working on that. Still, if our less restrictive speech statutes allow more "anti-Islamic" expression than those of Europe, yet produce next to zero actual crime, why are we following their lead? That's simply a combination of political-correctness and kowtowing to the outrageous sensitivities of one religion while allowing "anything goes" with the other religions. It also may have something to do with the fact that the "other" religions don't behead people who aren't of their true faith or who speak ill of their prophets.

Author, lawyer, and hate speech analyst Adam Turner has concluded that the left and Islamics have convinced themselves that the following "Commandments" must be obeyed:

1. Thou shalt not accurately describe Sharia law (see Geert Wilders and Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff).

2. Thou shalt not criticize any Islamic doctrine (see Wilders and Sabaditsch-Wolff).

3. Thou shalt not report on and/or criticize the funding of terror by Islamists (see Rachel Ehrenfeld).

4. Thou shalt not disparage, nor even depict, the Islamic Prophet Muhammed (see the Jyllands-Posten Danish Cartoons and South Park).

5. Thou shalt not criticize the appropriateness of building any mosque, anywhere (see the Ground Zero mosque debate).

6. Thou shalt not admit to any politically incorrect thought(s) about Muslims, even if you immediately disavow it (them) as "irrational" and denounce it (them) on air (see Juan Williams).

So think once, twice, thrice before whistling Dixie or yodeling lest your neighbors accuse you of Islamophobia.
[+] Read More...

Friday, December 3, 2010

Is Hollywood Finally Listening?

Is Hollywood finally listening to conservatives? Hollywood has always had a liberal bent, though it was not always particularly noticeable. Part of this was that in the 1940s-1950s, liberalism was closer to classical liberalism (i.e. modern conservatism) than it was to hateful, lunatic modern liberalism. In the 1990s, however, Hollywood began to change and it became openly leftist and extremely hostile to all things non-liberal. But I wonder if that’s changing?

When the Clintons came to office with the support of Hollywood, Hollywood came fully out of the closet and jumped into the tank for the Democrats. As the Democrats drifted further and further to the nasty left, Hollywood followed. Gone were the generic public service announcements of the 1980s and the strategically placed “No Smoking” or “End Apartheid” signs in films, and in their place were open tirades against everything American. By the 2000s, this become so commonplace that there was scarcely a film that didn’t include some anti-Republican, anti-conservative, or anti-American message. And even when the films didn’t include these messages, many of the actors spent their days giving vile speeches supporting dictators and damning America.

The content was changing too. Villains became much more nasty and were drawn from narrower ranks, i.e. they all became melodramatic liberal bogeymen. Moreover, certain types of people could no longer be anything but villains. The American military and intelligence community because disloyal murderers. Priests became pedophiles. Businessmen because perverts, thieves, and killers. Religious people were portrayed as stupid lunatics with cultish overtones. There were no exceptions.

But then something began to happen. Americans, particularly conservative Americans, began voting with their wallets. Indeed, since at least the Iraq war, more and more conservative consumers began turning their backs on Hollywood. Profits continued to rise, but that was because of skyrocketing ticket prices and 3D surcharges; in real numbers ticket sales keep falling. Hollywood has noticed, though most tried to blame the recession. But this trend started long before the recession, and the public's boycott is too selective to be part of a general economic trend.

For example, while war films continue to play well (Valkyrie (2009), Flags of Our Fathers (2006)), not a single Iraqi War film escaped the bust label. Matt Damon was a bankable superstar until he started whining about Bush and Katrina and America. George Clooney’s box office appeal crashed the moment he began spewing. Ditto Sean Penn, Danny Glover, Megan Fox and others, and the presence of these people can now drag any film down. Everything politicized directors like Michael Moore and Oliver Stone did suddenly flopped, as did the political films. People even stayed away in droves from Disney’s attempt to satisfy race-baiting critics by providing a black princess in The Frog Princess, from the anti-religious rant The Invention of Lying, and anti-Wall Street films like Wall Street II.

