So I'm reading the roundup of this attack in Mumbai and most of the pundits seem to think that, having failed to get large weapons of mass destruction into the United States, that the Mumbai model is what we can expact to see in the next wave of terrorist attacks in the USA, should any materialize.
The model seems to be train a number of small attack units in the techniques of urban assault, infiltrate them into the target country, then the target city, and coordinate a series of simultaneous attacks in that city so that the local emergency repsonders are overwhelmed in a way that guarantees no substantive counter-attack can be mounted.
We know that our southern border is porous, and that along that border, automatic weapons and small explosives (like grenades) are plentiful and easy to acquire. We also know that the goal of any attack is to increase the amount of time between when the attack starts and when the first armed counter attack begins. This is why individual shooters often target locations where they do not expect their potential victims to be armed, like college campuses and malls... similarly, for any terrorist group, I would assume that if they want to inflict the maximum possible damage, they would plan to attack cities where the citizenry are prevented by local government from arming and defending themselves.
To me this means that cities with strong gun control laws and numerous "gun free zones" like Los Angeles, Washington DC, Philadelphia, and Chicago become the most likely targets. And given Los Angeles' proximity to that porous southern border... if you live in L.A., you pretty much have to consider yourself a prime target as of this past weekend.
So where does that leave us? Well here's the problem. I don't know about you, but my blackberry stops working if a stiff wind blows... imagine what would happen if a couple thousand people in one city all called for help at the same time.
Face it, if you're out in public and the bad guys start shooting... no one is coming to help you. You are very likely going to be on your own.
So what are you going to do about it?
I have an emergency plan... do you?
UPDATE: Mark Steyn agrees with my assessment, though he names New Orleans as a target due to inept city mangement. Not a bad guess, actually. The citizenry are more well-armed though. I still think Los Angeles provides the perfect mix of oppressive gun regulation, unarmed citizenry, and proximity to the spot where the bad guys will most likely enter the country.
Saturday, November 29, 2008
Friday, November 28, 2008
The Cult of Obama; Part 456
Yesterday I got an e-mail from a friend I hadn't seen in a while. The e-mail looked exactly like one of the Evite e-mails I get about four times a day, so I didn't look at it that carefully, simply clicked on the link.
Imagine my surprise when I was re-directed, not to the Evite webpage, but to the website for Barack Obama.
Here's the text from the page I was sent to:
What's Next for America (Change is Coming)
Please join XXXX and XXXX at their open house event to discuss the issues that are most important to all of us and to learn what we can do to support President Obama's agenda to ensure the change we seek becomes a reality.
Food and refreshments will be served. Drop by anytime starting at 4:30pm on XXX. McCain voters and conservatives are most welcome!
This is an official BarackObama.com event. Yes We Can!
Now, these are very nice people, and I'm sure they mean well, but it's starting to feel like my friends all went out and became Scientologists. If you want to discuss politics with me, that's fine, but I'm not interested in being recruited.
This is all getting a little bit creepy.
Imagine my surprise when I was re-directed, not to the Evite webpage, but to the website for Barack Obama.
Here's the text from the page I was sent to:
What's Next for America (Change is Coming)
Please join XXXX and XXXX at their open house event to discuss the issues that are most important to all of us and to learn what we can do to support President Obama's agenda to ensure the change we seek becomes a reality.
Food and refreshments will be served. Drop by anytime starting at 4:30pm on XXX. McCain voters and conservatives are most welcome!
This is an official BarackObama.com event. Yes We Can!
Now, these are very nice people, and I'm sure they mean well, but it's starting to feel like my friends all went out and became Scientologists. If you want to discuss politics with me, that's fine, but I'm not interested in being recruited.
This is all getting a little bit creepy.
Thursday, November 27, 2008
Winning the Idea Wars
Following up on my colleague George M.F. Washington's post about winning the idea wars, I think it's important to support other publications and websites that offer conservative / libertarian solutions for today's problems. With that in mind, I just wanted to point out that The National Review is having their webathon to raise money for their website. I know that my day starts with a trip to their website and I find their writing thoughtful and insightful. If any of you feel the same way, feel free to donate. Every little bit helps.
Two wars?
Like many of you, I have spent some of this Thanksgiving holiday travelling. A couple of days ago I found myself standing in line at an airport newstand waiting to buy a bottle of water. There in front of me, while I waited, was a wall of news magazines, each one wondering, what the next week of news from Transition Obama might bring.
There is a lot of debate on the right these days about what needs to be done if we are to win back the White House in 2012. Everyone has a slightly different answer, but the one thing we all agree on is that we have to do a better job of shaping and selling our message. We can't continue to let the Democrats define the battlespace in which we will try to sell our ideas. We've already let them lay the responsibility for the financial crisis at our feet rather than at the feet of Congressional and Senate Democrats, and now we seem prepared to let them define the realities of our traditional strength... what we face in the ongoing war on terror.
Which is why I find it agravating to look at a wall of magazines all featuring the some version of this sentence...
"PRESIDENT OBAMA WILL INHERIT TWO WARS, A TANKING ECONOMY, AND A COSUMER CREDIT CRISIS..."
If we're going to fight to control the battlefield of ideas, let's start by fighting this lie. President Obama is not going to inherit two wars... he's inheriting ONE WAR, and it's the one he wanted.
The war in Iraq is won... you won't find one serious pundit who would disagree with that analysis. Thanks to George Bush, the only thing about Iraq that Obama will have to concern himself with, is how to manage the peaceful withdrawal of victorious American forces.
In Afghanistan, however, we are still at war. And it's THIS war, that Obama has wanted to fight all along. And he will get his chance. I hope he is successful, but I'm getting pretty tired of the beleagured press line that poor Obama is inheriting two wars he didn't start and never wanted, when he's been clear since day one that he would have abandoned the war we have now won, and doubled-down on the war we are currently losing.
Bush has left Obama with the exact war plan he has always said he wanted. So maybe it's time to drop the woe-is-me for poor Barack Obama line and let him do what he's argued he was uniquely qualified to do all along.
There is a lot of debate on the right these days about what needs to be done if we are to win back the White House in 2012. Everyone has a slightly different answer, but the one thing we all agree on is that we have to do a better job of shaping and selling our message. We can't continue to let the Democrats define the battlespace in which we will try to sell our ideas. We've already let them lay the responsibility for the financial crisis at our feet rather than at the feet of Congressional and Senate Democrats, and now we seem prepared to let them define the realities of our traditional strength... what we face in the ongoing war on terror.
Which is why I find it agravating to look at a wall of magazines all featuring the some version of this sentence...
"PRESIDENT OBAMA WILL INHERIT TWO WARS, A TANKING ECONOMY, AND A COSUMER CREDIT CRISIS..."
If we're going to fight to control the battlefield of ideas, let's start by fighting this lie. President Obama is not going to inherit two wars... he's inheriting ONE WAR, and it's the one he wanted.
The war in Iraq is won... you won't find one serious pundit who would disagree with that analysis. Thanks to George Bush, the only thing about Iraq that Obama will have to concern himself with, is how to manage the peaceful withdrawal of victorious American forces.
In Afghanistan, however, we are still at war. And it's THIS war, that Obama has wanted to fight all along. And he will get his chance. I hope he is successful, but I'm getting pretty tired of the beleagured press line that poor Obama is inheriting two wars he didn't start and never wanted, when he's been clear since day one that he would have abandoned the war we have now won, and doubled-down on the war we are currently losing.
Bush has left Obama with the exact war plan he has always said he wanted. So maybe it's time to drop the woe-is-me for poor Barack Obama line and let him do what he's argued he was uniquely qualified to do all along.
Pride in America
There's something that I've been thinking about since the election... it occurred to me on that Wednesday but I haven't been able to find the exact right words to express it. I still haven't totally figured it out, but I think it's an interesting observation and worth a mention, though I warn you, the exact wording might wind up being quite inelegant. Perhaps, in the comments, you guys can think of a way to say it better.
It seems to me that people who describe themselves as Conservatives/Republicans feel a certain way about their country, and that the way they feel about it has very little to do with who is actually running it. Democrats/Liberals, on the other hand, seem to base the way they feel about this country on who is the President. When someone they dislike, like Bush, is in the White House, they are much more likely to express disgust with America, or speak of a fear that the country they once loved no longer exists.
And I think it makes a lot of sense why this would be so... Conservatives tend to look towards themselves, their families, and other individual Americans for creative solutions to problems, while Liberals tend to see Government as the locus of all new ideas and ultimately, the solutions to all of society's crises.
For a Conservative, pride in America flows from a series of very intangible ideas and feelings about the meaning of freedom and liberty. While for a Liberal, pride in America seems to flow from directly from the perception of what Government is actively doing for its citizens at any given moment in time... so the things that make Liberals proud of America are very tangible things. What is the Government doing right now for Americans? and is it good or bad?
And so I can see why it might seem catastrophic when we elect a President who promises to cut taxes and promote policies which encourage Americans to solve the problems that plague them on their own, because it could seem like that kind of President might be abandoning the very thing that makes America great, the ability of its Government to engage in the lives of everyday Americans.
I think this is why you hear things like the famous Michelle Obama "I'm proud of my country for the first time" line, or the rash of high-profile Liberals who threatened to leave the country after Bush was elected... both times. Or comments like the one from Ralph Lauren who suggested that American had become a nation he did not recognize and disliked intensely but that Obama's election meant that the country he loved might be set to make a comeback...
Conversely, I haven't seen a lot of that kind of thing from the Right this time around. I see lots of introspection about how we failed to sell our message to the electorate, tons of discussion about what's next for us, and of course a lot of concern about what Obama's policies might mean for the continuing ascendancy of Government in our lives... but no one is threatening to leave. I still wear my American Flag lapel pin, I still put my hand over my heart for the National Anthem, I still thank soldiers for their service, and I still get a swell of pride every time I think about what it means to be an American.
The way I see it, there's a couple ways you can look at the election of Barack Obama. You can choose to see it as a miracle hail mary that turned America back from the brink of a dark and uncertain future, or you can see it as a logical extension of the things that have always been true about America, namely that it is the land of opportunity for all, regardless of race or creed... and pretty much the greatest nation on Earth.
So those're my thoughts.
It seems to me that people who describe themselves as Conservatives/Republicans feel a certain way about their country, and that the way they feel about it has very little to do with who is actually running it. Democrats/Liberals, on the other hand, seem to base the way they feel about this country on who is the President. When someone they dislike, like Bush, is in the White House, they are much more likely to express disgust with America, or speak of a fear that the country they once loved no longer exists.
And I think it makes a lot of sense why this would be so... Conservatives tend to look towards themselves, their families, and other individual Americans for creative solutions to problems, while Liberals tend to see Government as the locus of all new ideas and ultimately, the solutions to all of society's crises.
For a Conservative, pride in America flows from a series of very intangible ideas and feelings about the meaning of freedom and liberty. While for a Liberal, pride in America seems to flow from directly from the perception of what Government is actively doing for its citizens at any given moment in time... so the things that make Liberals proud of America are very tangible things. What is the Government doing right now for Americans? and is it good or bad?
And so I can see why it might seem catastrophic when we elect a President who promises to cut taxes and promote policies which encourage Americans to solve the problems that plague them on their own, because it could seem like that kind of President might be abandoning the very thing that makes America great, the ability of its Government to engage in the lives of everyday Americans.
I think this is why you hear things like the famous Michelle Obama "I'm proud of my country for the first time" line, or the rash of high-profile Liberals who threatened to leave the country after Bush was elected... both times. Or comments like the one from Ralph Lauren who suggested that American had become a nation he did not recognize and disliked intensely but that Obama's election meant that the country he loved might be set to make a comeback...
Conversely, I haven't seen a lot of that kind of thing from the Right this time around. I see lots of introspection about how we failed to sell our message to the electorate, tons of discussion about what's next for us, and of course a lot of concern about what Obama's policies might mean for the continuing ascendancy of Government in our lives... but no one is threatening to leave. I still wear my American Flag lapel pin, I still put my hand over my heart for the National Anthem, I still thank soldiers for their service, and I still get a swell of pride every time I think about what it means to be an American.
The way I see it, there's a couple ways you can look at the election of Barack Obama. You can choose to see it as a miracle hail mary that turned America back from the brink of a dark and uncertain future, or you can see it as a logical extension of the things that have always been true about America, namely that it is the land of opportunity for all, regardless of race or creed... and pretty much the greatest nation on Earth.
So those're my thoughts.
Wednesday, November 26, 2008
More on the silliness of Europe's patronizing tone...
I commented right after the election about how annoying the patronizing tone of Europe's reaction to the election of the first African-American US President had gotten... I think I said something like "remind me again how many black European heads of state there have been? oh right... that would be zero."
Anyway here's some more analysis about exactly how much more progressive things are for minorities here in the good ole U.S of A than they are in our former mother countries.
Bite me, Europe.
Anyway here's some more analysis about exactly how much more progressive things are for minorities here in the good ole U.S of A than they are in our former mother countries.
Bite me, Europe.
Working for Britain
I can't help but respond to Alexander M.F. Hamilton's post below. I'm not terribly surprised by this action. Having lived in Modern Britain for 2+ years and having seen the impact of the government's blatant and never-ending grabs for cash, nothing makes me more worried for the future of America than following in the footsteps of a country from which we voluntarily amputated ourselves from more than 200 years ago.
This great nation is founded on the idea that we can and will do it better/faster/cheaper for you. That involves people harnessing their imagination to provide a new service or applying an old product in a novel fashion. But they don't (or rarely) do it for free. People want to be rewarded for their hard work or applied genius, and over here in America you can make a good living doing that.
While living in the UK I was exposed to a wide cross-section of society: from nurses making nearly minimum wage, to life-long corporate employees, from highest-level physicians and also independent entrepreneurs. At this exact time last November, one of this last group expressed to me his disgust at the tax rates. He had long been involved with small businesses or startups in new markets, and was at the point where he wanted to branch out on his own. In his eyes, however, the government was putting up barriers to entry since if you wanted or expected to earn a decent living (~80k+/year), you could expect the government to take about 40% of that. There were some steps he outlined to mitigate the pre-tax earnings, but overall he deemed it not worth the effort of taking the plunge into his own gig thanks to these increases, unless he could forecast earning considerably more than the 80k rate. And with a new business, even if your market is well-defined, you can't take that for granted.
