RINOs and Taxes and Budgets. . . Oh My!!

I had planned to put up an article reviewing Avatar today, because I endured its pain just so I could write a review. But that will have to wait because I get the feeling some of you may have some thoughts about this whole budget thing or the tax bill. . . what a mess! Let’s look at the winners and losers:

Loser: House Democrats The House Democrats look like fools in this whole process. The voters are furious that they blew a trillion dollars on their friends, achieved nothing regarding the economy, and managed to bring the debt to levels that literally endanger our country. So here is their chance to show that they’ve learned something. They didn’t.

First, they threw a hissy-fit and made it clear that they were willing to destroy the economy and raise taxes on everyone by killing the Bush Tax Cuts just to score political spite points. They even spent the week name-calling and swearing at Obama, something which always makes you look childish and stupid. And in the end, after giving Obama a black eye and exposing themselves, they voted for the deal.

Secondly, they passed an obscene budget that not only kept right on with their insane and crooked spending ways, but was crawling with earmarks, set-asides and special projects. . . like those of Rep. Emanuel Cleaver (D-MO) who earmarked $48 BILLION (with a B) for a day care center run by one of his friends out of his house (although he claims he didn't actually make the request, he just put it on his website). Cleaver will be leading the Congressional Black Caucus next year, though he should be in prison.

Loser: Obama Obama cut a deal with the Republicans on the Bush Tax Cuts, which immediately blew up in his face. Liberals depend on all their friends telling the world how great they are (because they have no other accomplishments they can point to), and this wiped that out. No longer the Messiah, Obama became the Pariah, as his historically low approval ratings plummeted.

Winner: George Bush If you want to judge a President on how effective they are, look at how many of their policies get adopted by their successors. Obama got into office promising to close Gitmo, get us out of Iraq, and kill the Bush Tax Cuts. He’s now adopted all three.

Loser: The MSM Not only have they watched as their heroes fell apart into childish bickering, but their efforts to spin the news have fallen flat. For example, many of you probably saw how the “Bush Tax Cuts” recently became the “Bush Era Tax Cuts” and then the “Obama Tax Cuts,” but nobody bought it and we’re right back to the “Bush Tax Cuts.” Moreover, there was nothing they could do to stem the tide on any of these stories, not the budget, not the taxes, not the feuding.

Winner: Mitch McConnell McConnell started out poorly in these matters as he seemed quite content to get a poor deal on the Bush Tax Cuts and he seemed happy with the Budget. But when McConnell started pushing around the RINOs and then reported to the Democrats that the Senate Republicans no longer supported the budget, Harry Reid withdrew the budget in a panic maneuver. McConnell then added insult to injury by proposing a one page budget that basically said, “no changes from last year.”

Winner: The Tea Party There is no doubt that the pressure put on Senators by the Tea Party is what caused the Republican about-face on the budget. And once again, it was Jim DeMint as the first to break ranks.

Loser: The Republican Establishment While many individual Republicans came out as winners in these issues, the establishment continues to look weak and backwards. They have shown again that their instincts are wrong, although they at least changed course when the Tea Party people applied a lot of pressure.

Winner/Loser: Political Contenders These are the candidates for President and other gurus squawking from the sidelines. They are winners in the sense that they made good soundbites and were able to tell us “what they would have done” if they had been in the negotiations on these matters. But they are also losers because this is fake bravado and it’s exploitive. It’s one thing to propose something in advance, which none of them did, it’s another to play armchair quarterback safely away from any responsibility. So this will play well with their supporters, but doesn’t give the rest of us any confidence that they are serious or that we can trust them.

Winner/Loser: Us We got some good things in the Bush Tax Cut deal and some bad things, but that’s what you get with compromises. On the whole we are probably better off. But the budget is another issue. The withdrawal of the budget is nice, but I’ll believe it when it stays withdrawn and a better budget is produced. What’s more, we are losers in that the budget (even as they are talking about changing it) does nothing to trim the fat that’s accumulated in the budget in the past 3-4 years. But we are winners in the sense that our politicians apparently remain afraid of us.

There you have it. Anyone you would add or subtract? Anything you disagree with? Come on folks, vent away.

*** Update *** According to the Washinton Examiner, the number of earmark requests looks like this:

Senate Democrats: 15,133 earmarks for $54.9 billion
House Democrats: 18,189 earmarks for $51.7 billion
Senate Republicans: 5,352 earmarks for $22 billion
House Republicans: 241 earmarks for $1 billion

I guess we can see where the problem(s) lie?


(I’ll put up the Avatar review early next week.)

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Igor--It's Alive. It's Alive !

The obnoxious concept of a "living constitution" has manifested itself in the recent Democratic reaction to criticism of the Obama socialized medicine plan. It has become more patronizing and dismissive since the most recent appellate court ruling that portions of Obamacare are unconstitutional.

With each successful overreaching of Congress and the executive, the leftists and bleeding-hearts have gotten closer and closer to gutting limits on federal power entirely. Suggestions that there is any such thing as a limitation on federal power are treated as if someone had said the moon is made of green cheese. How dare we conservatives attempt to stop the march of progressivism by citing an out-of-date, dusty old document?

The legal concept of a "living constitution" is tantamount to an architect advocating "living foundations." The cement will be made semi-viscous so that the building above can be rearranged to suit the current popular style. But any sane person knows that without a solid foundation, the building above will collapse. The Constitution is that concrete foundation, and the Republic is the building. I do not include Democrats, liberals, leftists and "living constitutionalists" in the category of sane persons.

How many of us remember the day Nancy Pelosi was asked if Obamacare might violate the Constitution and therefore not be valid law. The idea that Congress can do anything it damned well pleases is so deep that her automatic reaction was "are you serious?" The living constitution allows exactly what Pelosi thinks it allows, but we don't have a living consitution. We have a bedrock foundational document alterable only by the people of the various states. It is not meant, ever, to be ignored, stretched, tortured or altered by any other means. That includes legislators, presidents, and courts.

So when U. S. District Judge Henry Hudson ruled that Obamacare violated the words and meaning of the Constitution, the "Progressive" reaction was essentially "so what?" Judge Hudson found that the interstate commerce clause has limitations, and one of those limitations on Congress is regulating a "non-activity." The non-activity is a person who dares not to buy health insurance. "You don't buy it, we'll make you buy it, and we may slap you with some bigtime civil and criminal sanctions as well." Our illustrious Attorney General Eric Holder patronized the judge with his offhand comment "the states' reading of the Commerce Clause was rejected 80 years ago."

Holder is of course referring to the failing and nearly-bankrupt Social Security System. "We saw similar challenges to laws that created Social Security and established new civil rights protections [the latter actually being only 46 years ago]. Those challenges ultimately failed, and so will this one." Holder fails (purposely) to distinguish between a federally-mandated tax to provide a guaranteed retirement income and legislation implementing law already contained in the Constitution--literally. Progressives are notorious for comparing their most recent socialist statist government schemes to civil rights legislation. It's their normal tactic of substituting law and clear thinking with emotional comparisons to slavery and racial discrimination (ask the gay marriage advocates).

The only reason Social Security is constitutional is that a cowed and increasingly liberal Supreme Court said it was. There are clear distinctions in the nature of Social Security and Obamacare that are fodder for many other full articles. Suffice it to say here that this Supreme Court is neither as easily cowed by an ignorant lawyer-president nor lacking in the good sense to say "bad law is bad law, no matter how old it is." An obvious question for Holder is that since the high court held discrimination, and later racial segregation, perfectly constitutional from 1789 through 1954, would he like to reverse Brown v. Board of Education because the previous state of the law existed for 165 years and Brown has existed for a mere 65?