So is Hollywood getting the message or is all of this falling on deaf ears? Well, consider this. In the past year, we’ve suddenly had two films that never would have been made in the early 2000s. The first is The Book of Eli and the second is Legion. Legion is your standard “angles are nasty creatures sent to kill humans” story that seems to have become popular ever since The Prophecy. But what makes it rather different is that it contains an anti-abortion message. Indeed, to save humanity, the heroes must protect a woman who wanted to have an abortion, but changed her mind. That’s a message you simply could not have put into a film before the somewhat ambiguous Juno in 2007. . . Hollywood’s feminist lobby never would have allowed it.

The Book of Eli is even more interesting. This is a film about a man, Eli (Denzel Washington), who is walking through a post-apocalyptic world with a book. They don’t tell you what the book is right away, but it’s so obvious that you can’t help but figure it out -- The Bible. Throughout this film, we are told that the horrific world in which humanity finds itself is the result of a war in which people tried to destroy every Bible because they blamed it as a cause of conflict, e.g. just like many on the atheist-left do today. At the same time, the few survivors with knowledge of times before the war talk with reverence about the power of the Bible to improve people’s lives and make the world a better place. Moreover, the film doesn’t hesitate to make it clear that God is real or that he is protecting Eli as he travels. AND, as he goes, Eli learns that the importance of the Bible is not the words per se, but living your life according to its teachings. Think about this for a moment. What was the last film produced by a major studio that was deeply complimentary to Christianity rather than deeply insulting?

I'm seeing hints in other movies too. The villains are getting more generic again and less-obviously insulting to America's institutions, and I'm seeing fewer straight up political moments in non-political films.

These could be outliers, but even if they are, they are outliers that simply could not have been made in the early 2000s. Perhaps this is evidence that Hollywood has turned a corner and that cracks are appearing in the Tinsel Curtain? Maybe this is even the beginning of an acknowledgement by Hollywood that it realizes that it needs to win back conservatives? I guess we’ll know when we see our first film in which American soldiers are made out as heroes rather than psychopaths?

[+] Read More...

Thursday, December 2, 2010

Smithsonian Has A Christmas Ant Problem

The National Portrait Gallery at the Smithsonian Institution is largely federally funded. It has occasionally gone off the rails, but art is in the eye of the beholder. However, this time they went off the rails and into a cesspool. The Christmas exhibit, mostly paid for by you and me, belongs in a sleazy Castro District back room in San Francisco, not at a museum that is a national icon.

Let's first establish that I'm not a protector of the public morals. I haven't lived a cloistered life, and spending my college years in Berkeley in the 60s followed by the single life in San Francisco and New York City before getting married is not exactly the life of a monk. This is all by way of saying that it's nearly impossible to shock me. Disgust, yes. Shock, no. I'm disgusted with the Smithsonian, and I admit, almost shocked. The Institution has put together a Christmas-time exhibit that rivals the piss Christ and elephant dung Virgin Mary exhibits elsewhere, as well as those of the pornographer Robert Mapplethorpe.

Among the works of high art for the Christmas crowds at the Gallery are a portrait of nude brothers kissing (above photo), male genitalia, Ellen DeGeneres in mime whiteface cupping her breasts, and multiple homoerotic photos and portraits. But the piece de resistance was a continuous loop video featuring a crucified Christ covered by crawling ants. The exhibit is called "Hide/Seek: Difference and Desire in American Portraiture." Why does crap always have a lofty title? Gay porn is gay porn, no matter how lofty the title.

As the art connoisseur enters the exhibit, he is greeted with the following plaque: "The National Portrait Gallery is committed to showing how a major theme in American history has been the struggle for justice so that people and groups can claim their full inheritance in America's promise of equality, inclusion, and social dignity (and I thought I wrote run-on sentences). As America's museum of national biography, the NPG is also vitally interested in the art of portrayal and how portraiture reflects our ideas about ourselves and others." That mission statement is high-fallutin' prose for "we'll show any damned offensive thing we choose to show."

Although the exhibit has multiple private sponsors, the Gallery is a federal taxpayer-funded location. In response to an outpouring of indignation from various Christian groups, the Gallery has removed the highly-offensive ant-covered Jesus video. Too bad the "artist" didn't represent a naked Mohammed covered in pig fat and ants. That would have eliminated any need for civilized formal complaints. All the rest remains, including graphic sado-masochistic representations of men in chains, and whole or partial nude bodies that look like the aftermath of major surgery.