My entrepreneur friend considered this a perverse form of punishment. Instead of reveling in your new earnings from your successful business, you are instead worried about your tax obligations and the possibility you will be worse off than had you stayed in a job you hated, working for The Man.
232 years ago, taxation-creep led to Revolution. As a new generation wearies of the obligations placed upon them by a haughty, out-of-touch political class, will history repeat itself?
This great nation is founded on the idea that we can and will do it better/faster/cheaper for you. That involves people harnessing their imagination to provide a new service or applying an old product in a novel fashion. But they don't (or rarely) do it for free. People want to be rewarded for their hard work or applied genius, and over here in America you can make a good living doing that.
While living in the UK I was exposed to a wide cross-section of society: from nurses making nearly minimum wage, to life-long corporate employees, from highest-level physicians and also independent entrepreneurs. At this exact time last November, one of this last group expressed to me his disgust at the tax rates. He had long been involved with small businesses or startups in new markets, and was at the point where he wanted to branch out on his own. In his eyes, however, the government was putting up barriers to entry since if you wanted or expected to earn a decent living (~80k+/year), you could expect the government to take about 40% of that. There were some steps he outlined to mitigate the pre-tax earnings, but overall he deemed it not worth the effort of taking the plunge into his own gig thanks to these increases, unless he could forecast earning considerably more than the 80k rate. And with a new business, even if your market is well-defined, you can't take that for granted.
My entrepreneur friend considered this a perverse form of punishment. Instead of reveling in your new earnings from your successful business, you are instead worried about your tax obligations and the possibility you will be worse off than had you stayed in a job you hated, working for The Man.
232 years ago, taxation-creep led to Revolution. As a new generation wearies of the obligations placed upon them by a haughty, out-of-touch political class, will history repeat itself?
Tuesday, November 25, 2008
Welcome to Britain.
From now until 7 months from now, you will be working for the government. You can keep the rest of what you make this year, for your hard work.
Friday, November 21, 2008
Oh no!!! "Report" says the era of American dominance is over!
Haven't we been hearing this song and dance for about a hundred years? Yawn.....
Voting "Present"
What's it look like when the President of the United States votes "present"?
Kinda like this.
"I can tell you flat out there will be no endorsement [by Mr. Obama] prior to January 20," said Senate Banking Committee Chariman Christopher J. Dodd of Connecticut a day after his committee heard a combined appeal for billions of dollars in taxpayer help from the heads of General Motors Corp., Ford Motor Co, and Chrysler LLC.
That's too bad, because I sure would like to know what our next President thinks we should do about this...
But I guess if I want to know what he thinks of the vital issues of the day, I'll just have to settle for his earth-shattering views on a college football playoff system, for now.
Kinda like this.
"I can tell you flat out there will be no endorsement [by Mr. Obama] prior to January 20," said Senate Banking Committee Chariman Christopher J. Dodd of Connecticut a day after his committee heard a combined appeal for billions of dollars in taxpayer help from the heads of General Motors Corp., Ford Motor Co, and Chrysler LLC.
That's too bad, because I sure would like to know what our next President thinks we should do about this...
But I guess if I want to know what he thinks of the vital issues of the day, I'll just have to settle for his earth-shattering views on a college football playoff system, for now.
Thursday, November 20, 2008
Anybody Need Some Free Wallpaper?
Awesome. A DC-area Cadillac dealer is giving away 100 shares of GM with every purchase of a new Caddy.
Act fast, the value of that offer is going to drop 25 percent by the time you drive out to the dealership.
Act fast, the value of that offer is going to drop 25 percent by the time you drive out to the dealership.
Wednesday, November 19, 2008
Somali pirates
I'll just throw this out there...
So these Somali pirates seem to be targeting Sauid oil tankers (among other things)... meanwhile it just so happens that oil prices are in such a freefall that even emergency output cutbacks from OPEC (of which Saudi Arabia is a member) have not been able to stop them.
...and yet we know the Saudis are historically brutal on criminal behaviour, and still these tankers take to the seas one after the other without, apparently, heavily armed security details on board with orders to shoot on sight.
Oh and by the way... when the pirates siezed that huge Saudi oil tanker, oil prices briefly surged to almost 60 bucks a barrel.
I'm not sayin', I'm just sayin'.
So these Somali pirates seem to be targeting Sauid oil tankers (among other things)... meanwhile it just so happens that oil prices are in such a freefall that even emergency output cutbacks from OPEC (of which Saudi Arabia is a member) have not been able to stop them.
...and yet we know the Saudis are historically brutal on criminal behaviour, and still these tankers take to the seas one after the other without, apparently, heavily armed security details on board with orders to shoot on sight.
Oh and by the way... when the pirates siezed that huge Saudi oil tanker, oil prices briefly surged to almost 60 bucks a barrel.
I'm not sayin', I'm just sayin'.
Tuesday, November 18, 2008
I'm...A...Cult...Of...Per...So...Nal...It-Tee....
Anyone who isn't aware of the vaguely creepy, Kim-Jung-Il-esque "Dear Leader" quality of Obamamania simply isn't paying close enough attention.
So if you're still not a believer, check in with the national sports media and the discussion of a college football playoff system.
I've been paying serious attention to college football for about 18 years, and in all that time, the fact that the college football championship is not always decided on the field has been a source of frustration for rabid sports fans every. single. fall.
But JUST for serious fans... that's it. No one else has ever cared.
The idea of a college football playoff system has been a conversation limited to sports talk radio and to dot-edu message board guy. The average person has just flat out never been interested. For a couple of months, some teams play some games, then we have some bowls games, a champion is announced, and that's that. Most people simply move on.
But then Barack Obama goes on 60 minutes and mentions that he'd like to see a playoff system in college football, and Ho-LEE Jesus... after 20 years of the entire concept being relegated to the backwoods of talk radio, it's suddenly the cure to everything that afflicts college sports. "Whoa whoa whoa... I know we have billions invested in this system, but Barack Obama has spoken... Barack OBAMA dammitt!!! Maybe we should consider this?"
Cracks me up.
By the way, it will never happen. The fact that we've been talking about how unfair the bowl system is since roughly two weeks before the goddamned season even started represents about 10 billion dollars of free advertising. Denholm and Long, who have a show on ESPN radio here in LA guestimated just this afternoon that in the Fall they spend roughly one hour of their entire three hour show discussing the ins-and-outs of the BCS system. You couldn't buy that kind of exposure even if you wanted to. There is no WAY the NCAA is going to give that up.
No. Way.
...Unless the cult of personality is even stronger than I think it is...
...
...Damn...
So if you're still not a believer, check in with the national sports media and the discussion of a college football playoff system.
I've been paying serious attention to college football for about 18 years, and in all that time, the fact that the college football championship is not always decided on the field has been a source of frustration for rabid sports fans every. single. fall.
But JUST for serious fans... that's it. No one else has ever cared.
The idea of a college football playoff system has been a conversation limited to sports talk radio and to dot-edu message board guy. The average person has just flat out never been interested. For a couple of months, some teams play some games, then we have some bowls games, a champion is announced, and that's that. Most people simply move on.
But then Barack Obama goes on 60 minutes and mentions that he'd like to see a playoff system in college football, and Ho-LEE Jesus... after 20 years of the entire concept being relegated to the backwoods of talk radio, it's suddenly the cure to everything that afflicts college sports. "Whoa whoa whoa... I know we have billions invested in this system, but Barack Obama has spoken... Barack OBAMA dammitt!!! Maybe we should consider this?"
Cracks me up.
By the way, it will never happen. The fact that we've been talking about how unfair the bowl system is since roughly two weeks before the goddamned season even started represents about 10 billion dollars of free advertising. Denholm and Long, who have a show on ESPN radio here in LA guestimated just this afternoon that in the Fall they spend roughly one hour of their entire three hour show discussing the ins-and-outs of the BCS system. You couldn't buy that kind of exposure even if you wanted to. There is no WAY the NCAA is going to give that up.
No. Way.
...Unless the cult of personality is even stronger than I think it is...
...
...Damn...
Victory in Iraq Day
November 22nd, 2008. Mark it in your calendar because you're going to have to remember it yourself every year... it's certainly not going to be a recurring headline on the cover of the New York Times.
Oh, OK, So Now Bin Laden Is Definitely Dead.
For how many years have we heard that George W. Bush "didn't do enough" to capture Bin Laden at Tora Bora, and was "distracted" by Iraq at that critical juncture?
But now that there's a new sherriff in town, Bin Laden is no big deal anymore, and going after him would be a "ghost hunt." In fact, he's probably dead.
Look, I've thought for years that Bin Laden has been dead. For a guy who is obsessed with projecting his image to the world, he sure has appeared pretty sporadically, and under dubious circumstances.
But why, now that there is a new president, is this thought given new credence?
Is it going to be cool for Obama to bomb Iran, too? It won't be a "false flag" operation?
But now that there's a new sherriff in town, Bin Laden is no big deal anymore, and going after him would be a "ghost hunt." In fact, he's probably dead.
Look, I've thought for years that Bin Laden has been dead. For a guy who is obsessed with projecting his image to the world, he sure has appeared pretty sporadically, and under dubious circumstances.
But why, now that there is a new president, is this thought given new credence?
Is it going to be cool for Obama to bomb Iran, too? It won't be a "false flag" operation?
Sunday, November 16, 2008
I Agree With Barack Obama!?
While I disagree with Barack Obama on just about every issue (taxes, Iraq war, health care, etc) and I did not vote for him (I went Libertarian this year), I am giving him the benefit of the doubt and taking him at his word to let him earn my faith in him as a leader. And he has now provided me with one issue where we do agree.
We both favor a playoff system for college football.
"If you've got a bunch of teams who play throughout the season, and many of them have one loss or two losses, there's no clear decisive winner," told "60 Minutes." "We should be creating a playoff system."
Now that's hope and change that I can believe in!
We both favor a playoff system for college football.
"If you've got a bunch of teams who play throughout the season, and many of them have one loss or two losses, there's no clear decisive winner," told "60 Minutes." "We should be creating a playoff system."
Now that's hope and change that I can believe in!
Saturday, November 15, 2008
An interesting pattern...
I was reading Instapundit today and came across some wording in one of the articles that Glenn Reynolds linked to that suddenly flipped a switch in my mind... I'm starting to see a pattern in the op-ed coverage of the Obama transition. Everyone is sifting through the scant tea leaves of his policy past trying to find some clue as to what, exactly, this guy intends to do.
Now again, it's possible, perhaps even likely, that President Obama will enact a string of legislative bits of genius the likes of which the world has never seen, but it strikes me again and again how little we know about this man we just elected our president.
Here's a few examples.
"I analyzed Obama’s record on gun rights during the campaign, concluding that he had not been consistent on the issue."
Now ultimately, the author comes to the conclusion that gun owners don't have much o fear from an Obama Presidency, but he also makes it clear that this conclusion is a leap of faith.
A similar sentiment is expressed in this piece on Obama and the drug war...
"Yet President-elect Barack Obama has retreated from his support for marijuana decriminalization, and his position on medical marijuana remains ambiguous. His reticence on these issues suggests he may disappoint those who hope the Obama administration will move drug policy in a less punitive, more tolerant direction."
And again, a leap of faith is the ultimate conclusion for that piece as well.
Rush Limbaugh has been playing a great piece of audiotape lately, as well. It's Tom Brokaw and Charlie Rose, right before the election, discussing how no one really knows Obama's worldview, and in particular, what he thinks about the future of US/China relations. Rush's comment was sort of genius "Gee Tom, if only there were some sort of investigative organization we could turn to for those answers..."
I've also read at least two articles (though I can't find them now so perhaps it's not fair to mention them) that used exactly the same wording... "It's difficult to know how this would affect President Obama's policy on..." And the reason it's difficult is because you often can't find a coherent explanation of what his policy on a given issue might actually be.
I also doubt the ACLU would feel that this kind of thing is necessary if they were sure he's their guy.
And then I can think of at least five foreign policy instances where he told the American people one thing, and then backchanneled the complete opposite policy position to the foreign nation in question... Poland and missle defense, Columbia and free trade, Canada and free trade, Iraq and troop withdrawal, and Israel and a divided Jerusalem.
I'm just sayin'.... when you get right down to it, we really have no idea what this man is planning to do. Again, no reason to panic until he actually does something, regardless, I'm getting a tingle somewhere, but it ain't up my leg, and it ain't an entirely pleasant sensation.
Now again, it's possible, perhaps even likely, that President Obama will enact a string of legislative bits of genius the likes of which the world has never seen, but it strikes me again and again how little we know about this man we just elected our president.
Here's a few examples.
"I analyzed Obama’s record on gun rights during the campaign, concluding that he had not been consistent on the issue."
Now ultimately, the author comes to the conclusion that gun owners don't have much o fear from an Obama Presidency, but he also makes it clear that this conclusion is a leap of faith.
A similar sentiment is expressed in this piece on Obama and the drug war...
"Yet President-elect Barack Obama has retreated from his support for marijuana decriminalization, and his position on medical marijuana remains ambiguous. His reticence on these issues suggests he may disappoint those who hope the Obama administration will move drug policy in a less punitive, more tolerant direction."
And again, a leap of faith is the ultimate conclusion for that piece as well.
Rush Limbaugh has been playing a great piece of audiotape lately, as well. It's Tom Brokaw and Charlie Rose, right before the election, discussing how no one really knows Obama's worldview, and in particular, what he thinks about the future of US/China relations. Rush's comment was sort of genius "Gee Tom, if only there were some sort of investigative organization we could turn to for those answers..."
I've also read at least two articles (though I can't find them now so perhaps it's not fair to mention them) that used exactly the same wording... "It's difficult to know how this would affect President Obama's policy on..." And the reason it's difficult is because you often can't find a coherent explanation of what his policy on a given issue might actually be.