What is important to remember about the "progressive" concept surrounding Obamacare is that they can't make distinctions between mandatory health care, Social Security and civil rights. For the left, the distinctions don't matter because the "living constitution" allows the three branches to conspire with each other to do whatever they think is best for America and Americans. If it means an occasional suppression of freedom of speech or religion, or an occasional unreasonable search and seizure, or an occasional oppressive tax and control of one-sixth of the entire economy, no matter. Congress is charged by the living Constitution to do whatever it deems necessary regardless of the original words, original intent or original meaning of the document. In other words, you are wrong if you think the Constitution is a document limiting government. The living constitution is about protecting general welfare by any governmental means necessary and any expansion of government that assists in that goal.

The key vote on the current Court is probably Justice Anthony Kennedy. After all, he was the one who wrote an opinion which held the Constitution grants "a right to define one's own concept of existence." That not law--that's judicial Zen Buddhism. You know the sound of two hands clapping. But what is the sound of one hand clapping? Still, he currently seems less likely to issue airy-fairy philosophical treatises posing as judicial opinions than previously.

The states are merely an impediment to good federal law enforcement. Those pesky 50 competing jurisdictions merely muddy the waters and confuse citizens, so why waste time with worrying about what they think? And that is exactly how Holder and Obama look at it. It is a given that if people need medical care, it is the sole and exclusive province of the federal government to "regulate" that interstate commerce. Any activity that affects any citizen of any state who might get confused about the law in another state must be transferred to the regulatory power of the federal government. How dare certain states and one federal judge question that wisdom? It's just incomprehensible to the left.

So just remember: A state citizen not doing something (like buying health insurance) has a cumulative effect on interstate commerce by virtue of causing non-activity which produces non-commerce which is subject to the Interstate [non-]Commerce Clause. If you've got that straight, you're ready for quantum physics.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

ABC Discovers Obamacare Not Popular

I thought the logo for ABC TV from 1949 was appropriate since the network doesn't seem to have improved much since that time. On December 13 an ABC/Washington Post (another dinosaur) poll disclosed that Obamacare is, believe it or not, more unpopular than ever.

Despite having taken up residence in the White House Obamacare Booster Bedroom, ABC was shocked--shocked--to find out just how unpopular nationalized/socialized medicine really is. Perhaps the network should change its logo to look like CBS's cyclops, only with the eyelid closed. They could use George Stephanopoulos's eyelashes. He has great eyelashes, doesn't he? But I digress.

And speaking of Stephanopoulos, during an interview with James (Gollum) Carville, young George made one of the few mentions of ABC's own poll by telling Carville "and we have a new poll out just yesterday, showing that public support for health care is the lowest it's ever been." Nice job, George. Completely ignored the fact that health care is very popular (everyone needs it). It's Obamacare that's sinking like a stone. After making an additional passing reference to the recent federal appellate court decision finding the Obamacare bill full of constitutional holes, Stephanoupolos asked Carville: "How much time and energy can the President and his team afford to invest in this fight." Carville's reply was something like "golly, whumph crawdads and trailer parks." Or words to that effect.

That was the first and last reference to "health care" for the rest of Good Morning, America. Understandable, since the poll shows that outright opposition to the entire package now stands at 52% while support is at a mere 43%. Didn't Obama and Andy Griffith tell us that the more we learned about it, the more we'd like it? That doesn't seem to be the case since shortly after the passage of the bill, support was a point or two higher than the opposition.

Included in the discussion was Dan Loesch who is editor-in-chief of BigJournalism.com, a site with which most of our readers are very familiar. Stephanopoulos led Loesch away from the unpopularity of the massive plan and instead concentrated on the court decision, hoping to sidetrack the issue of Obama's successful failure. It's easier to blame a Bush judicial appointee than to blame 52% of the American people for their partisanship. Loesch wasn't buying it and discussed the decision rationally rather than politically, leaving Carville to muddy the waters.

Carville gave the usual Democratic litany about how brave Obama and Congress had been, how tortuous the road to Obamacare was, and blaming the unpopularity on the uncertainties of the warring appellate districts. He is sure that Obamacare will regain its popularity as soon as the matter is finally settled. "People aren't knowing if they're going to get it. And who kinows if provisions are going to be there? And how long it's going to take. So, this is the way our system works. We're along for the ride. We'll do a lot more shows on this issue." I'm sure they will, as soon as they have decided how they're going to spin the bill's plummeting numbers into a victory of some sort.

So now you should understand that Obamacare isn't really unpopular. It's all in how you read the falling support. It's not because it's a monstrosity, a huge takeover of a major portion of the American economy, a proven failure in England, or another power-grab at the expense of the freedom of the American people. No, no. As Carville tells us, it's because it's just so darned good that the reactionaries are trying to use the courts to subvert it and cloud the brilliance of the scheme. As soon as we've finished "going along for the ride," and the judges are finally out of the way, America will re-discover how fabulous the plan is, and the positive poll numbers will shoot back to their all-time high of about 49%. At which point, Obama will re-explain it to us and Nancy Pelosi will have had enough time to read it to see what's in it.
[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Fox News: A Healthy Dose of Skepticism

One of the most critical traits required of any journalist, lawyer, investigator, scientist, or anyone else whose job is to examine evidence, listen to conflicting stories, and make sense of what they find is a little thing called “skepticism.” Skepticism is what causes you to question the things that just don’t seem right, and to check the things that seem too good to be true. But journalists have abandoned skepticism, as shown by their reaction to a recent Fox New directive.

At one point, journalists realized that skepticism was a necessary part of their jobs. Indeed, this principle was summed up perfectly in a statement attributed to the City News Service of Chicago: “If your mother tells you she loves you, check it out.” But modern journalists no long respect this axiom.

Mike Vick is reformed! Sure, his apologies were not apologies and his mea culpa was more of a mea accusa everyone elsa, but the NFL says he’s reformed. Lindsey Lohan’s publicist says she’s sober. Sure, she ends up in rehab more often than most people go to the bathroom and she’s constantly photographed coming out of clubs drunk, but her publicist sounded very sure.

What do you mean the Democrats aren’t the party of the working class? They say they are. Sure, they get their money from rich lawyers and Wall Street, and they do favors for banks, but they say they don’t really like those people. What do you mean Obama isn’t the ideal leader? Sure, he has no educational or professional record and his first book reads like someone else wrote it, but he looks nice and he reads well. . . and all the Democrats say he’s a genius.

You get my point? The media has reached a point where skepticism is no longer considered part of the job. They will report any assertion as true if the assertion comes from the right people, even when it’s patently obvious the asserted facts could not be true. And they will uncritically parrot any conclusion, no matter how unsupported or how illogical, so long as it comes from the right people.

Indeed, the closest they come to skepticism is cynicism, but that’s not the same thing. What separates cynicism from skepticism, is that skepticism involves a thorough process of starting from a default position of doubting all that you are told, and then vigorously trying to prove or disprove the assertions. . . letting the facts fall where they may. It has no bias.

But cynicism, on the other hand, is just an opinion and it is pure bias. Cynicism takes from skepticism the idea that simple assertions cannot be trusted, but rather than seeking to prove or disprove those assertions, it stops at disbelief. Thus, if you do not trust the source, then you cast doubt on the source’s data, their motives and intentions, their capabilities, and their seriousness. And that is exactly how modern journalists behave, not with skepticism, but with cynicism. Indeed, they no longer seem capable of true skepticism, just cynicism directed at the people they don’t trust, i.e. Republicans, and blind faith in the people they do trust, i.e. Democrats and other leftists.