Most of the "art" is so homoerotic or irreligious that it should be given an X rating. So bring the kids to the Smithsonian for Christmas. And speaking of Mapplethorpe, get a load of this description of a photo of his that appears in the exhibition: "In this playful inversion of the classic family photograph, leather-clad Brian Ridley sits in an ornate wingback chair, chained and shackled to his dominant, horsewhip-wielding partner, Lyle Heeter." Well, isn't that special? Frankly, I don't know whether to laugh or puke.

The Ellen DeGenerate photo by famed Annie Leibovitz had the legend: "Amid the madcap mugging in the photograph, notice the aggressive presentation of the breasts versus the exposed boxer shorts. De Generes's mimelike mask both reveals and hides, and the cigarette gives her a tough-guy look." WTF? Yeah, and it'll give her cancer, too. I haven't read that much flowery wording and lengthy verbiage since the last time I wrote the article descriptions for the Boys and Girls Club Auction catalog. Of course, those items were much tamer. My thought upon seeing the photo was "now there's a woman who knows nothing about makeup, and can't accessorize worth a damn." Did she miss every episode of Queer Eye for the Straight Guy?

I checked out the reaction of the Washington Post to the removal of the video (no mention of the retention of the rest of the garbage). The supporters of the video had the standard arguments, so the WaPo merely went along with them. Naturally, there was the auto-pilot argument that anyone who would want that video removed would want da Vinci's and Michaelangelo's nudes suppressed. Yep, male kitten with a whip is pretty much the same thing as Moses and David. Says another, "I believe that, instead, it means that all of us need to take a deep breath when we feel put upon by art we dislike. For the good of all of us, all of us might sometimes need to bear with the occasional offense." I can put up with an occasional offense, but an entire gallery exhibition that is wall-to-wall offense might just be a different thing--particularly on my dime. And while you're at it, tell that to Mohamud Ahmed Mohamud when you want to offend Muslims.

After patronizing a commenter who asked about the offensive "blatant defamation of a symbol of their Savior, Best Friend and reason for living," Post writer Blake Glopnik responded: "I can also see how an artist, witnessing the hideous, heart-rending loss of a loved one to AIDS (ah, the magic word against which there is no defense), might choose to express his feelings by showing an effigy of Jesus crawling with ants--a young man abject and miserable, defeated and cast in the dirt, without the strength even to defend himself from the tiniest of insects." Boy, is that a purple-prose stretch. The blasphemy aside, is this art or public indecent exposure? Or maybe group therapy?

Glopnik goes on to talk about the "many devout, traditional Protestants who would object to seeing their Saviour (yeah, he spelled it that way) depicted in any way, shape or form, and might prefer that even the most precious Renaissance paintings of him be taken down." Well, that certainly came out of left field. In my six decades, and my travels from coast to coast and border to border, I never met one of those Protestants. Maybe there's a small congregation in backwoods Kentucky which thinks that, but I doubt they're planning on spending a lot of time at the National Portrait Gallery.

And at long last, Glopnik admits "I can even entertain the possibility that an artist might, for any number of personal, political, theological or historical reasons--well-founded or not--be so disgusted by Christianity that he'd want to cast one of its central symbols in the dirt." I liked his "well-founded or not," allowing us rubes the benefit of the doubt. In any case, that's the "art as protest" argument that has nothing to do with art and everything to do with protest. There are plenty of places that "artists" can feature their "art," but I still haven't heard a good reason for why sick protest art has to be at the tax-funded Smithsonian.

Says Glopnik: "Generally speaking, the more shocking a piece of art is, the harder it has to work to get beyond its superficial shock value--the shock drowns out any other point the artist might be trying to make." That's the "cutting-edge avant garde" argument most often used to cover for the really lousy nature of the so-called art. You don't dislike the art because it's worthless and offensive. You dislike it because you're a backward, primitive boob who is too far behind the times to recognize the next big thing. I know I'd like it a lot better if it were properly displayed in a back-alley porn shop than in a gallery that I help to pay for.

[+] Read More...