I also doubt the ACLU would feel that this kind of thing is necessary if they were sure he's their guy.
And then I can think of at least five foreign policy instances where he told the American people one thing, and then backchanneled the complete opposite policy position to the foreign nation in question... Poland and missle defense, Columbia and free trade, Canada and free trade, Iraq and troop withdrawal, and Israel and a divided Jerusalem.
I'm just sayin'.... when you get right down to it, we really have no idea what this man is planning to do. Again, no reason to panic until he actually does something, regardless, I'm getting a tingle somewhere, but it ain't up my leg, and it ain't an entirely pleasant sensation.
Friday, November 14, 2008
Well, It's Better Than Chuck Hagel ...
Looks like Obama is kicking around the idea of Hillary Clinton as his Secretary of State.
Keep your friends close, your frenemies closer ...
Keep your friends close, your frenemies closer ...
Wednesday, November 12, 2008
Pass legislation? Nah, let's just sue!
In all this debate about prop 8 in California, there's an important argument that's being missed, perhaps deliberately.
The framers of the Constitution, in one of many moments of brilliance, decided to leave much of the day-to-day business of making laws to the States. What's great about that is you get 50 individual experiments... 50 little petri dishes in which various solutions to the little problems that plague us all get attacked from 50 different directions until, ultimately, an optimal solution is found, and adopted at the federal level.
At least, that's the way it's supposed to happen.
The problem is that our legislators, both local and federal, have become pussies. See, the problem with being a legislator, is that every thing you do leaves a record on which you must eventually stand or fall. And lately, those legislators have been only too happy to avoid having to make potentially unpopular decisions by letting the major issues of the day be decided by a handful of judges.
The problem with that is, well it's simply not the function the courts were meant to perform. Laws are meant to be debated, crafted, and proposed by legislatures, not determined by 3 or 5 judges in a moment of judicial fiat... the courts are only supposed to get involved with the most egregious unresolved issues that the people, and their duly elected representatives, somehow allow to slip through the cracks.
Now along comes gay marriage, which was banned by the people of California by a 23% margin just a few shorts years ago, while a second ban just barely passed by a few percentage points only last week. The message is that there is a generational shift happening here that would make a bill legalizing the practice increasingly popular in a California that is set to see it's oldest and most rigid citizens begin to shuffle off this mortal coil over the next decade. Isn't there one courageous legislator in town willing to bet that shift happens sooner rather than later?
Now our governor has said he hopes the California Supreme Court overturns this latest ban... but to that I say, you are a girlie-man, Mr. Governor. I mean, if you feel that strongly about it, how about you propose a law? Get together with one or more state senators and pass something, for crissakes. Do your job!
But he won't, and you know why? Because supreme court judges are not elected, they don't have to worry that a challenger is going to stand across from them in a debate and demand that they explain to the people of the State why they voted this way or that way. So it's much easier for a legislator or cheif executive to sit back and let the courts decide than to get their hands dirty with a law that someone might hold them accountable for. Oh and by the way, Ah-nult has vetoed legislation to legalize marriage at least twice before... so it's a little disengenuous to claim that he hopes the courts will overturn the ban now, isn't it, when he could have legalized it, himself, years ago simply by signing a bill!?
At the very least, it doesn't make him look particularly courageous.
Anyway, the point is that we've come to a place in our society where we have allowed our legislators to abdicate their responsibility to enact legislation that reflects the desires of their constituencies, and allowed them to tranfer that responsiblity to the courts... and the problem wth that, is that judges are not accountable to the voters.
I'm not so sure this is a positive evolution in the annals of representative democracy.
What say you?
The framers of the Constitution, in one of many moments of brilliance, decided to leave much of the day-to-day business of making laws to the States. What's great about that is you get 50 individual experiments... 50 little petri dishes in which various solutions to the little problems that plague us all get attacked from 50 different directions until, ultimately, an optimal solution is found, and adopted at the federal level.
At least, that's the way it's supposed to happen.
The problem is that our legislators, both local and federal, have become pussies. See, the problem with being a legislator, is that every thing you do leaves a record on which you must eventually stand or fall. And lately, those legislators have been only too happy to avoid having to make potentially unpopular decisions by letting the major issues of the day be decided by a handful of judges.
The problem with that is, well it's simply not the function the courts were meant to perform. Laws are meant to be debated, crafted, and proposed by legislatures, not determined by 3 or 5 judges in a moment of judicial fiat... the courts are only supposed to get involved with the most egregious unresolved issues that the people, and their duly elected representatives, somehow allow to slip through the cracks.
Now along comes gay marriage, which was banned by the people of California by a 23% margin just a few shorts years ago, while a second ban just barely passed by a few percentage points only last week. The message is that there is a generational shift happening here that would make a bill legalizing the practice increasingly popular in a California that is set to see it's oldest and most rigid citizens begin to shuffle off this mortal coil over the next decade. Isn't there one courageous legislator in town willing to bet that shift happens sooner rather than later?
Now our governor has said he hopes the California Supreme Court overturns this latest ban... but to that I say, you are a girlie-man, Mr. Governor. I mean, if you feel that strongly about it, how about you propose a law? Get together with one or more state senators and pass something, for crissakes. Do your job!
But he won't, and you know why? Because supreme court judges are not elected, they don't have to worry that a challenger is going to stand across from them in a debate and demand that they explain to the people of the State why they voted this way or that way. So it's much easier for a legislator or cheif executive to sit back and let the courts decide than to get their hands dirty with a law that someone might hold them accountable for. Oh and by the way, Ah-nult has vetoed legislation to legalize marriage at least twice before... so it's a little disengenuous to claim that he hopes the courts will overturn the ban now, isn't it, when he could have legalized it, himself, years ago simply by signing a bill!?
At the very least, it doesn't make him look particularly courageous.
Anyway, the point is that we've come to a place in our society where we have allowed our legislators to abdicate their responsibility to enact legislation that reflects the desires of their constituencies, and allowed them to tranfer that responsiblity to the courts... and the problem wth that, is that judges are not accountable to the voters.
I'm not so sure this is a positive evolution in the annals of representative democracy.
What say you?
Cry havoc and let slip the dogs of war!
Bill Whittle, one of the best political writers you've probably not heard of yet, has a new essay up which perfectly crystalizes what I've felt in the wake of John McCain's loss to Barack Obama.
Surprisingly, I've felt nothing but energized. And I don't think I'm the only one. I don't see a lot of woe-is-me belly button gazing out there at all. The best analogy I can come up with is that after being away for eight years, I've returned home to a piece of property I own to find that someone built a crack house on it, and now that crack house has burnt to the ground, the people who built it are dead or in jail, and I've just received a huge insurance payment with which to begin rebuilding.
They say with crisis comes opportunity... well doesn't it feel like the Republican party, which was, as of two weeks ago, old, stodgy and out of ideas, is suddenly young and vibrant again? We're not talking about a raft of candidates in their 70's anymore (leave that to the Democrats who are looking at Hillary versus Biden in 2016), we're talking about Sarah Palin and Bobby Jindal and Tim Pawlenty and Mitt Romney... not a senior citizen among them.
Ever see the Denzel Washington movie GLORY? There's a great moment in the final climactic battle scene where our heroes are assaulting a Confederate fort and on the seawall, the initial attack begins to falter, the standard bearer is killed, and the flag falls to the sand. At that moment, the attack can go either way and the entire unit seems to hold its breath wondering what will happen. Will someone rally them to press the attack? Or will fear and doubt take over and begin a rout and retreat?
I won't reveal what happens in case you haven't seen the movie, but we are at that point now as Republicans, everyone seems to be holding their breath in anticipation, and the only action I can think to take is to pick that standard up off the sand and turn to all of you and shout "COME ON!!!"
There's simply nothing else to do. Defeat is not an option. And besides, I've got too much positive energy going right now to do anything but press the attack.
Who's with me!?
Surprisingly, I've felt nothing but energized. And I don't think I'm the only one. I don't see a lot of woe-is-me belly button gazing out there at all. The best analogy I can come up with is that after being away for eight years, I've returned home to a piece of property I own to find that someone built a crack house on it, and now that crack house has burnt to the ground, the people who built it are dead or in jail, and I've just received a huge insurance payment with which to begin rebuilding.
They say with crisis comes opportunity... well doesn't it feel like the Republican party, which was, as of two weeks ago, old, stodgy and out of ideas, is suddenly young and vibrant again? We're not talking about a raft of candidates in their 70's anymore (leave that to the Democrats who are looking at Hillary versus Biden in 2016), we're talking about Sarah Palin and Bobby Jindal and Tim Pawlenty and Mitt Romney... not a senior citizen among them.
Ever see the Denzel Washington movie GLORY? There's a great moment in the final climactic battle scene where our heroes are assaulting a Confederate fort and on the seawall, the initial attack begins to falter, the standard bearer is killed, and the flag falls to the sand. At that moment, the attack can go either way and the entire unit seems to hold its breath wondering what will happen. Will someone rally them to press the attack? Or will fear and doubt take over and begin a rout and retreat?
I won't reveal what happens in case you haven't seen the movie, but we are at that point now as Republicans, everyone seems to be holding their breath in anticipation, and the only action I can think to take is to pick that standard up off the sand and turn to all of you and shout "COME ON!!!"
There's simply nothing else to do. Defeat is not an option. And besides, I've got too much positive energy going right now to do anything but press the attack.
Who's with me!?
Secretary of Defense: Peaceniks Need Not Apply
The anti-war left is at it again. It's not enough that their man, Barack Obama, won the election. They want a say in who he selects as his Secretary of Defense also.
And who do they want? You can read the whole thing here. But here's an excerpt.
"Arms control advocates and anti-war activists are ratcheting up pressure on President-elect Barack Obama to dump Defense Secretary Robert Gates and replace him with a more strident anti-war voice."
So they want an anti-war voice to be Secretary of Defense. Boy do I think that is misguided and I'll tell you why. The Secretary of Defense is supposed to be looking out for America and keep her safe. That means that they have to be thinking about war and how to conduct it, even if it is only hypothetical. I want my Secretary of Defense to always be thinking about what would happen if we had to fight a particular war against a particular enemy. I want my Secretary of Defense to be thinking about aging nuclear warheads and what can be done to repair them. I want my Secretary of Defense to have a vast knowledge of history and conflicts and battle tactics. I want my Secretary of Defense to always be thinking about how to make the military more effective.
What I do not want is for my Secretary of Defense to be some peace loving, anti-war, let's all hug it out person who is afraid to go to war. I want my Secretary of Defense prepared to go to war, yet I hope we never have to call on him to actually go. And since Robert Gates has been brought on to be Secretary of Defense, the war in Iraq has turned around. I think it would be foolish to turn him loose now. In fact, it would say a lot to me about Barack Obama's judgement if he kept him around, at least for the next year or so.
As for those peace loving, anti-war, let's all hug it out people, send them to the State Department. They can mend fences overseas with countries that allegedly hate us.
And who do they want? You can read the whole thing here. But here's an excerpt.
"Arms control advocates and anti-war activists are ratcheting up pressure on President-elect Barack Obama to dump Defense Secretary Robert Gates and replace him with a more strident anti-war voice."
So they want an anti-war voice to be Secretary of Defense. Boy do I think that is misguided and I'll tell you why. The Secretary of Defense is supposed to be looking out for America and keep her safe. That means that they have to be thinking about war and how to conduct it, even if it is only hypothetical. I want my Secretary of Defense to always be thinking about what would happen if we had to fight a particular war against a particular enemy. I want my Secretary of Defense to be thinking about aging nuclear warheads and what can be done to repair them. I want my Secretary of Defense to have a vast knowledge of history and conflicts and battle tactics. I want my Secretary of Defense to always be thinking about how to make the military more effective.
What I do not want is for my Secretary of Defense to be some peace loving, anti-war, let's all hug it out person who is afraid to go to war. I want my Secretary of Defense prepared to go to war, yet I hope we never have to call on him to actually go. And since Robert Gates has been brought on to be Secretary of Defense, the war in Iraq has turned around. I think it would be foolish to turn him loose now. In fact, it would say a lot to me about Barack Obama's judgement if he kept him around, at least for the next year or so.
As for those peace loving, anti-war, let's all hug it out people, send them to the State Department. They can mend fences overseas with countries that allegedly hate us.
Tuesday, November 11, 2008
My Thoughts on Governor Palin
I want to start by saying that I am a fan of Governor Sarah Palin. I am one of those people who thinks that Sarah Palin has a bright future in politics outside of Alaska if she decides to pursue it. While I think that she probably didn't have enough experience with some of the issues that come up in a presidential campaign, I also saw that she was a quick learner. She more than held her own in the debate with Senator Biden, especially since she didn't have the luxury of having the media cover for any gaffes, like they did for him (e.g. France and the US kicked Hamas out of Syria? When?) Unfortunately, in today's business of "gotcha journalism" you have to figure out how to say the equivalent of "I don't know but I assure you that I will" without actually saying those words.
I also think the McCain campaign did her no favors, particularly in the national security/foreign policy area, by insisting that being commander in chief of the Alaskan National Guard gave her foreign policy experience. To me, it would have been better to point out that until Barack Obama made his European tour this summer, he hadn't met a foreign leader either. And if Barack Obama felt so sure of his foreign policy credentials, why did he feel the need to choose Senator Biden as his running mate, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations committee? Also, Harry Truman, Calvin Coolidge, and Teddy Roosevelt had limited foreign policy when they were Vice Presidents and they turned out okay.
But I digress and we could discuss the errors of the McCain campaign ad naseum but we will not do it in this post.
When I glanced at the "Today" show this morning, I caught a few moments of Matt Lauer's interview with Governor Sarah Palin and her family. The tone in the interview was much more respectful than what was shown towards her on the campaign trail. Now that the election is over, I suspect that the main stream media are feeling guilty for treating her badly and are trying to make some kind of amends. I think they know that they have lost credibility with half of the American people. I also think they know she is a ratings goldmine and they want those numbers, especially given how their viewership keeps eroding quarter after quarter.