Consequently, it should come as no surprise how leftist journalists have responded to the news that on December 8, 2009, Fox News Washington Bureau Chief Bill Sammon issued a memo to his reporting staff telling them to be skeptical about assertions of global warming. Here’s what he said:

“Given the controversy over the veracity of climate change data, we should refrain from asserting that the planet has warmed (or cooled) in any given period without IMMEDIATELY pointing out that such theories are based upon data that critics have called into question. It is not our place as journalists to assert such notions as facts, especially as this debate intensifies.”

Their response should be, “excellent! We, as journalists, must be skeptical of all things and this fits perfectly with our credo.” But that’s not how they responded. Instead, they called this directive “conservative spin” and they ranted furiously that Fox would not bow at the global warming alter. The horror, the horror that journalists would treat disputed facts as disputed!

How sad is it that the same profession that refused to believe that Presidents never sanction breakings and enterings, that the Pentagon never lied, that corporations never committed crimes, that scientists never faked data to get contracts, that colleges never paid their athletes. . . would suddenly be outraged that other journalists have dared question disputed “science” that has been exposed as the domain of liars, cheats and data-fakers.

The fact that these “journalists” react this way should tell you all you need to know about your ability to trust their reporting and their analysis. It is yet another black mark in the eye of modern journalism.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Question: Christmas Gift Ideas!

With Christmas coming up in a week and the last-minute shopping season kicking into high gear at grocery stores, drugs stores, and convenience stores across the country, it’s time to come up with some gift ideas. . . like air fresheners or those troll things. No huh? Step into a handful of SlimJims? No?! Are you sure? They're individually wrapped! Ok, fine, what would make a good gift for a loved one? A not-so-loved one? A quasi-enemy? A boss? Or a politician? Come on people we need ideas! [+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Don't Label Me Bro!

You’ve probably heard about this “No Labels” garbage the left has come up with? Ostensibly, the idea is that if we can keep people from labeling each other “liberal” or “conservative” or “communist” or “RINO” or “idiot” then we can end the horrible partisanship that keeps “us” from getting things done. What a load. This is nothing more than an attempt by RINOs and leftists to make it hard for the public to spot them.

This laughable idea was created by two failed political consultants. On the left, you have Nancy Jacobson, a former finance director for the Democratic National Committee and a Hillary Clinton-campaign creature. On the other left, you have Mark McKinnon, who once worked for arch-conservative John McCain (**snicker snicker**) until he decided that he “[didn’t] want to work against an Obama presidency.” Poor dear.

Politicians who have outted themselves in favor of this idiocy include Democrats Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY), Joe Manchin (D-WV), and Evan Bayh (D-Ind); RINOs Mike Castle (RINO-Del), Charlie Crist (RINO-Fla), and Tom Davis (RINO-Va); and a slew of leftist hacks from MSNBC. “Labels get in the way of getting things done,” whined RINO Tom Davis, who spent his time in Congress pushing for DC statehood and federal pay raises.

So what are these groups after? Let’s look at each group.

The RINOs want a home. Their repeated betrayals of the Republicans have worn thin and Republican voters are done with them, but Democrats don’t want them either. They are hoping that by getting rid of labels, they can hide in the squishy middle while getting re-elected on personality and favor trading. In fact, their ideal world would be one where there are no parties and, thus, no primary voters to answer to.

The Democrats want a lifeline. They blew it with Obama/Pelosi. The voters hate them and the Republicans are ready to be as aggressive with them as they were when they were in power. So they are now pushing the idea of being bipartisan in the hopes that the Republicans buy into this and they can sneak through their policies despite the growing Republican majority.

The left wants a way to hide. The left has a long history of spoiling any label they tried to adopt. Their policies are poison. They destroy economies, they endanger people, they create poverty and make existing poverty more intense, they encourage crime, they encourage racism, they encourage violence, and their ideological compatriots have been directly responsible for killing millions of people. Thus, it’s no wonder they’ve worn out their welcome wherever they’ve been. Therefore, they’ve had to change their labels every couple of years as the latest label gets disgraced, so that people don't realize who or what they are.

Indeed, they went from progressives to populists to radicals to socialists to liberals and a dozen more, each time trying to choose a name that sounded like a good thing and eventually disgracing that name through their actions. If they could create a world where politicians and ideology bore no labels, then they could avoid being found so easily. Instead of people saying, “watch out for the progressives,” and everyone knowing exactly who and what that meant, they could hide among us in plain sight, pretending to be just concerned politicians. . . part of the generic establishment as a whole. It’s the political equivalent of camouflage.

These are the people who make up the “No Labels” coalition, a collection of losers looking to deceive the rest of us about who they are. Sad.

Finally, let me ask this. What exactly is wrong with partisanship anyway? Partisanship is what gives the voters a clear choice of ideas. Should we complain that McDonalds doesn’t also offer a Whopper? Or that Long John Silvers doesn’t offer tacos or winter clothing? No. That’s ridiculous. We want clear choices that let us decide what we are in the mood for, with each restaurant specializing in one type of item rather than all restaurants doing a little of everything because we know that promotes better quality and cheaper prices. So why is it, when it comes to politics we’re suddenly supposed to want politicians who offer fish-taco-hamburger jackets?

Seems kind of obvious to me.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Los Angeles Mayor Has An Epiphany

This is an article I never expected to write. Least of all did I expect to write it about a Democratic mayor of a town that has become hopelessly divided along racial, ethnic and class lines. Liberals have had control of city hall for decades, and the left wing has been successful in pitting people against each other, gaining power with the class and ethnic warfare. Most of all, the Democratic power structure is joined at the hip with the unions.

Last week, Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa became about as popular as a skunk at a Democratic-Union picnic. Announcing a fact that conservatives and real teachers have known for years, Villaraigosa spoke the words that place him in the category of bold warrior or damned fool, depending on your point of view. Former lifelong union employee turned politician, Villaraigosa dropped the following bombshell: "At every step of the way, when Los Angeles was coming together to effect real change in our public schools, United Teachers of Los Angeles (UTLA) was there to fight against the change and the slow pace of reform."

This took me back to my teenage years when Republican Max Rafferty ran for state superintendent of public schools and won by a landslide on the platform of restoring the Three R's and dropping what he called "in-groupness" from the curriculum. That far back, a politician could see that California education had ceased to be education and was being replaced with social engineering and making kids feel good about themselves. The difference is that in those days, the majority of the people of California actually wanted their children to get educated, and they would take care of socializing them at home and in the churches. Villaraigosa in today's California entitlement/multi-culti/group therapy culture may be shoveling sand against the tide (aren't you proud of me for cleaning that one up?).

Much of what passes for teaching in the L.A. public schools is just plain nonsense. And the nonsense is perpetuated largely by the teachers' union. There are always a few dedicated teachers who deviate from the norm, but far too many of the union teachers went into teaching because it didn't really require anything much of them. Many are so poorly-educated themselves that they are incapable of teaching a core subject adequately. Few actually have a degree in the subject they are teaching, while most have degrees in education (whatever that means). I grew up in and attended top-notch public schools in which dedicated teachers taught the subjects they majored in at college. They saw their jobs as a calling, not a money-for-nothing scheme. None belonged to a union, and tenure was quite a different thing in those days.