MSM Advice to Obama: Work Miracles

One thing that makes blogging easy is that the MSM keeps on saying stupid things. This time, it’s US News. They’ve put together a ten point list of things they think Obama needs to do to win back the public. While I’m sure the list sounded good to them when they made it, it only takes a moment’s analysis to realize just how goofy the list really is.

Point 1: Lighten up. US News begins their list by suggesting that Mr. Cool has lost the public because he just doesn’t seem fun enough. So they recommend that he (and no, I’m not making this up) “take off the robot mask and show some humor” by playing football on the South Lawn with Bo. So a man who is criticized for spending his days playing golf, who was laughed at for throwing like a girl, and who needs stitches after playing basketball should now walk onto his front lawn and throw a football at his dog? Why does that sound like a PR disaster in the making? As an alternative, they suggest he could “whiff a soccer ball” playing with Malia. Yeah, that’s a great idea. First of all, a “whiff” means to miss. Secondly, soccer is hated in this country as a Euro-elite sports. Do you really think that will endear him to Americans?

Point 2: Utilize the First Lady. Right, use your wife. US News suggests that Obama hide behind Michelle’s relative popularity by putting her in charge of finding jobs for women. Of course, she’s not that popular, nor does she know anything about finding jobs, and so far her record on projects is pretty darn poor. In fact, she's done so little they should change her name to the First Lazy. Seriously, what has she done since moving into the White House except spend our money on expensive vacations?

Point 3: Feel Our Economic Pain. This one you have to read to believe: “spend some nights in the homes of regular folks and skip the fancy restaurants for Denny’s.” Yes, my peons, I will sleep in your hovels to show you that I am not an elitist. Also, what do you think it would take to get Michelle into a Denny’s? And isn’t Denny’s supposed to be a racist restaurant anyways? How did US News miss that?

Point 4: Concentrate on Job Numbers. This time they want him to create an employment program “where new jobs can be accurately calculated.” Two problems. First, no one will ever believe another number he says. Secondly, what in the world makes them think he can create a single job? Maybe he should also speed up the harvest or teleport Luke off that rock?

Point 5: Promote Healthcare Reform. Right, because people were angry that they didn’t know anything about ObamaCare. Me thinks the real problem was they knew too much! In any event, there is something I like in point 5 -- they want Obama to “take whatever healthcare deal you can get” and then promote the heck out of it. I like that. He should sign on to CommentaramaCare.

Point 6: Hit the Campaign Trail. That’s right, they want him to go campaign for “troubled Democrats”. . . because this worked so well before the election. They also want him to “frame the issues in a populist manner.” Right, because nothing says “vote for me” like an elitist pretending to be a man of the people looking to strike a blow for the common man against the titans of American industry. I’d name someone this worked for, but the only name that comes to mind is Lenin. . . and not the musical one.

Point 7: Tax Cuts. Extend tax cuts to those Americans making less than $250,000. This one’s legit for some of his base (the rest oppose all tax cuts), so I’ll credit US News with a 0.5 out of 7 so far. Of course, this will do nothing to win over the rest of the public, who seem to realize that those rotten “rich” do silly things like hire the poor and buy the stuff they make.

Point 8: Fulfill Promises on Iraq and Gitmo. Wait a minute, I thought he’d already fulfilled his promises on Iraq? I guess the Democrats misinformed me? As for Gitmo, um.... no one really cares about that, and trying to bring those idiots to US prisons will just pick at an old wound.

Point 9: Seize Voter Anger. Yikes. “Steer anger to a new ‘economic populism’. . . talk about the patriotism of shared sacrifice for the common good.” I can see it now: exterior scene, Obama standing on the balcony of the most posh hotel in town, as rows of economic glitterati stand beneath him cheering. “I know you hate me, but you shouldn’t hate me, you should hate bankers and CEOs and anyone who makes more money than you do! Let’s kill them all! In the name of the common good, take only what you need and give according to your abilities. . . and never forget to hate, hate like a thousand suns. We are the greatest Muslim nation on Earth because we hate and we have the freedom to hate. . . but don’t hate me, hate everyone else.” Maybe Joe Biden should test run that speech first.