The tone of the interview made me curious about Greta Van Susteren's interview with Governor Palin as well. So I went and watched all four parts of it here. I would urge you all to do the same.
One of the things that I took away from that interview is that Sarah Palin has thick skin. The media treatment of her was downright sexist and totally disgusting. We got a glimpse of that treatment during the Democratic primary when we witnessed how the media treated Hillary Clinton. But it was open season on Sarah Palin. I think if I had woken up every morning for the last nine weeks and read nothing but the worst lies and terrible stories that misrepresent my positions, not to mention the ad hominem attacks put out by bloggers, the main stream media, and bloggers working for the main stream media (Andrew Sullivan, I'm looking in your direction), I would have eventually gone postal on someone.
Governor Palin also made the point that if people wanted to know the truth about something, they could have asked her. Instead, the media would put out a story to misrepresent her position (e.g. that she slashed funding for unwed mothers) without bothering to correct it later (she actually increased funding by threefold rather than fivefold). I did notice this through out the campaign and that's when I firmly started to believe that the media had crossed a line. They were no longer interested in the facts or her record. They simply did not want anyone to stand in the way of Barack Obama's election.
Another example that the media ignored during the campaign, but one that I thought showed good judgement, was a bill she vetoed in Alaska that would have denied benefits to partners of gay state employees. Sarah Palin is against gay marriage but for civil unions. One would think that she would have signed the bill no questions asked, considering her personal stance. However, the question she asked the Attorney General when the bill came to her was 'is this constitutional?' It didn't matter whether she agreed with it or not, it mattered to her whether it was in violation of the Alaskan Constitution or not. This shows to me that she is less interested in pushing a personal agenda and more interested in governing according to the law.
Personally, I think if more politicians took that cue, we'd be a lot better off as a country. Then again, I think most politicians think that the US Constitution is something that can be championed when it supports their point of view or ignored when it conflicts with their point of view. It's nice to see Governor Palin isn't one of those people.
I also think the McCain campaign did her no favors, particularly in the national security/foreign policy area, by insisting that being commander in chief of the Alaskan National Guard gave her foreign policy experience. To me, it would have been better to point out that until Barack Obama made his European tour this summer, he hadn't met a foreign leader either. And if Barack Obama felt so sure of his foreign policy credentials, why did he feel the need to choose Senator Biden as his running mate, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations committee? Also, Harry Truman, Calvin Coolidge, and Teddy Roosevelt had limited foreign policy when they were Vice Presidents and they turned out okay.
But I digress and we could discuss the errors of the McCain campaign ad naseum but we will not do it in this post.
When I glanced at the "Today" show this morning, I caught a few moments of Matt Lauer's interview with Governor Sarah Palin and her family. The tone in the interview was much more respectful than what was shown towards her on the campaign trail. Now that the election is over, I suspect that the main stream media are feeling guilty for treating her badly and are trying to make some kind of amends. I think they know that they have lost credibility with half of the American people. I also think they know she is a ratings goldmine and they want those numbers, especially given how their viewership keeps eroding quarter after quarter.
The tone of the interview made me curious about Greta Van Susteren's interview with Governor Palin as well. So I went and watched all four parts of it here. I would urge you all to do the same.
One of the things that I took away from that interview is that Sarah Palin has thick skin. The media treatment of her was downright sexist and totally disgusting. We got a glimpse of that treatment during the Democratic primary when we witnessed how the media treated Hillary Clinton. But it was open season on Sarah Palin. I think if I had woken up every morning for the last nine weeks and read nothing but the worst lies and terrible stories that misrepresent my positions, not to mention the ad hominem attacks put out by bloggers, the main stream media, and bloggers working for the main stream media (Andrew Sullivan, I'm looking in your direction), I would have eventually gone postal on someone.
Governor Palin also made the point that if people wanted to know the truth about something, they could have asked her. Instead, the media would put out a story to misrepresent her position (e.g. that she slashed funding for unwed mothers) without bothering to correct it later (she actually increased funding by threefold rather than fivefold). I did notice this through out the campaign and that's when I firmly started to believe that the media had crossed a line. They were no longer interested in the facts or her record. They simply did not want anyone to stand in the way of Barack Obama's election.
Another example that the media ignored during the campaign, but one that I thought showed good judgement, was a bill she vetoed in Alaska that would have denied benefits to partners of gay state employees. Sarah Palin is against gay marriage but for civil unions. One would think that she would have signed the bill no questions asked, considering her personal stance. However, the question she asked the Attorney General when the bill came to her was 'is this constitutional?' It didn't matter whether she agreed with it or not, it mattered to her whether it was in violation of the Alaskan Constitution or not. This shows to me that she is less interested in pushing a personal agenda and more interested in governing according to the law.
Personally, I think if more politicians took that cue, we'd be a lot better off as a country. Then again, I think most politicians think that the US Constitution is something that can be championed when it supports their point of view or ignored when it conflicts with their point of view. It's nice to see Governor Palin isn't one of those people.
Reid VS. Lieberman VS. Obama
I think we'll learn a lot about Obama's intentions vis-a-vis his pledge to pursue a new era of bi-partisan politics by observing what happens to Joe Lieberman in the Senate over the next few weeks. Harry Reid wants to punish Lieberman for his support of McCain by stripping him of his senior committee chairmanship. But now I see reports that Obama would like for Lieberman to continue to caucus with the Democrats.
Seems to me that the best way to make that happen is to exert pressure on Reid to not exact his revenge on Lieberman, who, whatever you think of his politics, made a principled stand based on what he thought was right, and not what he thought was best for the party.
This is, allegedly, what Obama wants from his Administration and, indeed, from Americans in general. So I can think of no better way to lead by example than to honor Liebermen's choice, rather than punish him for it.
One way or the other, we're going to learn something here about what kind of President Obama intends to be... and we may also learn whether or not Tom MF Jefferson was right that Obama's biggest challenge may not be war, or the economy, but his own party's congressional leaders.
UPDATE: Apparently I'm not the only on thinking this way.
Seems to me that the best way to make that happen is to exert pressure on Reid to not exact his revenge on Lieberman, who, whatever you think of his politics, made a principled stand based on what he thought was right, and not what he thought was best for the party.
This is, allegedly, what Obama wants from his Administration and, indeed, from Americans in general. So I can think of no better way to lead by example than to honor Liebermen's choice, rather than punish him for it.
One way or the other, we're going to learn something here about what kind of President Obama intends to be... and we may also learn whether or not Tom MF Jefferson was right that Obama's biggest challenge may not be war, or the economy, but his own party's congressional leaders.
UPDATE: Apparently I'm not the only on thinking this way.
Monday, November 10, 2008
The Evolution of a Conservative
I don't remember all of the "how" of the evolution, but I do remember the "when."
I grew up surrounded by political contradictions. My parents were reformed hippies.. well on their way to becoming George W Bush voters, but in the late 70's still not totally past the idea of the principled protest vote. I remember them telling me they planned to vote for John Anderson in 1980 because he had pledged that he would never institute a draft. Well that made plenty of sense to me, I didn't want to get drafted either.
But at the same time, the first real exposure to politics I can remember was going to Washington in the dead of winter to see Reagan's first innagural parade. And I was fascinated. I was still young but my parents were political junkies and so Reagan was ALWAYS on our TV making speeches and debating, and being Reagan. And I loved him. What's not to love about a leader who can articulate what's special about America in ways even a ten-year-old can comprehend?
The second thing I remember was coming home from school one day and my dad telling me Reagan had been shot.
My brother and I both wrote him letters.
I can remember being surrounded by the vestiges of my parents' hippie past, and yet at the same time, listening to the things Reagan said about personal responsbility and limited government and keeping more of what you earn and thinking, even then, "this makes sense to me."
And yet I can also remember listening to him talk about the "Evil Empire" and knowing that while what he was saying about the evils of collectivism made a crazy kind of sense, that he had probably doomed us all to nuclear war the moment he walked away from the Soviets in Rekjavik.
Let's just say they were confusing times.
And still as I went off to college, I still didn't quite know what I was, politically. There was still quite a bit of me that would have voted for John Anderson, but there was a bigger part of me that believed what Reagan had told me about the free market. I could see that tax revenues did indeed rise with lower tax rates... just like he'd said they would. I loved that our athletes traveled the world and regularly beat those super-human products of collectivist engineering that we saw coming out of the oppressed nations of the Eastern bloc, and was horrified by the stories of men women and children shot down trying to reunite with families members who just happened to be on the wrong side of some random line in Berlin.
And so, in about 1989, still a year from the fall of that damned Wall... there I was in the lounge of my freshman year dormitory when a guy I'd only known for a couple of days strolled through on his way to somewhere else. I said "Hey Mike, where ya goin?" And he replied "To see PJ O'Rourke speak."
"Who the hell is that!?"
Mike laughed at me, "Oh he's hilarious, you have to come."
So I did. And an hour later I went right from the lecture hall to the bookstore and bought every PJ O'Rourke book I could find. After 16 years of confusing and contradictory messages, I'd finally found one that made sense. Over the years, I've come back to PJ over and over again because he always seems to be feeling exactly what I'm feeling about the state of the world and politics at any given moment.
So I suppose it's no surprise that PJ has written what resonates with me as the best post mortem on the 2008 election I have yet to read.
We Blew It.
I grew up surrounded by political contradictions. My parents were reformed hippies.. well on their way to becoming George W Bush voters, but in the late 70's still not totally past the idea of the principled protest vote. I remember them telling me they planned to vote for John Anderson in 1980 because he had pledged that he would never institute a draft. Well that made plenty of sense to me, I didn't want to get drafted either.
But at the same time, the first real exposure to politics I can remember was going to Washington in the dead of winter to see Reagan's first innagural parade. And I was fascinated. I was still young but my parents were political junkies and so Reagan was ALWAYS on our TV making speeches and debating, and being Reagan. And I loved him. What's not to love about a leader who can articulate what's special about America in ways even a ten-year-old can comprehend?
The second thing I remember was coming home from school one day and my dad telling me Reagan had been shot.
My brother and I both wrote him letters.
I can remember being surrounded by the vestiges of my parents' hippie past, and yet at the same time, listening to the things Reagan said about personal responsbility and limited government and keeping more of what you earn and thinking, even then, "this makes sense to me."
And yet I can also remember listening to him talk about the "Evil Empire" and knowing that while what he was saying about the evils of collectivism made a crazy kind of sense, that he had probably doomed us all to nuclear war the moment he walked away from the Soviets in Rekjavik.
Let's just say they were confusing times.
And still as I went off to college, I still didn't quite know what I was, politically. There was still quite a bit of me that would have voted for John Anderson, but there was a bigger part of me that believed what Reagan had told me about the free market. I could see that tax revenues did indeed rise with lower tax rates... just like he'd said they would. I loved that our athletes traveled the world and regularly beat those super-human products of collectivist engineering that we saw coming out of the oppressed nations of the Eastern bloc, and was horrified by the stories of men women and children shot down trying to reunite with families members who just happened to be on the wrong side of some random line in Berlin.
And so, in about 1989, still a year from the fall of that damned Wall... there I was in the lounge of my freshman year dormitory when a guy I'd only known for a couple of days strolled through on his way to somewhere else. I said "Hey Mike, where ya goin?" And he replied "To see PJ O'Rourke speak."
"Who the hell is that!?"
Mike laughed at me, "Oh he's hilarious, you have to come."
So I did. And an hour later I went right from the lecture hall to the bookstore and bought every PJ O'Rourke book I could find. After 16 years of confusing and contradictory messages, I'd finally found one that made sense. Over the years, I've come back to PJ over and over again because he always seems to be feeling exactly what I'm feeling about the state of the world and politics at any given moment.
So I suppose it's no surprise that PJ has written what resonates with me as the best post mortem on the 2008 election I have yet to read.
We Blew It.
Auto Industry Bailout: Just Say No
Well, it's not even the new year and Senator Reid and Speaker Pelosi are at it again, telling everyone who will listen that the auto industry needs a bailout. Why does the auto industry need a bailout? Why can't they just be allowed to merge or file for Chapter 11 bankruptcy reorganization? Several airlines have gone in and out of bankruptcy since 9/11/01 and have reorganized themselves.
Could the Democrats motives be political? If the car companies file bankruptcy, bankruptcy judges have the power to rewrite onerous union contracts. Unions donate heavily to the Democratic party. I believe this is why the Democrats in Congress want to bail out the auto industry.
I also believe that the auto industry doesn't want to declare bankruptcy because they like their cushy management structure.
However, in my opinion, the American auto industry has failed to change with the times and should be forced to go bankrupt and reorganize themselves. If Honda and Toyota can make cars in America and be profitable, why can't American car companies do the same? Are Honda and Toyota that much smarter than Ford and GM?
Bloated union contracts are a part of the problem. The workers at Honda and Toyota are not organized. But unions are not solely to blame for the current state of the American auto industry. Onerous fuel standards imposed by Congress is another reason. And a lack of forward thinking seems to permeate the managerial ranks as well e.g. Honda and Toyota beat them to the market by years when it came to making a hybrid car.
Overall, I recognize that the American auto industry employes a lot of people and I do not wish to see those jobs go away. However, I think they have greater chance of saving them if they were forced to go bankrupt and reorganize into a more competitive company. As it stands now, a bailout will just continue to subsidize their current losing strategy.
Could the Democrats motives be political? If the car companies file bankruptcy, bankruptcy judges have the power to rewrite onerous union contracts. Unions donate heavily to the Democratic party. I believe this is why the Democrats in Congress want to bail out the auto industry.
I also believe that the auto industry doesn't want to declare bankruptcy because they like their cushy management structure.
However, in my opinion, the American auto industry has failed to change with the times and should be forced to go bankrupt and reorganize themselves. If Honda and Toyota can make cars in America and be profitable, why can't American car companies do the same? Are Honda and Toyota that much smarter than Ford and GM?