Today, teacher performance and student success are minor considerations when compared to teacher perks and pay-scales. As the attached photo demonstrates, teachers unions have developed a mantra about "tests are not a measure of success." They would, since standardized testing is an objective measure that is a very good way of determining if the students are learning anything and if the teachers are teaching anything. Standardized tests are a very fine measure of success, but all thinking people know they are not the only measure. They just happen to be the only measure which puts objectively determinable standards at the forefront. The propagandizers and semi-illiterates who comprise the teachers' union would be out of work if Los Angeles were to abandon its loyalty to tenure and collective bargaining as substitutes for accomplishment.

Needless to say, the UTLA has been vociferous and vicious in its opposition to the mayor's cost-cutting, deadwood-removing, anti-teachers' union stance. "Turncoat" is about the nicest thing they've called him. Always the politician, Villaraigosa launched his attack at a very smart juncture. The head of the UTLA is stepping down, and a majority of the school board will be up for re-election. Anti-reform unionists are not sitting in the catbird seat this time around. At stake is the future of the second-largest school district in the nation, and the one with the largest Hispanic population. So the union is painting Villaraigosa as a "race traitor" as well.

Villaraigosa also made himself the target of the unions by signing on to the statement of Ted Mitchell, president of the California Board of Education: "All of these changes create a real opportunity for us to focus on solutions and to stop talking about whether we are going to move forward bu how we are going to move forward." And then Mitchell spoke the hated words: "Rigor, high expectations and the transparent use of date in everything from performance evaluations to individual instruction have got to be supported now at the local level. That's the reform position and should be rigorously pursued."

The response from the unions is largely: "Standards? We don't need no stinking standards." To which Villaraigosa has replied: "The most powerful defenders of the [failed] status quo are the teachers' unions. They intimidated people, especially Democrats, from doing anything about reform." Turning Mitchell's and Villaraigosa's very clear agenda on its head, UTLA vice-president Joshua Pechthalt misstates the case: "[Villaraogosa's agenda] threatens to turn back the clock on historic gains made in public education, removing the process for teachers and switching to a system of evaluation for teachers that is subjective, not objective." That kind of illogic combined with an outright lie tells you why Villaraigosa knows the the L.A. public schools are in serious trouble.

And then comes the standard entitlement left-wing language: "We reject the notion that real reform has to come at the expense of the rights of teachers and other educators." The "rights" Pechthalt is talking about are the rights to do a lousy job, get paid handsomely for it, obtain retirement benefits worth twice as much as the private sector with full retirement coming at a much earlier time, and to have a job for life regardless of any and all failures on the part of the teachers.

Villaraigosa has found to his dismay that his former tactics of attempting reform without naming names and calling out the roadblocks simply didn't work. For being a gentleman, the mayor was rewarded with vilification and epithets. He decided that his private battle with the instransigent union needed to go public, and he picked an excellent time to do so. The Los Angeles Times had just confirmed Villaraigosa's personal beliefs about the sorry state of the Los Angeles schools by publishing the analysis of the performances of thousands of teachers based on student test scores. That publication was something that had never been done before with any other large school system, and the results were miserable.

The battle-lines have been drawn, and term-limited Mayor Villaraigosa shows no signs of pulling back. He has seen a trend that showed up as a complete surprise in San Francisco a few years back. The multi-cultis were sure that bilingual education was highly popular in San Francisco, and got blind-sided by Filipino and Chinese groups that insisted that courses be English-only. They outright rejected classes in Mandarin, Cantonese and Tagalog. Some of Villaraigosa's strongest support is coming from Hispanic groups that feel strongly that their children are being short-changed by incompetent teachers and programs that experiment on their children. I wish the mayor every success.
[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Minnesota Purge: Loyalty, Not Purity

The collapse of the snow-covered Metrodome is not the only interesting news to come out of Minnesota this weekend. The Minnesota Republican Party did something interesting as well, they banished 18 party members, including two former governors and a retired US Senator. I am generally opposed to purges, but I think this was an excellent move.

The reason the Minnesota Republican Party banished these 18 members was because they endorsed the third-party candidate for governor over the Republican candidate. The third-party candidate (Republican turned independent Tom Horner) won 12% of the vote, while Republican Tom Emmer lost to the Democrat by less than 9,000 votes. Thus it’s rather clear that this third party candidate cost the Republicans the governor’s mansion.

The reasons they endorsed the moderate were the standard ones given by RINOs: they claimed the party had gotten too conservative and they wanted to protect the party before it became a small fringe party, blah blah blah. And now they are shocked and dismayed that they were kicked out of the party and they pretend not to understand why this action was taken. Said one member, “The Republican Party leadership is being very vindictive to some persons who have been staunch Republicans throughout the years. Most people I talk to don’t get it.”

Well, let me explain this to our confused friends.

A political party must be a Big Tent if it is to achieve any sort of electoral success. The reason is simple, there are not enough voters who share the identical political views to form anywhere near a majority of the electorate. Indeed, if we polled all the readers of Commentarama, we would find that few (if any) shared all the same views, even though Commentarama readers are much more ideologically similar than the public at large. Now imagine trying to limit a political party only to people who agreed on all issues? It’s not possible. Thus, any successful political party must accept within its ranks a wide range of people, including both moderates and conservatives/liberals.

But where do we draw the line? In other words, how can a party function if it allows dissenting views within its ranks? The answer is in the nature of the covenant that forms the political party. When a party is formed, its members agree that they may disagree with each other internally, e.g. in primary contests, but they will all accept the result of the decision-making process, e.g. the vote, and will support the chosen candidate, even if they disagree with some of the chosen candidate’s views. In this way, the views of different members may be taken into account as everyone has the chance to have their views heard. And if you can convince enough party members to support your position, then your position becomes the party position, and each election cycles gives you a new chance to make your case.

Yet some party members violate this pact. They will argue for a particular view or candidate, but when their view is not adopted, they betray the party and endorse a candidate from another party. This is bad faith, and these people are death to a party because they destroy the compact that gives the party meaning. In other words, they wipe out the very point of having a party, which is for similar-minded people (even though not-identically minded) to band together to achieve their common goals.

Moreover, while these people cloak themselves in talk of the Big Tent or expanding the party, they actually are advocating the smallest tent imaginable -- they are advocating a “my view or else” approach, which leaves no room for disparate views to work out their differences and find common ground. This is like Henry Ford saying that customers could have any color car they wanted, so long as they chose black. The offer of a choice is fraudulent.

Consequently, it is best to dump these people because they are not participating in good faith, and their staunch position will alienate others who are trying to behave in good faith and were willing to follow the compact. Additionally, these people are practicing a scorched earth form of politics that is disreputable and reflects purely upon the very party to which they feigned loyalty. Indeed, the other side is always happy to give these people a platform from which they can describe their supposed party as extremist, rotten and evil. . . something they happily do.

Thus, contrary to what these Minnesota banishees claim, they were not kicked out because the party was intolerant of moderates, they were kicked out because they were disloyal and their views are intolerant of other views.

Good riddance.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

ObamaCare Struck Down? Not Quite

In case you didn’t hear, a federal judge in Virginia struck down a key portion of ObamaCare today. This ruling was made in response to a lawsuit brought by the Commonwealth of Virginia in defense of a new state law that prohibits the government from forcing state residents to buy health insurance. What does this ruling mean for ObamaCare? Well, don’t get excited. On a practical level, this ruling means nothing. Here’s what you need to know.