Point 10: Name Oprah as a Domestic Envoy. Are you kidding me? Since when does the President need an envoy to meet with the American people? And if he does, who represents us in this meeting? I’d like to cast a vote for Hannibal Lecter, that might make the meeting more interesting. Also, isn’t Oprah passé now? He should appoint Judge Judy. . . wait, she’s on the Supreme Court now, right?

There you have it, the “thinking” liberal’s plan to save Obama. All I can say is that if you’re paying for US News, you’re being robbed.

[+] Read More...

Wednesday, December 1, 2010

Television Networks

I often marvel at how poorly the television networks are run. In fact, if it weren’t for the airlines, I would say that no industry in America is more poorly run than the networks. Consider the following:

At a time when people are abandoning the network news because they offer nothing that can’t be found on the internet, the networks are laying off news staff and relying more on wire reports. . . the same wire reports that supply every internet news site. Wouldn’t it make more sense to increase resources so the networks can offer stories that can’t be found on the wire?

The networks are obsessed with competing head to head. If Fox gets a science fiction hit on Friday night (e.g. the X-Files), other networks (cough cough NBC) will try to come up with similar science fiction shows and run them opposite the Fox hit. If there’s an NFL game on one channel, rest assured someone else will run “guy films” to try to steal that audience. Wouldn’t it make more sense to grab the audience that isn’t flocking to the other guy's main attraction each night?

The networks spend a fortune coming up with “new” programming each year, but their failure rate is incredible. More than 80% of new shows will fail each year, with about a third not lasting a month. What’s worse, to achieve this “success rate,” they take the safest, i.e. “most cowardly,” approach possible. They do nothing that hasn’t been done and isn’t already airing. All sitcoms are either knock-offs of Friends or the awful generic family sitcom. All dramas involve cops or lawyers or over-sexed teens. They recycle stars more than environmentalists recycle their garbage. Yet, only 20% even make it to year two? And every year network audiences shrink even as the population grows? Wouldn’t it make more sense to try something new, like taking risks on content? HBO, AMC, and FX are all taking risks, and are being well rewarded for their efforts.

Also, wouldn’t it make sense to change the whole model? For example, you could start a show with a 15 minute pilot tacked onto the end of an existing show to see if people like it. You could spend a week running new pilots and getting audience to vote on them. Or you could start them on cable auxiliary networks and “promote” them to the network if they succeed. What other industry would accept a 20% success rate on new products without changing their business model?

The networks also spend a fortune bidding on sporting events like the Olympics and the NFL, on which they admit they will lose vast amounts of money. They do this to earn the “prestige” of having these events. But does anyone really watch NBC sitcoms or dramas because NBC had the Olympics or because they have the NFL? Do you think any less of ABC because they don’t? And if you’re going to spend money on these properties, why not do more tie-ins like having NFL players appear on sitcoms or doing a show about the NFL?

Finally, why would these networks let their shows and their news become so politicized? Does it make any sense to turn off half (or more) of your audience? Could you imagine WalMart blasting right-wing propaganda over its loudspeaker when you enter the store, or having its cashiers lecture you on the problems caused by unions? They don’t do that because they aren’t a political organization and it doesn’t make sense to offend their customers. So why do networks do/allow this?

[+] Read More...

Why You Shouldn't Trust Open Borders Arguments

I am a firm believer in immigration. Immigrants add to our economy, our history, our defense and our culture. They add to the national energy, and most of the immigrants I know are deeply in love with America. But I don’t believe in open borders, nor do I accept the arguments made by the open-borders crowd. The reasons I don’t accept the open-borders arguments are highlighted in a recent Economist article on Muslim immigrants in Germany.

The Economist is a long time advocate of open-borders (though it never says so explicitly). In this case, it is responding to concerns voiced by several high profile Germans, including Chancellor Angela Merkel, that the idea of multiple cultures living together in harmony in Germany has failed. Specifically, these Germans argue that Muslims are not integrating into German society, that they are instead bunching together in German cities, where they live off the German welfare system, while contributing nothing to the country. Because of this, Germany is now talking about requiring assimilation into German society and stopping the flow of immigrants. The Economist rejects this, but none of the arguments it advances are convincing, and its conclusion is downright disturbing.