Bloated union contracts are a part of the problem. The workers at Honda and Toyota are not organized. But unions are not solely to blame for the current state of the American auto industry. Onerous fuel standards imposed by Congress is another reason. And a lack of forward thinking seems to permeate the managerial ranks as well e.g. Honda and Toyota beat them to the market by years when it came to making a hybrid car.
Overall, I recognize that the American auto industry employes a lot of people and I do not wish to see those jobs go away. However, I think they have greater chance of saving them if they were forced to go bankrupt and reorganize into a more competitive company. As it stands now, a bailout will just continue to subsidize their current losing strategy.
Sunday, November 9, 2008
Are we seriously talking about the Obama family dog?
The race is on. I'm taking a poll to see which name and breed you think the Obama family will choose for their soon-to-be pup. Here are the candidates:
1. Stalin the Siberian Husky
2. Chavez the Chihuahua
3. Marx the German Shepard
4. Putin the Samoyed
Send your vote now to: arepeopleseriouslytalkingaboutthedamndog@getalife.com
1. Stalin the Siberian Husky
2. Chavez the Chihuahua
3. Marx the German Shepard
4. Putin the Samoyed
Send your vote now to: arepeopleseriouslytalkingaboutthedamndog@getalife.com
Bob Schieffer, Attack Dog
Well, not really. But I happened to watch FACE THE NATION for the first time in recent memory, and saw Schieffer interview Rahmn Emmanuel. It certainly wasn't a takedown interview -- not that I wouldn't necessarily want it to be -- but it was nice to see a journalist not simply accepting whatever answers Obama and his staff were giving. It's pretty clear that Emmanuel didn't want to show Obama's cards in the interview about the specifics of how Obama would "hit the ground running" w/r/t the economy.
That's fine. But Schieffer called him on it, and that's good. Particularly when we have four years of Softball with Chris Matthews to look forward to.
Watch CBS Videos Online
That's fine. But Schieffer called him on it, and that's good. Particularly when we have four years of Softball with Chris Matthews to look forward to.
Watch CBS Videos Online
Saturday, November 8, 2008
Friday, November 7, 2008
Because man (and blog readers) cannot live by politics alone
I love westerns!
Why are they so damned awesome!? They're like pizza, even when they're bad, they're still pretty good. I think what appeals to us about Westerns is the way they strip away all those layers of stuff that separate modern humans from the realities of daily life and force characters to deal with things head on, and often all alone. Think about the lives we lead... has there ever been a more cushioned, protected, leisurely generation than we?
I don't say that as if it's a bad thing, in fact, I think this is what we've been striving for lo these 230 years... a peaceful easy existence where we are free to pursue life, liberty, and happiness in all the ways we, as individuals, see fit. The harsh realities of life on the Western Frontier are things to be regarded from afar, like exhibits in a museum... not to be longed for like a lost treasure. Life in the old West was cruel, difficult, and often tragically short... and even though it was crucial period in the building of our national character, we are well rid of it.
Now, of course, in modern America, every now and then, desperate problems DO enter into our lives... but we have doctors, and policemen, and soldiers to deal with things that get too crazy for us to handle individually. Not so much for Western heroes. Out on the frontier, law was what you made of it. There was a basic moral code that everyone instinctively understood... don't kill anyone unless it's in self defense, and keep your hands to yourself. Other than that, it was... well, it was the Wild West.
But of course bad men were drawn to the relative anarchy of the lawless frontier. And as energetic, ambitious Americans made their way west to seek their fortunes, the predators and parasites followed. A soldier, or a real man of the law might be a hundred miles away when trouble started, and so early Westerners had to learn to take care of themselves in a way that no modern American ever really has to.
I think John Wayne put the frontier philosophy best in his tour de force performance in THE SHOOTIST...
"I won't be wronged. I won't be insulted. I won't be laid a-hand on. I don't do these things to other people, and I require the same from them."
But to be fair, Wayne's character was a gunfighter, and was quite used to living that sort of life, and to backing up those words with decisive action when required. In HIGH NOON, however, Gary Cooper faces a different reality... the reality of what happens when that SHOOTIST philosophy runs smack dab into men who are more adept at killin' than you are, and who aren't interested in a "fair fight."
HIGH NOON is not about a gun fight, not really. HIGH NOON is a philosophical treatise on civic responsibility. Gary Cooper sends a man up for murder, and as a result, criminals far and wide get the message that law and order is here to stay in Cooper's town. Because of Cooper's sacrifice, putting his life on the line for his fellow townsfolk, women and children can once again walk the streets in peace. But a northern judge pardons the murderer who then comes back to town looking for revenge.
And yet Gary Cooper's life is not all that hangs in the balance... this is not just a battle over some long lost grudge... within this battle, and hundreds of others just like it across the West, hung the very fate of the Western frontier itself. Would it be a land of justice and peace in the best spirit of a fledgling Democracy? Or would it descend into lawlessness... on this day, one man, Gary Cooper, will have to answer that question, and not the US Army, or the President himself, can help him. That's what's great about these stories... within this structure, one single man can hold the future of the entire country in his hands.
Of course, I'm no screenwriter, and it shouldn't surprise anyone that Cooper's charcter's ex-girlfriend in the film puts it much more succinctly...
"Kane will be a dead man in half an hour and nobody's gonna do anything about it. And when he dies, this town dies too. I can feel it. I am all alone in the world. I have to make a living. So I'm going someplace else. That's all."
She knows the message Cooper's death will send back East... Cooper's friend Martin knows it too... he makes an impassioned speech to a Church congregation in which he talks about how the big money men back East are watching this town, trying to decide if they should invest money in their stores and factories... and tales of death and murder on the frontier will convince them to put their money into safer investments. Their town will die, and with it, the entire idea of "The West."
In other words, Cooper has a civic responsibility... or to quote last summer's box office champ TRANSFORMERS... "There can be no victory without sacrifice."
Hollywood development executives talk about these kinds of movies in terms of stakes... always asking the writers they work with to raise the stakes so that the audience will care about the story and engage itseif in the action that will determine how those stakes shake out. Harder to imagine bigger stakes, isn't it, than the very future of the entire western half of a developing nation?
It occurs to me that we have become a country that does not understand this simple reality anymore. Maybe that's why I like watching Westerns, because it reminds me of an America that people believed was worth fighting for. Now we expect wars to be over in a week and we don't want to see a single body bag on the news. Hell two soldiers wandered off during the bombing of Bosnia back in the 90's... WANDERED OFF mind you... they weren't captured, they weren't lost securing some beachhead or taking out some critical enemy position, they just got lost... and a local politician here in Southern California (where one of the men was from) named a particular day of the week in their honor.
Watch most modern action movies and you'll see these themes of honor, responsibility, and self-reliance hashed out over and over again. So desperate must we be to be tested as men, women, and Americans that we go to dark movie theatres on Friday and Saturday nights to watch made up men and women sacrifice for what's right. John McClane, Indiana Jones, Will Kane...
And it's not just westerns... a lot of modern cinema owes it's basic struture to westerns like HIGH NOON. Take DIE HARD as an example.
One man trapped in a skyscraper (or a small western town) facing overwhelming numbers of gunmen, who struggles to find even a single competent individual willing or able to help him. And in the same way that Gary Cooper assumes it will be a simple thing to deputize a handful of able-bodied men, but then spends an entire day going from Justice of the Peace, to Churches, to saloons looking for help and getting turned down at every location, John McLane turns to 911 dispatchers, cops, SWAT, even the FBI before realizing that if this thing is going to be stopped, he's going to have to do it alone.
They say DIE HARD created a new genre... for years, agents, producers, and executives pitched movies as "it's DIE HARD on a plane" or "it's DIE HARD at the zoo" or "it's DIE HARD at the petrified forest"... but was DIE HARD's structure really all the revolutionary?
Most good action movies and thrillers (hell even the bad ones) follow the same pattern. Think about THE FUGITIVE, THE BOURNE TRILOGY, UNDER SIEGE, CHAIN REACTION, and IN THE LINE OF FIRE... what must you do in order to make your hero into someone the audience can relate to? First you must take away his safety net... you must strip him bare. Now none of those movies I listed above do anything as overt as trapping their hero in a tall building... but that's not the only way to utterly isolate a human being.
In THE FUIGITIVE, Harrison Ford's Richard Kimble is a wealthy surgeon with the world at his fingertips, and so we must take that all away from him and set him out on his own in order to begin his journey... or IN THE LINE OF FIRE's Clint Eastwood is a Secret Service agent with 40 years of experience and an army of agents willing to die for him... but to make his character interesting, we must strip all that away and set him out in the wilderness... discredited and alone... only then do we get to see what he's really capable of.
Now I do not intend for this to be some neo-conservative "kill 'em all and let God sort 'em out" screed... though I certainly think that there's a lot to learn about our responsibilities with regard to Iraq and Afghanistan by watching HIGH NOON... rather, it's worth noting that the best Westerns are melancholy about sacrifice, rather than celebratory. When they come to the house of an old friend looking for any escape from the expert mercenaries tracking them to Hole-In-The-Wall, Butch and Sundance (populist, Robin-Hoodian heroes that they are) are told...
"You know, you should have let yourself get killed a long time ago when you had the chance. See, you may be the biggest thing that ever hit this area, but you're still two-bit outlaws. I never met a soul more affable than you, Butch, or faster than the Kid, but you're still nothing but two-bit outlaws on the dodge. It's over, don't you get that? Your time is over and you're gonna die bloody, and all you can do is choose where."
When Chico tells Vin in THE MAGNIFICENT SEVEN that his gun has gotten him everything he has, Vin replies soberly...
"Yeah, sure. Everything. After awhile you can call bartenders and faro dealers by their first name - maybe two hundred of 'em! Rented rooms you live in - five hundred! Meals you eat in hash houses - a thousand! Home - none! Wife - none! Kids... none! Prospects - zero. Suppose I left anything out?"
There is no victory without sacrifice...
Westerns are great because they break that equation down to its simplest, starkest terms... They strip away all the layers of law, bureaucracy, and authority that protect everyday Americans from the harsh realities of life and force us to face responsibility and consequence without filters and without safety nets.
Because that's really what we fear isn't it... being alone at the moment of truth? Hearing the sound of someone kicking your door in at 3 am and knowing that by the time the cops get there it will all be over? What would you do? Could you protect yourself? Your wife? Your kids? Fortunately most of us will never find out... but the reason why we love watching Chris and Vin turn a village of Farmers into the defenders of their own freedom to live and prosper as they see fit, is because it gives us faith and confidence in our own abilities to do those things for ourselves when and if the moment ever comes.
I've often said that if you really want to connect with an audience, figure out what they're afraid of, and hit them in the face with it. Sometimes that happens by accident... as it did when Steven Spielberg found out quite by accident that most humans have a fear of the things that hunt us in deep dark waters.
I think what keeps us coming back to westerns, action movies and thrillers is our basic fear that when the shit hits the fan... we won't be smart enough, or tough enough, or resourceful enough to make it on our own.
But Gary Cooper and Yul Brynner and Jimmy Stewart and John Wayne and Steve McQueen and James Coburn and Charlton Heston and Burt Lancaster and Paul Newman and William Holden give us hope that maybe, on the right day... we can be.
Why are they so damned awesome!? They're like pizza, even when they're bad, they're still pretty good. I think what appeals to us about Westerns is the way they strip away all those layers of stuff that separate modern humans from the realities of daily life and force characters to deal with things head on, and often all alone. Think about the lives we lead... has there ever been a more cushioned, protected, leisurely generation than we?
I don't say that as if it's a bad thing, in fact, I think this is what we've been striving for lo these 230 years... a peaceful easy existence where we are free to pursue life, liberty, and happiness in all the ways we, as individuals, see fit. The harsh realities of life on the Western Frontier are things to be regarded from afar, like exhibits in a museum... not to be longed for like a lost treasure. Life in the old West was cruel, difficult, and often tragically short... and even though it was crucial period in the building of our national character, we are well rid of it.
Now, of course, in modern America, every now and then, desperate problems DO enter into our lives... but we have doctors, and policemen, and soldiers to deal with things that get too crazy for us to handle individually. Not so much for Western heroes. Out on the frontier, law was what you made of it. There was a basic moral code that everyone instinctively understood... don't kill anyone unless it's in self defense, and keep your hands to yourself. Other than that, it was... well, it was the Wild West.
But of course bad men were drawn to the relative anarchy of the lawless frontier. And as energetic, ambitious Americans made their way west to seek their fortunes, the predators and parasites followed. A soldier, or a real man of the law might be a hundred miles away when trouble started, and so early Westerners had to learn to take care of themselves in a way that no modern American ever really has to.
I think John Wayne put the frontier philosophy best in his tour de force performance in THE SHOOTIST...
"I won't be wronged. I won't be insulted. I won't be laid a-hand on. I don't do these things to other people, and I require the same from them."
But to be fair, Wayne's character was a gunfighter, and was quite used to living that sort of life, and to backing up those words with decisive action when required. In HIGH NOON, however, Gary Cooper faces a different reality... the reality of what happens when that SHOOTIST philosophy runs smack dab into men who are more adept at killin' than you are, and who aren't interested in a "fair fight."
HIGH NOON is not about a gun fight, not really. HIGH NOON is a philosophical treatise on civic responsibility. Gary Cooper sends a man up for murder, and as a result, criminals far and wide get the message that law and order is here to stay in Cooper's town. Because of Cooper's sacrifice, putting his life on the line for his fellow townsfolk, women and children can once again walk the streets in peace. But a northern judge pardons the murderer who then comes back to town looking for revenge.
And yet Gary Cooper's life is not all that hangs in the balance... this is not just a battle over some long lost grudge... within this battle, and hundreds of others just like it across the West, hung the very fate of the Western frontier itself. Would it be a land of justice and peace in the best spirit of a fledgling Democracy? Or would it descend into lawlessness... on this day, one man, Gary Cooper, will have to answer that question, and not the US Army, or the President himself, can help him. That's what's great about these stories... within this structure, one single man can hold the future of the entire country in his hands.
Of course, I'm no screenwriter, and it shouldn't surprise anyone that Cooper's charcter's ex-girlfriend in the film puts it much more succinctly...