First, this ruling struck down the part of ObamaCare that allows the federal government to compel individuals to buy insurance. I’ve spoken before about why this will probably ultimately be found to be unconstitutional (click me).

Secondly, this ruling was issued by Federal District Court Judge Henry E. Hudson, a Republican appointee. He sits in Richmond, and thus, the scope of his reach is only Virginia. In other words, this ruling does not affect anyone in any other state. Moreover, other courts have already gone the other way on this provision, finding it constitutional, including courts in Michigan and Virginia.

So what does this mean? It means there is a conflict, and those need to be resolved, right? Actually, no. As strange as it may sound, conflicts are allowed under federal law, though they are not preferred. They are usually resolved by the appeals process, but not always. And when they aren’t resolved, different parts of the country will find themselves living under federal laws that have been interpreted differently -- you often see this in tax cases.

Still, as I said, conflicts are not preferred. And here is what is likely to happen.

The way the federal courts work, the District Court is the lowest level (excluding certain specialty courts). The scope of their power is the district within which they sit. Most states are broken into two districts. Thus, for example, you have the Eastern District of Virginia and the Western District of Virginia. These two districts can (and often will) conflict.

To fix the conflict, an appeal is made to a higher court -- the appellate courts. In the case of Virginia, the appellate court is the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. That court happens to sit in Richmond, but it oversees all of the District Courts in Virginia, West Virginia, Maryland and the Carolinas. When the Fourth Circuit issues a ruling, its ruling becomes the law in each of those states and any conflicts are erased.

But this doesn’t necessarily end the conflict because the country is broken into thirteen Circuit Courts, and they can conflict with each other. Thus, the Sixth Circuit in Ohio may disagree with the Fourth Circuit in Virginia or the Second Circuit in New York. When such a conflict exists, the only way to resolve it is to appeal to the Supreme Court. A Supreme Court ruling will become the law of the land and will apply to all Circuit Courts automatically, no matter which Circuit Court the appeal came from.

BUT appeals to the Supreme Court are not mandatory, nor are they guaranteed. In other words, the Supreme Court can refuse to hear an appeal, even when there is a conflict in the Circuits, and that will leave the conflict in place. That said however, it is unlike the Supreme Court will allow a significant conflict to continue. One Circuit striking down ObamaCare while another affirms it would be the kind of conflict the Supreme Court is unlikely to leave in place.

Since the Fourth Circuit is the most conservative Circuit Court in the country, and will likely affirm Judge Hudson's decision, and Circuits like the Sixth and Ninth will go the other way, a conflict is more likely now than before. Thus, the real meaning of today’s ruling is that this decision makes it more likely that the Supreme Court will hear this case. . . but that's it.

Also, as an aside, don't expect much to come from this ruling because the case everyone is watching is the lawsuit filed in Florida by the twenty state Attorney's General. So expect nothing to happen in the Supreme Court until that case makes it there.

All in all, today's ruling is nice and it makes it somewhat more likely that the Supreme Court will hear this case, but it doesn’t mean much more than that.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Merry Christmas--Now Duck And Cover !

It appears that our federal Keystone Kops have done it again. At a time when a nuclear device can be put into a container about the size of your average chest of drawers and lethal aerobic toxins can be released like the chemicals over a cornfield, the Federal Aviation Administration has informed us that 119,000 airplanes in America are faultily registered.

These gaps include missing forms, invalid addresses, unreported sales, and (shall I say it?) just plain missing planes. That's approximately one-third of all the private and commercial planes in the United States. Details, details. We are coming up on the tenth anniversary of the destruction of the World Trade Center. There was a failure of security and common sense that could be partially forgiven by virtue of the fact that nothing like that had ever come close to being successfully attempted. We've been told that Al Qaeda and its fellow terrorist organizations are adaptive. But with that many AWOL planes at their disposal, they won't have to adapt much. Did that never occur to our brilliant federal authorities?

The FAA has failed badly in its duty to know where every airworthy aircraft in America is at any given time, who owns it, and what use it is being put to. Given that it's a human institution, the goal of absolute knowledge is unrealistic. But one-third of the fleet? Rank amateurs could do better than that. The confusion would be funny if it weren't so dangerous. Drug-trafficers have gotten away with importing huge quantities of cocaine and marijuana into the country with phony registration, while on the other side of the coin, raids and arrests have been made on perfectly innocent people because of misconstrued registration. And you thought your local Department of Motor Vehicles was bad.

There are multiple reasons to get the records up-to-date. Airports use the registration for landing fees. Regulators use it for informing plane-owners of safety defects and technology updates. And yes, states use it for charging sales tax. Those are important matters, but they pale in comparison to the security threat all those missing and/or improperly-registered planes comprise.

The FAA long ago started computerizing the records, but so far all it has accomplished is confirming the number of aircraft that it can't account for. And, sorry to say, that number is growing, not shrinking. All airplanes registered in the United States have a "tail number" which always begins with the letter "N." From what we can see thus far, the N stands for "nullity." First of all, the number is easily altered for the convenience of the new owner, the terrorist, the drug-dealer, or anybody else who wants to fly that day. Many of the unaccounted-for planes are long gone to that aircraft graveyard in the sky, or are rusting in somebody's field, or are waiting for the estate of the deceased owner to sell and re-register the craft. But if only 10% of those aircraft are in the wrong hands, that's 11,900 disasters waiting to happen.

Potential terrorists could easily slip through the registration hole, while information about suspicious aircraft could lead to the seizure of the plane and arrest of the owner even though he thought he owned a legally registered plane and was using it solely for perfectly legal flying. So the FAA has gone into panic draconian mode.

Within the next three years, all plane registrations will be canceled and those who own or possess the craft will have to go through a new registration process. It's a start, though it will wreak havoc with banks, owners, federal offices. Ten years after 9-11, the FAA is doing the job it should have been doing all along. And if it had, these measures would not have been necessary, and we would have a much more realistic assessment of just how many potentially-dangerous aircraft there are out there--if any.
[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

The Bubba Summit

Once again, our contacts at the White House have helped us get the jump on other media. Behold, more Barack tapes! These are good too, these are the secret tapes of the entire meeting between Bill Clinton and our President. Read on.....

Obama: Uh, thanks for coming, Mr. President.
Clinton: Thank you for inviting me, Mr. President.
Obama: I could sure use some help.
Clinton: Oh, I know you can. I watch the news. What can I do for you Barack?
Obama: Things aren’t looking good right now. The economy’s in the tank. The election was a disaster. Nancy Pelosi was throwing eggs at Air Force One last night.
Clinton: Sounds pretty bad.
Obama: It is. What would you do, if you were me?
Clinton: Well, I don’t really need to think I’m you to give you advice. You do know I was the nation’s first black President, don’t you?
Obama: What?
Clinton: The first black President, that’s me. Trust me, I know what it’s like to have people hate you just for your race.
Obama: You’re not even black.
Clinton: Am too. I was the first black President. Seriously. I was there when you were still trying to sneak across the border from Kenya. Face it, you’re number two. . . and you’re not even all black.
Obama: Let’s not go there. Just give me the advice and let’s get this over with.
Clinton: Alright, alright. First thing you could do is resign. Nixon did that and it helped his popularity a lot. Hilly and I could take over.

** silence **

Clinton: Ok, you don’t like that. Well, let’s take this in parts. First, you gotta fix the economy. The voters ain’t a knockin’ if the economy ain’t a rockin’.
Obama: Yeah, I get that, but how do I do it?
Clinton: Here’s the single most important thing I can tell you about running an economy.
Obama: Yes?