The Economist first tries to dismiss the concerns voiced by these Germans by arguing that Germany needs immigrants: “Awkwardly, Germany is bashing foreigners just when it needs them. . . The workforce is shrinking and growth is raising demand for skilled labor.” But is this accurate?

According to data found in the article itself, 16.9% of immigrants in Germany are unemployed. That means there is already a surplus of immigrant labor in Germany of 1.97 million people. Moreover, the article notes that 7.5% of Germans are unemployed. That translates into an additional labor surplus of 6 million. With a labor surplus of nearly 8 million people, why should Germany bring in more people until it can find jobs for those people?

Well, suggests The Economist, there is a need for “skilled labor.” But does that change this analysis? The answer is NO, because immigrants aren’t skilled labor. The Economist implies that they are when it says that as long as Germany finally passes a law to recognize foreign credentials, 300,000 immigrants can return to their old professions. But let’s think about this number. That 300,000 represents only 2.5% of the 12 million immigrants in Germany. That means the rest are unskilled labor. This is a ratio of 44 to 1.

So at best, this argument would suggest allowing targeted immigration, where Germany lets in only people with the missing skills. Yet, both the left and The Economist have already argued repeatedly that this would be unacceptable to them -- they want fully open borders. That means, Germany would need to let in 44 immigrants to get 1 skilled immigrant. Is that really a good deal, especially considering that there are no more jobs for unskilled immigrants? Should Germany really add 44 people to its welfare roles so it can get one person skilled at working a printing press or programming a computer? Also, wouldn’t it make more sense to train the 8 million unemployed to do those jobs first before looking outside for more labor? Or are those 8 million to be considered permanently useless unless Germany returns to a manual labor economy?

What you’re seeing here is that the economic arguments for letting in more immigrants are flawed to their core. And the “skilled labor” argument is nothing more than a red herring used to suggest that immigrants can do something they cannot. And in any event, none of this actually addresses the concerns of the people who say that lack of assimilation is the problem. So what does The Economist say to disprove their concerns? Nothing.

It admits that “Islam can be an additional barrier” to assimilation, but then it adds, “but only for Muslims who choose to make it one.” This is meant to dispel the idea that there is some incompatibility between German culture and Islam, but this is double speak. At first, the article purports to agree that Islam is a barrier (something that is too obvious to deny with any credibility), but then it simultaneously dismisses that by claiming that this is only a barrier for people who let it be a barrier, i.e. it's an optional barrier. Not only does The Economist not provide a shred of proof to back this up, but this point actually goes against its argument. If Muslims are seeing Islam as a barrier, when it is not, then the only way to remove that barrier is the very assimilation The Economist abhors so much.

What’s more, let’s look at how this voluntary barrier is taking shape. According to the article: “One study estimated that 10-12% of Muslims have radical Islamist leanings, and a quarter of Muslim teenagers are hostile to Christians and Jews or to democracy.” In other words, because of Islam, 3 million of these 12 million immigrants are hostile to their neighbors and the government they are now living under. How can that be considered acceptable, and how can this situation justify bringing in more Muslims? What this should do is convince anyone with a rational mind that immigration must be stopped immediately until those three million can be assimilated to reduce their hostility. But The Economist doesn’t see this. Instead, it offers a different solution: “Germans’ idea of what it is to be German will have to change.”

There you have it: the problem isn’t that continued immigration of Muslims will change Germany, the problem is that Germans won’t just shut up and accept it.

And that is the problem with the open borders people. They make economic sounding arguments to justify bringing in all the immigrants they can get. But their economic arguments are false and contradictory. And when confronted with real concerns about changes in culture, they ignore those concerns. What’s worse, they don’t understand or care that it’s a very bad thing that a country like Germany will go from being a tolerant, modern, Western democracy to becoming a country whose people are hostile to Christians, Jews and democracy. This is why the open borders people cannot be trusted and their arguments must be exposed.

I am a fan of immigration, but to suggest that a government should let in enough hostile immigrants to kill off the existing culture, to bring in millions of people who are hostile to their neighbors, and to put millions of immigrants onto the backs of existing taxpayers is obscene.

[+] Read More...