"Kane will be a dead man in half an hour and nobody's gonna do anything about it. And when he dies, this town dies too. I can feel it. I am all alone in the world. I have to make a living. So I'm going someplace else. That's all."
She knows the message Cooper's death will send back East... Cooper's friend Martin knows it too... he makes an impassioned speech to a Church congregation in which he talks about how the big money men back East are watching this town, trying to decide if they should invest money in their stores and factories... and tales of death and murder on the frontier will convince them to put their money into safer investments. Their town will die, and with it, the entire idea of "The West."
In other words, Cooper has a civic responsibility... or to quote last summer's box office champ TRANSFORMERS... "There can be no victory without sacrifice."
Hollywood development executives talk about these kinds of movies in terms of stakes... always asking the writers they work with to raise the stakes so that the audience will care about the story and engage itseif in the action that will determine how those stakes shake out. Harder to imagine bigger stakes, isn't it, than the very future of the entire western half of a developing nation?
It occurs to me that we have become a country that does not understand this simple reality anymore. Maybe that's why I like watching Westerns, because it reminds me of an America that people believed was worth fighting for. Now we expect wars to be over in a week and we don't want to see a single body bag on the news. Hell two soldiers wandered off during the bombing of Bosnia back in the 90's... WANDERED OFF mind you... they weren't captured, they weren't lost securing some beachhead or taking out some critical enemy position, they just got lost... and a local politician here in Southern California (where one of the men was from) named a particular day of the week in their honor.
Watch most modern action movies and you'll see these themes of honor, responsibility, and self-reliance hashed out over and over again. So desperate must we be to be tested as men, women, and Americans that we go to dark movie theatres on Friday and Saturday nights to watch made up men and women sacrifice for what's right. John McClane, Indiana Jones, Will Kane...
And it's not just westerns... a lot of modern cinema owes it's basic struture to westerns like HIGH NOON. Take DIE HARD as an example.
One man trapped in a skyscraper (or a small western town) facing overwhelming numbers of gunmen, who struggles to find even a single competent individual willing or able to help him. And in the same way that Gary Cooper assumes it will be a simple thing to deputize a handful of able-bodied men, but then spends an entire day going from Justice of the Peace, to Churches, to saloons looking for help and getting turned down at every location, John McLane turns to 911 dispatchers, cops, SWAT, even the FBI before realizing that if this thing is going to be stopped, he's going to have to do it alone.
They say DIE HARD created a new genre... for years, agents, producers, and executives pitched movies as "it's DIE HARD on a plane" or "it's DIE HARD at the zoo" or "it's DIE HARD at the petrified forest"... but was DIE HARD's structure really all the revolutionary?
Most good action movies and thrillers (hell even the bad ones) follow the same pattern. Think about THE FUGITIVE, THE BOURNE TRILOGY, UNDER SIEGE, CHAIN REACTION, and IN THE LINE OF FIRE... what must you do in order to make your hero into someone the audience can relate to? First you must take away his safety net... you must strip him bare. Now none of those movies I listed above do anything as overt as trapping their hero in a tall building... but that's not the only way to utterly isolate a human being.
In THE FUIGITIVE, Harrison Ford's Richard Kimble is a wealthy surgeon with the world at his fingertips, and so we must take that all away from him and set him out on his own in order to begin his journey... or IN THE LINE OF FIRE's Clint Eastwood is a Secret Service agent with 40 years of experience and an army of agents willing to die for him... but to make his character interesting, we must strip all that away and set him out in the wilderness... discredited and alone... only then do we get to see what he's really capable of.
Now I do not intend for this to be some neo-conservative "kill 'em all and let God sort 'em out" screed... though I certainly think that there's a lot to learn about our responsibilities with regard to Iraq and Afghanistan by watching HIGH NOON... rather, it's worth noting that the best Westerns are melancholy about sacrifice, rather than celebratory. When they come to the house of an old friend looking for any escape from the expert mercenaries tracking them to Hole-In-The-Wall, Butch and Sundance (populist, Robin-Hoodian heroes that they are) are told...
"You know, you should have let yourself get killed a long time ago when you had the chance. See, you may be the biggest thing that ever hit this area, but you're still two-bit outlaws. I never met a soul more affable than you, Butch, or faster than the Kid, but you're still nothing but two-bit outlaws on the dodge. It's over, don't you get that? Your time is over and you're gonna die bloody, and all you can do is choose where."
When Chico tells Vin in THE MAGNIFICENT SEVEN that his gun has gotten him everything he has, Vin replies soberly...
"Yeah, sure. Everything. After awhile you can call bartenders and faro dealers by their first name - maybe two hundred of 'em! Rented rooms you live in - five hundred! Meals you eat in hash houses - a thousand! Home - none! Wife - none! Kids... none! Prospects - zero. Suppose I left anything out?"
There is no victory without sacrifice...
Westerns are great because they break that equation down to its simplest, starkest terms... They strip away all the layers of law, bureaucracy, and authority that protect everyday Americans from the harsh realities of life and force us to face responsibility and consequence without filters and without safety nets.
Because that's really what we fear isn't it... being alone at the moment of truth? Hearing the sound of someone kicking your door in at 3 am and knowing that by the time the cops get there it will all be over? What would you do? Could you protect yourself? Your wife? Your kids? Fortunately most of us will never find out... but the reason why we love watching Chris and Vin turn a village of Farmers into the defenders of their own freedom to live and prosper as they see fit, is because it gives us faith and confidence in our own abilities to do those things for ourselves when and if the moment ever comes.
I've often said that if you really want to connect with an audience, figure out what they're afraid of, and hit them in the face with it. Sometimes that happens by accident... as it did when Steven Spielberg found out quite by accident that most humans have a fear of the things that hunt us in deep dark waters.
I think what keeps us coming back to westerns, action movies and thrillers is our basic fear that when the shit hits the fan... we won't be smart enough, or tough enough, or resourceful enough to make it on our own.
But Gary Cooper and Yul Brynner and Jimmy Stewart and John Wayne and Steve McQueen and James Coburn and Charlton Heston and Burt Lancaster and Paul Newman and William Holden give us hope that maybe, on the right day... we can be.
There's something slightly disturbing about this...
I'm reacting to a headline on Drudge that suggests Magazines and newspapers are experiencing a boost in sales from the Obama win. Now, forget about Obama for a minute, the die is cast, and I'm sure he'll be a fine President. What concerns me is now the press has proof that their financial fortunes can be changed by making the right decisions about which candidate to put on the cover and which to ignore.
Now in a sense this is not news, but one wonders if, going forward, newspapers and magazines will seek out profit by making decisions to back this or that candidate based on whether or not their appearance on the Magazine will drive up sales... and not on whether or not a candidate is newsworthy, or even a good choice for the office they seek.
Maybe that's not such a big deal in theory... but what happens when a truly dynamic and appealing candidate comes along who is either idealogically bankrupt or morally questionable. Are the mags and papers going to cover up those failings in hopes of hitting those circulation jackpots?
Something to think about as we go deeper into the era of the celebrity politician. The Nixon/Kennedy debates sure seem like a long time ago don't they?
Now in a sense this is not news, but one wonders if, going forward, newspapers and magazines will seek out profit by making decisions to back this or that candidate based on whether or not their appearance on the Magazine will drive up sales... and not on whether or not a candidate is newsworthy, or even a good choice for the office they seek.
Maybe that's not such a big deal in theory... but what happens when a truly dynamic and appealing candidate comes along who is either idealogically bankrupt or morally questionable. Are the mags and papers going to cover up those failings in hopes of hitting those circulation jackpots?
Something to think about as we go deeper into the era of the celebrity politician. The Nixon/Kennedy debates sure seem like a long time ago don't they?
Insecure much?
Boy, how scared are they of a Sarah Palin resurrgence out there? I was walking through the office at about 6:30 last night, right in the middle of prime time, and the plasma screen in our lobby was tuned to CNN. There were five people on screen, four panel members and a host, and the question on the screen, in big white letters... the topic these presumably highly paid pundits had been brought on to discuss in the most watched hour of this network's coverage?
"DID PALIN SPEND MORE THAN $150,000"
Not kidding. The election has been over for 48 hours. She lost. We have the first African-American president. As they wasted time on the issue of Sarah's wardrobe Obama was naming cabinet members and setting legislative priorities. The excuse that there's nothing else to talk about does not hold water.
Why are they so obsessed with destroying this woman?
UPDATE: I'm also pissed off at the gutless wonders from the McCain camp running around dropping anonymous shit bombs on Palin. And by the way, where is McCain on all this? Surely he must have some insight. He's doing himself AND his running-mate a disservice by not being out in front of these rumors. He was all over the local RNS parties that dared to run ads featuring Reverend Wright (and those were factually accurate), I think he owes his former partner the same attention to detail now that it's HER reputation on the line.
UPDATE 2: McCain's campaign manager was just on HANNITY AND COLMES saying the stories about Sarah Palin are absolutley not true and if he ever finds out who said that crap he's going to make them famous.
"DID PALIN SPEND MORE THAN $150,000"
Not kidding. The election has been over for 48 hours. She lost. We have the first African-American president. As they wasted time on the issue of Sarah's wardrobe Obama was naming cabinet members and setting legislative priorities. The excuse that there's nothing else to talk about does not hold water.
Why are they so obsessed with destroying this woman?
UPDATE: I'm also pissed off at the gutless wonders from the McCain camp running around dropping anonymous shit bombs on Palin. And by the way, where is McCain on all this? Surely he must have some insight. He's doing himself AND his running-mate a disservice by not being out in front of these rumors. He was all over the local RNS parties that dared to run ads featuring Reverend Wright (and those were factually accurate), I think he owes his former partner the same attention to detail now that it's HER reputation on the line.
UPDATE 2: McCain's campaign manager was just on HANNITY AND COLMES saying the stories about Sarah Palin are absolutley not true and if he ever finds out who said that crap he's going to make them famous.
How High?
The unemployent rate in the U.S. is now 6.5 percent. That's the highest rate since the recession in the early 90s.
How high will it go before it bottoms out? 8 percent? 10 percent?
How high will it go before it bottoms out? 8 percent? 10 percent?
O.P.P.: Other People's Priorities
Not to turn this into the Prop 8 blog, but in response to George's post, I think the protest was focused at Mormons because the Church of LDS (and its members) have been viewed as main proponents and funding source behind the initiative.
To wit, check out this bewildering article about run-of-the-mill Mormon families that gave serious cash to the effort.
People like this fascinate me. Why would someone send such time, effort and treasure on something that doesn't directly affect their lives?
I'll never understand that impulse. Then again, I have no interest in telling other people how to live their lives.
To wit, check out this bewildering article about run-of-the-mill Mormon families that gave serious cash to the effort.
People like this fascinate me. Why would someone send such time, effort and treasure on something that doesn't directly affect their lives?
I'll never understand that impulse. Then again, I have no interest in telling other people how to live their lives.
Thursday, November 6, 2008
Prop 8 protests
I wonder why the opponents of Prop 8 are protesting outside the Mormom Temple in Los Angeles today? Shouldn't they be in Downtown L.A. protesting outside the First AME? I mean Black voters went 70-30 in favor of the prop. It's quite likely that if not for the huge black turnout for Barack Obama, Prop 8 would not have passed.
I think their rage is directed at the wrong target.
But hey, at least it's directed at the politically correct target.
For the record, I voted "no."
UPDATE: Here's more, complete with actual math, which I didn't do because I suck at it.
UPDATE 2: yikes! Now THAT'S change we can believe in!
I think their rage is directed at the wrong target.
But hey, at least it's directed at the politically correct target.
For the record, I voted "no."
UPDATE: Here's more, complete with actual math, which I didn't do because I suck at it.
UPDATE 2: yikes! Now THAT'S change we can believe in!
SOFTBALL with Chris Matthews
I assume he'll be changing the name of his show now that he's pledged to go easy on the new guy?
It's funny to hear him say that NOW we need a successful President. I would argue we always need one, but that it's particularly necessary when we are in a shooting war where the outcome is in doubt. I'm glad he's jumped on the team and is coming in for the big win, but I sure wish he'd done it five years ago when, perhaps, it might have mattered more.
It's funny to hear him say that NOW we need a successful President. I would argue we always need one, but that it's particularly necessary when we are in a shooting war where the outcome is in doubt. I'm glad he's jumped on the team and is coming in for the big win, but I sure wish he'd done it five years ago when, perhaps, it might have mattered more.
President Obama's Greatest Challenge
As he takes office, President Obama will face a great many challenges and there will likely be no honeymoon period afforded to him. So what do I think will be his greatest challenge?
The Economy? No, the economy will right itself in spite of what President Obama may do to taxes, trade, tariffs, and unionization. The only thing that remains to be seen is how long the downturn lasts. He can help it along by lowering taxes or at the very least not raising them. But what John McCain said on the campaign trail was correct - the fundamentals of the economy are strong. It will bounce back.
Health care? Good luck beating the insurance lobby. They came out in full force in 1993 for the "Hillary Care" hearings and I have no doubt that they'll be back for round two.
Energy? No, it won't be his biggest challenge. We might continue subsidizing expensive alternative energy sources, but we're doing okay right now.
The war in Iraq or Afghanistan? Nope. I think as long as General Petraeus is in charge, who is an honorable and reputable man (despite what Moveon.org might think), President Obama will listen to him and heed his advice. By the way, the American people gave the military the highest job approval rating at 71%. Who ranked the lowest? That would be Congress at 12%.
Which leads me to what I think will be President Obama's greatest challenge - standing up to Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority leader Harry Reid. Neither one of those two is likely to draw favorable leadership comparisons to either Tip O'Neill or Lyndon Johnson. Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi seem to regard tuesday's election results as a mandate for pursuing an aggressive liberal policy according to an article in today's New York Times.
They are going to try and send President Obama one far left bill after another. If he signs them, I doubt he'll be re-elected in 2012. President Clinton's first two years in office, when he had a Democratic House and Senate, were very different from his last six years, when he had a Republican controlled House. He was drifting to the left in his first two years and then tacked back towards the center when the Republicans regained control.