** sound of cabinet opening **

Clinton: You got an booze? I used to keep booze around here.
Obama: No. Now get to the point.
Clinton: Not even a Colt 45? Come on.
Obama: Is that another racist crack?
Clinton: Racist? How can I be racist? I was the first black President, I can’t be racist.
Obama: Forget the booze, get on with it!
Clinton: Ok, here’s the secret. Let the Republicans do what they want to do. Those fellars are smart as heck when it comes to economic stuff. All their voodoo tax cuts this and less regulation that. . . I don’t know how it works, but man does it ever. Whatever they propose, just agree to it and then run out and tell everybody you came up with it?
Obama: What about being progressive?
Clinton: That stuff’s just for show. You didn't take that seriously, did you? No wonder Pelosi's pissed at you, she must think you're an idiot if you took that stuff seriously.
Obama: What else have you got?
Clinton: Triangulate.
Obama: How do I do that?
Clinton: Heck if I know. Just steal everybody’s ideas and blame everybody else for messing everything up. That worked for me.
Obama: Brilliant! . . . blame everybody else.

** more cabinets opening **

Clinton: Man, I was reading some of those Wikileaks things. If I knew diplomatic cables were so entertaining, I would’a read some when I was President.
Obama: You never read the cables?
Clinton: Heck no.
Obama: Well, this Wikileaks issue is a real problem and I don’t know what to do about it.
Clinton: I could take care of this Asschange guy for ya. Hillary’s got some people. . .
Obama: What kind of people?
Clinton: I promised her I wouldn’t say. Let’s just say, they took care of a couple problems for us.

** silence **

Clinton: Look, I can call her and get a Vince Foster special for ya by Monday.
Obama: Uh, no, let’s skip that.
Clinton: Suit yourself. I could throw in Biden for free. . . my treat?
Obama: Biden? Everyone keeps talking about “Joe Biden,” but I honestly never heard that name before. Who is that guy?
Clinton: He’s like Al Gore, only funny. Hey, let me ask, how are you staffed for interns?
Obama: What?
Clinton: Interns? Any hotties?
Obama: I wouldn’t know.
Clinton: What? How can you not know?
Obama: I just don’t.
Clinton: Wait! Wait a minute! Holy cow! You throw like a girl. Skinny jeans. You don’t know when you met your wife. . . and she ain’t exactly a looker. And you don’t look at the interns? Wow, two and two is coming up pretty gay around here if you ask me.
Obama: Let’s change the topic.
Clinton: Trust me, I feel your pain.
Obama: No, you don’t.
Clinton: Well I could.
Obama: What?
Clinton: Come on, everybody’s doing it. Come on, don’t ask, don’t tell. Let me feel your pain!
Obama: What!
Clinton: Come on, whip that sucker out. Let’s compare Presidents!
Obama: Stop it.

** sound of person being chased around desk **

Clinton: Oh come on, goochie coo!
Obama: Stop it, dammit!
Clinton: Oh, alright. Hey, do you realize that with you being half white and me being black, we’re like that Paul McCartney Michael Jackson song, “Ebony and Irony”? Remember that?
Obama: I don’t like the Beatles.
Clinton: No, you’re probably into rap aren’t you? That’s cool. I met Sir Mixalot once. . . “I like big butts and I cannot lie...”
Obama: Stop! Now!
Clinton: Oh, alright. Insecure about your small back door, huh?

** silence **

Clinton: Man, I miss this office. They should have elected me to another term. . . hey, can I be your vice president?
Obama: No.
Clinton: I’d let you be mine.
Obama: No. Let’s talk about this press conference.
Clinton: What do you want to do?
Obama: You understand, I’m going to answer a few questions. I’ll introduce you. Then you give a quick statement about how hard we’re working and how honored you are about being back to help out, right?
Clinton: Being black?
Obama: Back!
Clinton: Oh, I got ya.
Obama: Then I make some joke about my wife waiting for me.
Clinton: Then we whip out our Presidents!
Obama: NO! Then you wave to the crowd and you and I come back here. Got it?
Clinton: Yeah, I got it.
Obama: Don’t deviate from that script.
Clinton: I would never do that to a fellow Mr. President, Mr. President.
Obama: Ok, let’s go.
Clinton: Lead on. . . fer a change. ** slaps Obama on the back **

** 10 minutes later, Obama re-enters room **

Obama: That was a good conference, don’t you think so Bill? Bill? Where the hell is Bill?
Aide: He’s still in the conference room, sir.
Obama: What’s he doing?
Aide: I believe he’s doing shots off Helen Thomas’s old chair.
Obama: Oh God! What are we going to do?
Aide: We could push the red button, sir?
Obama: Nuke the Russians?
Aide: The other red button, sir.
Obama: You mean have him Shellacked?
Aide: It worked on Ted Kennedy.
Obama: I told you never to talk about that.

** Clinton enters room **

Clinton: Woo boy was that fun. That was like the old days. I think that ABC News hottie likes me. You mind sending Hillary overseas again?
Obama: Just what the heck are you doing?!
Clinton: Hey, I give great conference. And did you see their reaction? Mr. President is back baby!
Obama: Bill, get the hell out of this White House and never come back.
Clinton: Ok Barack, you can throw me out now. . . but I will be back. Maybe not tomorrow or the next day, but January 2012. . . I’ll be back.

** sound of button being pushed repeatedly **


** End of Tape **


[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Two Cop Shows--One Good, One Not So Much

This review is going to be about two new television cop dramas. One results in a minor rant, the other in a positive review. Pictured is the main cast of the new drama Detroit 1-8-7. The show sucked me in with what appeared to be gritty acting and a cast including some of my favorites such as Michael Imperioli, James McDaniel, and newcomer D. J. Cotrona. It didn't take me long to realize the show was manipulative, formulaic, and has a hidden agenda.

One reason I came back for the second episode is that the first episode had remnants of its original concept as a mockumentary. The attempted serious acting couldn't overcome the obvious hint of satire contained in the plot devices. By the second episode, all feeling of a little self-deprecation was replaced by stereotypical "working class heroes" who are just struggling to make sense out of their jobs, their lives, and their perps. I was amazed to find the totally original concept that "even cops have problems" which has only appeared in forty-eleven other cop shows.

They team the gruff veteran cop played by Imperioli with the naive and idealistic young black cop. Like that's never been done before. There's the old, wise cop who is near retirement, has seen it all, and still struggles with leaving the job that has been his life's work. Then there's the tough black female sergeant (or lieutenant, I'm not sure which). Etc, etc., ad nauseam.

The only thing that kept me watching (past tense--I watched my last episode this week) is the ongoing theme of racial profiling. Apparently, Detroit allows racial profiling of white males and has found it to be a highly successful tool. The population of Detroit metro is approximately 81.6% black, but on this show, the white male population commits approximateley 90% of the murders. The thinking of the squad apparently is that any white man who lives in Detroit must ipso facto be crazy, a criminal, or both. And since there is so much white-on-black crime in America, the white males must be there solely for the easy pickings.

Most of the white males are semi-moronic working-class racists, but rich white guys who have stuck around are also profiled since it's obvious that the only reason they are there is to exploit the black folks. And I must give honorable mention to the one old bad white cop who was responsible for the death of an interracial couple during the Detroit riots (there isn't enough current crime to satisfy the writers?). If the show were Beverly Hills 1-8-7, I could understand the racial makeup of the murderers. But Detroit?

Now don't take my figures as absolutely accurate, since I began to pay less attention to the show as the season progressed. The acting got more stilted, the plots evermore similar, the stretch that finally identifies the killers became progressively more obvious, and the murders of black folks by white criminals became unbearable. So here's my rough count. Each episode solves two murders. I've watched eight episodes. So far out of sixteen total murders, 12 have been committed by whites, 2 by blacks (one semi-justified, of course), 1 by a black man who was put up to it by a white man, and 1 unsolved (statistically, it must have been committed by a white man according to the profile established by the show's writers).

There isn't enough solid drama, personal interaction, forensic intelligence or realistic problem-solving to make this show worth getting past its ludicrous murder statistics. And what the heck's with calling the show Detroit 1-8-7 anyway? Only in California and the minds of Hollywood writers does 187 (the murder section of the California Penal Code) mean homicide with malice aforethought. 187 is often used by black gangs to describe a murder outside of California, but according to Detroit 1-8-7, there are no murderous black gangs in Detroit. In Michigan, the homicide statutes start at Section 750. As the great crime-solver Lt. Frank Drebin of Police Squad always said about a disaster like this, "move on--nothing to see here." Homicide--Life On The Streets, The Wire, Third Watch, or even Hill Street Blues this show ain't.

Now for the upside of new cop shows. I allow for reasonable cliches and formula (this is television, after all). That allowance doesn't help Detroit 1-8-7, but it covers the flaws in what has turned out to be a surprisingly enjoyable cop drama--Blue Bloods. The cliche is the Irish family which has generationally been involved in law enforcement. But it's a cliche that has its roots in the real Irish cop families of New York City, Chicago and San Francisco.

Tom Selleck heads the cast as the pater familias who has assumed the family reins after his cop father retires. This is about as far from his persona in Magnum P.I. as you can get. He is quiet, determined, and honestly non-political as the New York City Police Commissioner. The supporting cast is just as good. Donnie Wahlberg plays the older son who is the old-fashioned, rough-hewed street cop. He has come a very long way since his pretty-boy days with New Kids On The Block. Will Estes plays the younger brother who graduated from Harvard Law, got engaged to a criminal defense attorney, then decided he really wanted to be a cop. His view of police work frequently clashes with that of his older brother, and there is some friction between the two over the death on duty of their oldest brother.

The older daughter is a by-the-book deputy district attorney who has her heart in prosecuting the bad guys, but occasionally comes into conflict with the rest of the family when it appears they may have cut a few procedural corners. As the season has progressed, the younger brother's relationship with his liberal fiancee is falling apart, and by the most recent episode, she has broken the engagement and moved to (where else for a liberal?) San Francisco. Nicholas Turturro does an admirable if formulaic job as the training officer to the rookie younger brother. The final personal plot line that could wear itself out is Selleck's intimate relationship with a TV news reporter who pumps him for information he doesn't want to get out during investigations (pun intended).

A leitmotif that appears regularly episodically is developing that could cause serious problems for the entire family. An FBI investigation of the department reveals that the murdered brother was part of an undercover sting to root out the members of a secret police society that doesn't play by the rules and occasionally gets rid of bad guys who escape the legal system. Wahlberg's character may be a member of the society as well as Selleck's father, but that hasn't been established yet. The FBI has approached the younger brother played by Estes to replace his murdered brother in the sting. He hasn't yet decided if he will do that.

The show always includes the old-fashioned and traditional once-a-week family dinner at Selleck's home. Everyone attends, it's usually enjoyably chaotic, with occasional strong disagreements that Selleck squelches saying "we have one night a week to get together as a family, and I'm not going to allow any of you to ruin it by fighting." That usually works, but not always. One of those extremely lively family dinner quarrels ended up with family unanimity on the demise of a nasty criminal resulting from questionable police tactics. That was too much for the liberal fiancee who excuses herself from the table and tells the younger brother that she found the family's attitude despicable, and along with his failure to pursue a corporate legal career, was the straw that broke the camel's back for her.

Not every episode is perfect, there are some stretches on the law, and some plot devices are merely slightly annoying. But overall, it's an enjoyable show that can keep you hooked with its ongoing episodic plots. And best of all, it's one of those rare shows that is good enough to survive any time slot, but has been put on the deadly TV Friday night schedule on CBS. It has developed a loyal and growing audience. I agree. And since the nightlife in Caliente is noticeably less than that of San Francisco, I appreciate having something to do on a Friday night.
[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Another Disappointment For Obama

For the first year in a row, Barack Hussein Obama, savior of America and protector of the world, is not receiving the Nobel Peace Prize. In a double insult to America, Al Gore is not receiving it either. The dirty furriners with the funny accents are giving the prize to a Chinese professor of literature. How dare they?

Not only has the Nobel Prize Committee failed to recognize Messiah-for-Life Obama, but they have given the prize to a jailbird. Professor Liu Xiaobo had the nerve to write tracts denouncing the benevolent Chinese communist government for its human rights abuses and suggesting nonviolent civil disobedience to the government in Beijing. And he got his just reward. The government put him in prison where he belongs for "inciting subversion of state power." Perhaps Obama will get the prize next year for trying to do the same thing the Chinese government has successfully done this year.

The Beijing powers-that-be have made the perfectly sensible decision not to allow the professor's wife to travel to Oslo to receive the award on his behalf. They haven't imprisoned her--yet--but they would be foolish to allow the wife of such a dangerous person to travel outside the confines of mainland China. Who knows what damage she could do to the forward-looking superpower?

That means for the second time in its long history, those crazy Norwegian Committee members are going to award the prize to, get this, an empty chair. The last time they did something that bizarre was when German pacifist Carl von Ossietzky was given the award in 1936 while he was in a concentration camp for upsetting the good order of the Nazi government. In other words, for the second time they have given the peace prize to someone who has done something momentous but can't attend as opposed to last year's prize which was given to someone who has done nothing but could attend. I just don't understand Scandinavian logic.

China is not taking this whole face-losing event lying down. They have convinced their fellow human rights champions Russia, Kazakhstan, Morocco, Iraq and Cuba to boycott the Oslo ceremonies. And more cleverly, they are holding their own ceremony which they have denominated the "Confucius Peace Prize." The proud recipient of that award is the former vice-president of Taiwan who is the former vice-president for his constant insistence that the Brits had it right when they cried "better red than dead," and encouraging reunification with mainland China. Upon receiving the news, the former vice-president replied "Kung Fu Who?"

I encourage all our readers to send a nice sympathy note to Mr. Obama and a nasty note to the Committee informing them that you know they are deaf, dumb and blind when it comes to recognizing the ongoing importance of The One.
[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Film Friday: Wall Street (1987)

Wall Street is a great film. It’s well-paced, well-shot, well-acted and quite dramatic. But it has a rather ironic history. It’s ironic because Oliver Stone wanted the film to stand as an attack on Wall Street and the Reagan philosophy, but it seriously backfired and he ended up sending an entire generation of kids to finance school specifically to become the very villain the film rails against.

** spoiler alert **

At one point, Oliver Stone was a talented director/storyteller. Wall Street was made at the height of his abilities and is perhaps his finest film. But it was this ability to craft a highly compelling and engrossing film that tripped Stone up. Stone, no friend of capitalism or Ronald Reagan, intended Wall Street to be an anti-Reagan, anti-Wall Street, anti-capitalism screed. He hoped to discredit everything Reagan had achieved and get people leaving the theaters believing that the Reagan recovery (then underway for several years) was smoke and mirrors, with the rich getting richer by illegal means and the poor being tossed into the streets. But people didn’t see the film that way. To the contrary, they were inspired to become the very thing he hated: Gordon Gekko.