The last six years of President Clinton's administration were far more successful than the first two - balanced budget, welfare reform, tax cuts - and we owe some thanks to Newt Gingrich for that. It's possible that if the Republicans had run someone younger and more dynamic than Bob Dole, they might have recaptured the White House in 1996. But the Dole / Kemp ticket, while comprised of honorable men, felt old and stodgy compared to Clinton/Gore.
Will President Obama resist the temptation to drift left with Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid? Only time will tell.
The Economy? No, the economy will right itself in spite of what President Obama may do to taxes, trade, tariffs, and unionization. The only thing that remains to be seen is how long the downturn lasts. He can help it along by lowering taxes or at the very least not raising them. But what John McCain said on the campaign trail was correct - the fundamentals of the economy are strong. It will bounce back.
Health care? Good luck beating the insurance lobby. They came out in full force in 1993 for the "Hillary Care" hearings and I have no doubt that they'll be back for round two.
Energy? No, it won't be his biggest challenge. We might continue subsidizing expensive alternative energy sources, but we're doing okay right now.
The war in Iraq or Afghanistan? Nope. I think as long as General Petraeus is in charge, who is an honorable and reputable man (despite what Moveon.org might think), President Obama will listen to him and heed his advice. By the way, the American people gave the military the highest job approval rating at 71%. Who ranked the lowest? That would be Congress at 12%.
Which leads me to what I think will be President Obama's greatest challenge - standing up to Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority leader Harry Reid. Neither one of those two is likely to draw favorable leadership comparisons to either Tip O'Neill or Lyndon Johnson. Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi seem to regard tuesday's election results as a mandate for pursuing an aggressive liberal policy according to an article in today's New York Times.
They are going to try and send President Obama one far left bill after another. If he signs them, I doubt he'll be re-elected in 2012. President Clinton's first two years in office, when he had a Democratic House and Senate, were very different from his last six years, when he had a Republican controlled House. He was drifting to the left in his first two years and then tacked back towards the center when the Republicans regained control.
The last six years of President Clinton's administration were far more successful than the first two - balanced budget, welfare reform, tax cuts - and we owe some thanks to Newt Gingrich for that. It's possible that if the Republicans had run someone younger and more dynamic than Bob Dole, they might have recaptured the White House in 1996. But the Dole / Kemp ticket, while comprised of honorable men, felt old and stodgy compared to Clinton/Gore.
Will President Obama resist the temptation to drift left with Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid? Only time will tell.
Lileks perfectly describes my attitude... as usual
"I’m approaching the new administration with a blank slate. I have no desire to walk around frowning in perpetual grumptitude, and it would be intellectually dishonest to prejudge everything that happens before it happens, or see the smallest act in terms of some broad preconceived idea. I thought that was an impressive victory speech, and if someone offers to earn your support, well, take him up on it."
Totally agree... at least for the next two months (not that Democrats afforded George Bush the same courtesy in 2000 or 2004 when he made exactly the same request, but I promise to be the bigger man). I fully expect that sometime in late January... January 21st perhaps, President Obama, is going to propose something that's going to send me into a spiral of "come on, you gotta be kidding me!" I'm just hoping it's not the Fairness Doctrine, but we'll see.
In the meantime, no reason not to kick back and enjoy the fact that all the assholes who were so sure we are the most racist nation on Earth have been proved as wrong as most of us reasonable folk always believed they were.
So... what's up Europe? lookin' a little lilly white over there guys... people are gonna start to talk.
You can read James Lileks here... or check out his new screedblog here.
Totally agree... at least for the next two months (not that Democrats afforded George Bush the same courtesy in 2000 or 2004 when he made exactly the same request, but I promise to be the bigger man). I fully expect that sometime in late January... January 21st perhaps, President Obama, is going to propose something that's going to send me into a spiral of "come on, you gotta be kidding me!" I'm just hoping it's not the Fairness Doctrine, but we'll see.
In the meantime, no reason not to kick back and enjoy the fact that all the assholes who were so sure we are the most racist nation on Earth have been proved as wrong as most of us reasonable folk always believed they were.
So... what's up Europe? lookin' a little lilly white over there guys... people are gonna start to talk.
You can read James Lileks here... or check out his new screedblog here.
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
From Europe, with condescension....
Does it bother anyone else that we've been getting these condescending pats on the back from Europe in the wake of this election? It's like they've deigned to come down from their secret redoubts high atop Mt. Olympus to say to us peons "well done youngsters... maybe you're not the violent little rednecks we always took you for, after all."
Someone remind me... how many European countries have had a black head of state?
Yeah, I freakin' thought so.
I wish someone with more clout than I would have the balls to point out to Europe that we've achieved three times the social evolution they have in about a quarter of the time. France was around for many hundred of years and never thought to have a democratic revolution until after we made it look cool.
Douchebags.
Someone remind me... how many European countries have had a black head of state?
Yeah, I freakin' thought so.
I wish someone with more clout than I would have the balls to point out to Europe that we've achieved three times the social evolution they have in about a quarter of the time. France was around for many hundred of years and never thought to have a democratic revolution until after we made it look cool.
Douchebags.
Great election kid, don't get cocky!
So President-Elect Obama has not asked for my advice, but I'm going to give it anyway... because when the First President of the United States offers his advice, I think you should listen.
1) DO NOT pursue the Fairness Doctrine.
I'm willing to take Obama at his word that he aspires to bring a new spirit of bi-partisanship to Washington. That said, The Fairness Doctrine is to Conservatives as overturning Roe V. Wade would be to an employee of Planned Parenthood... that is to say it is one of THE most radioactive issues on the table. If Obama comes out of the gate with an announcement that he wants to re-implement the Fairness Doctrine, it will be correctly interpreted by Republicans/Conservatives, as a declaration of open warfare.
Just. Don't. Do it.
2) Do not abandon Iraq in favor of Afghanistan
This one's really gonna hurt, I know it. After all, you've been promising to do this for 4 years. But it would be a dumb move, and I'm going to tell you why.
We are winning Iraq. Combat deaths have dwindled to a statistical insignificance... 7 combat deaths in October... 7! Of course we would all prefer that the number was zero, but in a war, you take your good news where you can find it.
The reason we are winning in Iraq is because we've successfully convinced those who might have fought against us, that they too have something to lose if Al Qaeda wins. This was only possible because it's the truth. Iraq was a flourishing, well-educated, vibrant nation before Saddam took over and evil-ed it into the ground. But because many of the well-educated and industrious among them have returned in the wake of Saddam's well-deserved death, or never left in the first place, the infrastructure is in place for a return to those days of wine and roses. But it's going to take a lot of work, probably stretching into the next several Presidents' administrations. Fortunately, so far, Iraqis seem to be willing to do it.
Afghanistan, on the other hand is a total mess. Afghan society has not evolved significantly in a milennium. They are tribal (which means there is no real national identity, no common ideal to fight for), mostly uneducated, and often completely illiterate. The country has no infrastucture, no industry, no business, and a President with a funny hat. Their biggest cash crop is opium, and daily existence is often a matter of simple day-to-day survival. Nothing more.
Convincing them to lay down their lives for an ideal is going to be an impossible task... they simply do not have anything to lose.
I trust Michael Yon's reporting on these issues more than any other journalist in the world, and as he makes clear in this post, the surge strategy that worked so well in Iraq probably cannot be similarly successful in Afghanistan. Unfortunately, this is exactly the strategy you have said you would like to pursue there.
Yon, and many others smarter than I, think it would be a disaster.
The war in Iraq is not yet won, but victory is on the near horizon. You have a unique opportunity here to walk into a series of victories which have already been teed up for you. Will you have to share some of the credit with George Bush? Sure... but isn't that what bi-partisanship is all about?
Don't make the mistake of sacrificing sure victory in Iraq, even if you can't claim 100% of the credit, for a brutal quagmire in a place where our efforts are likely to fail, and worse, to be completely unappreciated in the bargain.
There's a couple for free... more to come.
1) DO NOT pursue the Fairness Doctrine.
I'm willing to take Obama at his word that he aspires to bring a new spirit of bi-partisanship to Washington. That said, The Fairness Doctrine is to Conservatives as overturning Roe V. Wade would be to an employee of Planned Parenthood... that is to say it is one of THE most radioactive issues on the table. If Obama comes out of the gate with an announcement that he wants to re-implement the Fairness Doctrine, it will be correctly interpreted by Republicans/Conservatives, as a declaration of open warfare.
Just. Don't. Do it.
2) Do not abandon Iraq in favor of Afghanistan
This one's really gonna hurt, I know it. After all, you've been promising to do this for 4 years. But it would be a dumb move, and I'm going to tell you why.
We are winning Iraq. Combat deaths have dwindled to a statistical insignificance... 7 combat deaths in October... 7! Of course we would all prefer that the number was zero, but in a war, you take your good news where you can find it.
The reason we are winning in Iraq is because we've successfully convinced those who might have fought against us, that they too have something to lose if Al Qaeda wins. This was only possible because it's the truth. Iraq was a flourishing, well-educated, vibrant nation before Saddam took over and evil-ed it into the ground. But because many of the well-educated and industrious among them have returned in the wake of Saddam's well-deserved death, or never left in the first place, the infrastructure is in place for a return to those days of wine and roses. But it's going to take a lot of work, probably stretching into the next several Presidents' administrations. Fortunately, so far, Iraqis seem to be willing to do it.
Afghanistan, on the other hand is a total mess. Afghan society has not evolved significantly in a milennium. They are tribal (which means there is no real national identity, no common ideal to fight for), mostly uneducated, and often completely illiterate. The country has no infrastucture, no industry, no business, and a President with a funny hat. Their biggest cash crop is opium, and daily existence is often a matter of simple day-to-day survival. Nothing more.
Convincing them to lay down their lives for an ideal is going to be an impossible task... they simply do not have anything to lose.
I trust Michael Yon's reporting on these issues more than any other journalist in the world, and as he makes clear in this post, the surge strategy that worked so well in Iraq probably cannot be similarly successful in Afghanistan. Unfortunately, this is exactly the strategy you have said you would like to pursue there.
Yon, and many others smarter than I, think it would be a disaster.
The war in Iraq is not yet won, but victory is on the near horizon. You have a unique opportunity here to walk into a series of victories which have already been teed up for you. Will you have to share some of the credit with George Bush? Sure... but isn't that what bi-partisanship is all about?
Don't make the mistake of sacrificing sure victory in Iraq, even if you can't claim 100% of the credit, for a brutal quagmire in a place where our efforts are likely to fail, and worse, to be completely unappreciated in the bargain.
There's a couple for free... more to come.
True story
OK so I work in Hollywood... I hesitate to admit that becasue I prefer to stay anonymous here on this blog because... well, because I work in Hollywood.
But this is a story too juicy not to spill. So I'm in a meeting yesterday to discuss putting an animated movie together. There were 6 of us in the meeting. And of course, since 5 of the 6 of us were voting for Obama, and because it was election day, the meeting began with 15 minutes of...
"Oh my god, I think McCain sucks! do you think he sucks?"
"Oh yeah, he TOTALLY sucks!"
"How much does he suck!?"
"Like, a lot!"
Then someone said, more or less out of context, "The rich just keep getting richer."
And two other people in the room simultaneously responded "Well hopefully not anymore, after tonight."
So there we are, about to start this meeting for real... that last line just hanging there in the air, like the smell after someone burns toast. Seconds later, we start into our actual agenda, the topic of which, was... "this movie is too expensive, we have to figure out a way to bring the budget down."
Now... remember that burnt toast smell? It's still there... impossible to ignore or forget. And yet one of the people in the room, with absolutely NO sense of irony, actually said...
"Well we can just do it in Asia... their animation houses are like sweat shops... it's super cheap."
I swear to GOD this actually happened.
But this is a story too juicy not to spill. So I'm in a meeting yesterday to discuss putting an animated movie together. There were 6 of us in the meeting. And of course, since 5 of the 6 of us were voting for Obama, and because it was election day, the meeting began with 15 minutes of...
"Oh my god, I think McCain sucks! do you think he sucks?"
"Oh yeah, he TOTALLY sucks!"
"How much does he suck!?"
"Like, a lot!"
Then someone said, more or less out of context, "The rich just keep getting richer."
And two other people in the room simultaneously responded "Well hopefully not anymore, after tonight."
So there we are, about to start this meeting for real... that last line just hanging there in the air, like the smell after someone burns toast. Seconds later, we start into our actual agenda, the topic of which, was... "this movie is too expensive, we have to figure out a way to bring the budget down."
Now... remember that burnt toast smell? It's still there... impossible to ignore or forget. And yet one of the people in the room, with absolutely NO sense of irony, actually said...
"Well we can just do it in Asia... their animation houses are like sweat shops... it's super cheap."
I swear to GOD this actually happened.
Prop 1A
In California, it seems that we voters love to pass ballot propositions that cost us money. Lots of money. While I voted against every proposition that that wanted to raise taxes or sell bonds to raise money, which we eventually have to repay, a lot of my fellow Californians did not.
A familiar refrain from the left is that we shouldn't be cutting taxes when we're in a war. Forget the fact that cutting taxes has actually led to more revenue being taken in by the federal government, let's just take their argument at face value and say fine, we shouldn't be cutting taxes when we're in a war.
So, for all you lefties out there, here's my question to you. Should we be spending more money when the state of California is broke and already running a deficit for next year? Isn't that counter productive?
Look at Prop 1A. We're spending money for a high speed train between San Francisco and Los Angeles that will not be operable for something like 15 years.
And since Measure K failed, which would have legalized prostitution in San Francisco, please explain we need a high speed train to San Francisco?
A familiar refrain from the left is that we shouldn't be cutting taxes when we're in a war. Forget the fact that cutting taxes has actually led to more revenue being taken in by the federal government, let's just take their argument at face value and say fine, we shouldn't be cutting taxes when we're in a war.
So, for all you lefties out there, here's my question to you. Should we be spending more money when the state of California is broke and already running a deficit for next year? Isn't that counter productive?