If we take the story as Stone intended, we get the following. Bud Fox (Charlie Sheen) is an eager young man who wants to do better than his father (Martin Sheen), a beloved union man. Fox joins the white collar corporate grind, doing cold calling for a brokerage firm. But greed entices Fox into the world of corporate raider Gordon Gekko (Michael Douglas), an evil man who symbolizes the Reagan years. Gekko wrecks companies so he can squeeze out their savings for himself. Under Gekko’s spell, Bud changes. He becomes cynical. He goes from a normal American to buying modern art he once despised, to taking drugs, to falling for a woman who is, in essence, a high class prostitute or gold digger. Most importantly though, Bud becomes a slave to Gekko, doing his bidding, emulating him, and being used and abused by him. Ultimately, Bud becomes a criminal. Gee, capitalism sucks.

But Stone made a huge mistake by glorifying the experience. He gave it cool settings, beautiful people, access to a secret world, and even a great soundtrack. Consequently, what most people got out of the film was this: Gordon Gekko owns expensive cars, private planes and homes on private beaches. He has the coolest office in the world. He belongs to private clubs, where he gets to push around rich people who thought they were better than him. He makes his own schedule, orders off the menu in restaurants, gets the best tables, meets the coolest people, has sex with the most attractive women, and gets to play monopoly with real companies. And his life can be yours, if you're just willing to break a few harmless rules.

What’s more, Stone compounds his error by adding the character of Sir Lawrence Wildman (Terence Stamp), the white knight corporate raider. Wildman is the good capitalist, a man who genuinely wants to turn companies around and save jobs rather than wrecking them. BUT, we are also told that Wildman was Gekko before Gekko, and that his good guy status is only of recent vintage. Bud Fox reinforces this when he talks repeatedly about making a fortune so he can then do good with it. Thus, through Wildman’s actions and Fox’s words, we are told that it’s ok to be Gekko to get rich so long as we eventually do something noble with the money. . . at some point.

Thus, rather than the anti-capitalist “finance makes you evil” message Stone intended, the message that comes across in Wall Street is that it’s ok to do bad things to become ultra rich, because (1) it’s a great way to live and (2) you can redeem yourself later by doing good things once you can afford it. This was the message picked up by millions of college kids who suddenly wanted to become Gordon Gekko. They dressed like him, quoted him, and talked about becoming him. Indeed, just like LA Law sent kids to law school and ER sent kids to medical school, Wall Street sent them to business school to learn corporate finance. Screenwriter Stanley Weiser has confirmed this, stating that he has been approached many times by people who told him, “This movie changed my life. Once I saw it, I knew that I wanted to get into such and such business. I wanted to be like Gordon Gekko.” Charlie Sheen and Michael Douglas also report that people tell them they became stockbrokers because of Fox and/or Gekko.

How’s that for irony?

But there are more ironies to consider. For example, this was a criticism of Reaganism, but corporate raiding exploded under Clinton. Stone complains that Gekko wrecks companies for no reason except his own profit, but it was the corporate raiders of the 1980s/1990s who are now credited with making American industry profitable again by breaking up large conglomerates that were run by inefficient management -- indeed, the failure to do this in Japan is one of the causes blamed for their decades long economic nightmare. Stone also complains that the economy is a “zero sum game,” a fancy economic term meaning that every winner has an equal loser and that no new wealth is ever created. But the economy grew from four trillion dollars at the time of the film to thirteen trillion today, even though Stone’s criticism would have predicted little to no growth. Similarly, Stone’s predicted pension fund collapse never happened.

Finally, it should be pointed out that much of what Stone sees as criminal in the conduct of Bud Fox and Gordon Gekko is not actually criminal. It is definitely criminal for Fox to break into offices using the cleaning service, and it is probably criminal for him to trade on what his father knows, depending on how his father learned this information. But Fox following Wildman around to figure out what company Wildman wants to buy is not illegal, despite Stone’s obsession with that point. Indeed, this is not insider information, this is nothing more than seeing Warren Buffett checking out the local grocery store and buying their stock because you think he wants to buy the company. Nor is it illegal to call the newspaper and tell them you plan to buy a particular stock, assuming you are truthful. Stone makes this sound criminal as well, but this happens every day when people go on CNBC to announce what they are interested in.

Thus, while Wall Street is a great film and it’s quite fun to watch, it fails pretty miserably at delivering its intended message. . . unless that message was “greed is good.”

Check out the new film site -- CommentaramaFilms!

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Rage Against The Nanny State

Allow me to rant for a moment. I don’t know about you, but I am getting sick and tired of being told how to live my life. Seriously, can’t we wipe our own rear ends without the government telling us how to do it? Why can’t the government understand this?

Consider these examples:

1. A recent “nutrition” bill sent to Obama for signature actually gives the federal government the power to ban bake sales in schools. BAKE SALES!! Why? Because we can’t have parents, i.e. the agents of obesity, trying to sell cookies and muffins to kids. Why, that could lead to cake with butter cream frosting! Oh, it’s true, cookies are nature’s gateway drug to brownies! And make no mistake, this was no accident -- this was their second attempt to smite the noble cookie.

2. During the Great Hampocalypse, the Swine Flu Plague of 2009, they actually told us how to cover our noses when we sneeze.

3. To keep us from wasting a minimal amount of electricity, they criminalized the elegant and timeless light bulb and offered instead these twisty things, filled with toxic substances. Talk about the epitome of government!

4. In August, Portland “authorities” shut down a lemonade stand run by a 7 year old girl because she failed to get a $120 temporary restaurant license. These are the same people who refused to work with the FBI to stop terrorists and are now whining that the FBI entrapped the man who tried to kill thousands of their citizens. I guess his permits were in order.

5. In Canada, they are trying to shut down an online carpool matching service on the grounds that it’s an illegal bus company because its drivers are not licensed like bus and tax drivers. And not to be outdone, Fayetteville, Arkansas, shut down a man who ran a free designated driver service on the weekends, because it’s safer to have drunks cruising the streets than it is to have a man running what could look like an unlicensed tax service. . . if you squint. . . and you’re inbred.

6. Tipper Gore wanted warning labels on records with dirty words. Others have wanted to ban books with the "wrong" ideas. Someone even slapped a warning label on the DVD release of Sesame Street!

Just what the heck is going on around here? From requiring helmets on bike riders to banning tasty food in New York City to the examples above, our government has gone crazy. It’s become a weapon for busybodies to use to force the rest of us to conform to their pathetic, petty little obsessions. And when it isn’t the busybodies, it’s the interest groups trying to stifle their competitors. Did you know that ObamaCare bans doctor-owned hospitals? Why? Because it can. Net Neutrality is about protecting huge multinational companies from the predatory practices of other huge multinational companies. Etc. etc. etc.

This is the problem with government: whenever an issue arises that someone can whine about, there is always some jack~ss politician willing to make a law to sooth their tantrum. This needs to stop!

Let he who is without stupidity cast the first vote, but the rest of you shut the heck up and stop trying to tell the rest of us how to live. Go about your own lives and stop trying to control mine. If you don’t then be warned that maybe I’ll get into this game too. And trust me, you won’t like that; I can come up with all kinds of ideas to make your lives a living hell. . . all for your own safety of course.

Thoughts? Anything you would ban in retaliation for the good of average folks?

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

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...

[-] Collapse Post...

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...

[-] Collapse Post...