Look at Prop 1A. We're spending money for a high speed train between San Francisco and Los Angeles that will not be operable for something like 15 years.
And since Measure K failed, which would have legalized prostitution in San Francisco, please explain we need a high speed train to San Francisco?
Proposition 8
Interesting exit poll numbers on Proposition 8, which amends the California constitution to ban same-sex marriages.
These show that a staggering 70 percent of African-American voters voted for the proposition. Given the relatively small split by which the measure passed, it may not be unreasonable to suggest that enthusiasm for Obama and increased African-American voting had a direct impact on the result.
My prediction: at some point within the next ten years, another ballot measure, to repeal Prop 8, will be on the ballot, and will pass. This is definitely a generational issue.
These show that a staggering 70 percent of African-American voters voted for the proposition. Given the relatively small split by which the measure passed, it may not be unreasonable to suggest that enthusiasm for Obama and increased African-American voting had a direct impact on the result.
My prediction: at some point within the next ten years, another ballot measure, to repeal Prop 8, will be on the ballot, and will pass. This is definitely a generational issue.
Tuesday, November 4, 2008
Some positives to take away from this night...
If you are a conservative...
1) Jesse Jackson is now out of a job.
2) In all likelihood we will never see a President Hillary Clinton
3) We can finally drive a stake into the heart of that relentless undead creature known as "Affirmative Action".
4) Never again will we hear a Republican argue that by jumping on the Amnesty bandwagon, we can "buy" Latino votes. In a sense, having seen the author of the Amnesty bill go down in defeat thanks to Latinos voting against him more than 2 to 1, was the best thing that could happen for folks who think our immigration policy is broken.
5) It's always more fun to write political op-ed pieces when one belongs to the opposition party. So you can bet that the writing on The Continetal Congress will flourish as we become passionate, committed members of a newly vibrant Conservative opposition party. From that perspective, this is going to be a damned fun 4 years.
6) Al Franken will NOT be a United States Senator
7) The chances that the Vice President of the United States will one day be found standing in some Eurpoean Piazza at 3 in the morning, pants around his ankles, screaming "I'll kill you all" while pissing on some object of historical significance just went up by a factor of ten.
8) The campaign is over.
And lastly, a quick note about the future, the looney Lefties bought themselves a second Bush term by going batshit crazy after the 2000 election, let's not do the same. Sure, the Democrats are going to be tough to take for a couple of months (I can hear my colleague in the next office saying some indrecibly ridiculous things on the phone right now), but we can take it. It's what we do as Center-right voters.
Sometimes we have to be the adults.
1) Jesse Jackson is now out of a job.
2) In all likelihood we will never see a President Hillary Clinton
3) We can finally drive a stake into the heart of that relentless undead creature known as "Affirmative Action".
4) Never again will we hear a Republican argue that by jumping on the Amnesty bandwagon, we can "buy" Latino votes. In a sense, having seen the author of the Amnesty bill go down in defeat thanks to Latinos voting against him more than 2 to 1, was the best thing that could happen for folks who think our immigration policy is broken.
5) It's always more fun to write political op-ed pieces when one belongs to the opposition party. So you can bet that the writing on The Continetal Congress will flourish as we become passionate, committed members of a newly vibrant Conservative opposition party. From that perspective, this is going to be a damned fun 4 years.
6) Al Franken will NOT be a United States Senator
7) The chances that the Vice President of the United States will one day be found standing in some Eurpoean Piazza at 3 in the morning, pants around his ankles, screaming "I'll kill you all" while pissing on some object of historical significance just went up by a factor of ten.
8) The campaign is over.
And lastly, a quick note about the future, the looney Lefties bought themselves a second Bush term by going batshit crazy after the 2000 election, let's not do the same. Sure, the Democrats are going to be tough to take for a couple of months (I can hear my colleague in the next office saying some indrecibly ridiculous things on the phone right now), but we can take it. It's what we do as Center-right voters.
Sometimes we have to be the adults.
From the Front Lines
As I made my way from the office to the train this evening, I had to weave my way around many, many Obamaniacs on their way to Chicago's Grant Park for tonight's Obama-rama. They were young and old, of a multitude of races, and seemed cheerful and excited. Most wore some type of Obama/Biden apparel, and many carried signs. Some were hand-lettered, others were more professional placards. There were a lot of kids trouping along with their parents. I saw a couple sets of new parents, their children tucked into strollers or snug in a sling. I don't mean to impugn anyone's parental talents, but I wonder if they think those kids are going to sleep at all? Operating a stroller through the crowds during The Taste of Chicago is hard enough, and I think a lot more people will show up tonight than estimated.
A good indicator of how many are expected could be seen as I entered Union Station, where the setup for your typical evening rush hour is to redirect all of the escalators to go down. Instead, they left one going up. Extra security was also positioned on the train platforms, eyeballing train passengers for concealed weapons and concealed alcohol. Bicycle rickshaws were also getting in on the act, impatiently dinging their bells at customers outside the station, obviously planning on extra fares tonight. On a typical work evening I've never seen them there.
Even if by some slim chance the Annointed One does not celebrate victory tonight, it is a fantastic evening to be on the lakefront.
A good indicator of how many are expected could be seen as I entered Union Station, where the setup for your typical evening rush hour is to redirect all of the escalators to go down. Instead, they left one going up. Extra security was also positioned on the train platforms, eyeballing train passengers for concealed weapons and concealed alcohol. Bicycle rickshaws were also getting in on the act, impatiently dinging their bells at customers outside the station, obviously planning on extra fares tonight. On a typical work evening I've never seen them there.
Even if by some slim chance the Annointed One does not celebrate victory tonight, it is a fantastic evening to be on the lakefront.
Bold Prediction: Bob Barr wins Los Angeles County
Well... maybe he doesn't win, but he's going to have one hell of a strong showing.
While waiting in line to vote this morning, there was a kerfluffle... a hullabaloo, if you will, amongst the voting stations. I mostly ignored it as I moved into position to vote, myself.
I soon found out what was wrong. Someone had discovered that the Democratic Voters' Guide that they were using to mark their ballot had incorrectly listed the number that corresponded with the Democratic Candidate for President.
On the ballot, the Obama/Biden ticket was inkadot #18, but the voter guide listed the correct number as #8, which was actually the Libertarian candidate, Bob Barr.
So, if you intended to vote for Barack Obama in Los Angeles county, but never looked at the ballot, only your Democratic voter guide, then there is a better than average chance you voted for Bob Barr.
Whoops!
While waiting in line to vote this morning, there was a kerfluffle... a hullabaloo, if you will, amongst the voting stations. I mostly ignored it as I moved into position to vote, myself.
I soon found out what was wrong. Someone had discovered that the Democratic Voters' Guide that they were using to mark their ballot had incorrectly listed the number that corresponded with the Democratic Candidate for President.
On the ballot, the Obama/Biden ticket was inkadot #18, but the voter guide listed the correct number as #8, which was actually the Libertarian candidate, Bob Barr.
So, if you intended to vote for Barack Obama in Los Angeles county, but never looked at the ballot, only your Democratic voter guide, then there is a better than average chance you voted for Bob Barr.
Whoops!
Voting Libertarian
When I voted this morning, I decided to do something that I normally don't do. I decided to use my vote as a protest against the two party system. Now had I been in a swing state, you can be sure I would have cast my ballot for McCain/Palin. But since I live in California which Obama is going to win handily, I decided to vote for the Libertarian candidate, Bob Barr. I do not expect him to win.
I'm going to be hoping and praying for McCain to win tonight. The last thing I want is a liberal Democratic Congress with no checks on them from the White House. Yes, the economy might restrain their spending in the short term but there is plenty of other things they can screw up - like card check for unions, judicial appointments where the judges don't feel bound by the limits of the Constitution, unilaterally withdrawing from Iraq or simply cutting off the funding, etc. You get the picture.
However, I feel that the Republican party has forgotten its small government principles over the last 8 years. And it seems that they never met a spending bill that they didn't like during the time they controlled Congress and the White House. On the other hand, it seems that the Democrats have forgotten their foreign policy credentials since the Jimmy Carter administration. I have a theory that since the Vietnam War occurred under a Democratic Administration and it basically caused the downfall of that administration, the Democratic Party as a whole is fearful of becoming militarily involved in any conflict. In fact, what was President Clinton's policy in Bosnia? No troops, only bombs.
So, given the fact that I think the two party system is in need of repair, I voted Libertarian. Will the politicians get the message? Only time will tell.
I'm going to be hoping and praying for McCain to win tonight. The last thing I want is a liberal Democratic Congress with no checks on them from the White House. Yes, the economy might restrain their spending in the short term but there is plenty of other things they can screw up - like card check for unions, judicial appointments where the judges don't feel bound by the limits of the Constitution, unilaterally withdrawing from Iraq or simply cutting off the funding, etc. You get the picture.
However, I feel that the Republican party has forgotten its small government principles over the last 8 years. And it seems that they never met a spending bill that they didn't like during the time they controlled Congress and the White House. On the other hand, it seems that the Democrats have forgotten their foreign policy credentials since the Jimmy Carter administration. I have a theory that since the Vietnam War occurred under a Democratic Administration and it basically caused the downfall of that administration, the Democratic Party as a whole is fearful of becoming militarily involved in any conflict. In fact, what was President Clinton's policy in Bosnia? No troops, only bombs.
So, given the fact that I think the two party system is in need of repair, I voted Libertarian. Will the politicians get the message? Only time will tell.
A simple majority is not really all that simple after all
Sitting here in a colleague's office looking out the window at one of the sections of my city that is most densely populated with skyscrapers... imagining the thousands of people milling about in those buildings and the thousands more on the sidewalks below either walking into, out of, or around them...
And beyond those skyscrapers I can see neighborhoods densely populated with houses, filled with families waking to start their days. I can also see, in my mind, my wife's parents' neighborhood in a midwestern state where once you get past the six or so houses you can see from the front porch, it's a mile or so to the next house. And my family's homes in a southern state where there's a boat in every driveway and a gun in every car... for no other reason than it's a tool like any other...
Finally returning to my own downtown urban neighborhood, century-old wooden craftsman homes set off against decaying apartment units populated mostly by immigrants, in a gentrifying ghetto that's still more "Ghetto" then "Gent"...
...now imagining these scenes replicated hundreds, maybe thousands, of times, across millions of square miles of America...
And it occurs to me, that convincing a majority of all those people to vote for you to be their President, is a really hard job.
And beyond those skyscrapers I can see neighborhoods densely populated with houses, filled with families waking to start their days. I can also see, in my mind, my wife's parents' neighborhood in a midwestern state where once you get past the six or so houses you can see from the front porch, it's a mile or so to the next house. And my family's homes in a southern state where there's a boat in every driveway and a gun in every car... for no other reason than it's a tool like any other...
Finally returning to my own downtown urban neighborhood, century-old wooden craftsman homes set off against decaying apartment units populated mostly by immigrants, in a gentrifying ghetto that's still more "Ghetto" then "Gent"...
...now imagining these scenes replicated hundreds, maybe thousands, of times, across millions of square miles of America...
And it occurs to me, that convincing a majority of all those people to vote for you to be their President, is a really hard job.
Monday, November 3, 2008
A Liberal Poll
I asked some of my more left-leaning friends to take part in a thought experiment entitled "What if Obama Loses?" It was not meant to poke anyone in the eye; I merely wanted to gauge their feelings on the subject. The possibility that the media's rampant cocooning has skewed every poll to show an unrepresentative slice of the electoral leanings weighs on me somewhat. On one hand, I wouldn't mind if this happened, because some people might learn a lesson from this and it would be a hell of a surprise.
On the other hand, lots of people are pinning their hopes and dreams on a win for the Democrats, and "real change." While the level of vitriol for McCain has not nearly been as high as it was for Bush in '04, and while Obama is a much stronger candidate than John Kerry ever could have dreamed of being, the possibility of him losing, with all of the polls showing an unsurmountable lead, seems remote at best and not actively considered by most.
Answers to my question ranged from "Kill myself to death" to "I'm not going to think about it." Quite a few of those surveyed expressed an absolute terror that McCain will die during his term and Palin will be elevated to President. I personally don't understand all of the hate for Palin, but I must confess I also haven't spent as much time poring over her Yahoo! account as others must have done.
Those who had this fear felt their lives would change drastically. They would be forced to get religion and attend mass daily to pray for the health and safety of our President to avoid the disaster of President Sarah Palin. How's that for liberalism? We don't want a female president unless she's our female president.
Some suggested that they would feel better about a McCain/Lieberman or McCain/Romney ticket winning. In some ways this makes sense: those men are pretty predictable. Palin, being an unknown and potentially unpredicatble quantity, gives them something besides their elation with Obama:
Fear.
On the other hand, lots of people are pinning their hopes and dreams on a win for the Democrats, and "real change." While the level of vitriol for McCain has not nearly been as high as it was for Bush in '04, and while Obama is a much stronger candidate than John Kerry ever could have dreamed of being, the possibility of him losing, with all of the polls showing an unsurmountable lead, seems remote at best and not actively considered by most.
Answers to my question ranged from "Kill myself to death" to "I'm not going to think about it." Quite a few of those surveyed expressed an absolute terror that McCain will die during his term and Palin will be elevated to President. I personally don't understand all of the hate for Palin, but I must confess I also haven't spent as much time poring over her Yahoo! account as others must have done.
Those who had this fear felt their lives would change drastically. They would be forced to get religion and attend mass daily to pray for the health and safety of our President to avoid the disaster of President Sarah Palin. How's that for liberalism? We don't want a female president unless she's our female president.
Some suggested that they would feel better about a McCain/Lieberman or McCain/Romney ticket winning. In some ways this makes sense: those men are pretty predictable. Palin, being an unknown and potentially unpredicatble quantity, gives them something besides their elation with Obama:
Fear.
Things I Predict We Will Not See On Wednesday
1. Celebrity threats to move to Canada. Jon Voight, Kelsey Grammar and Ben Stein seem to like it here too much.
2. A new version of sorryeverybody.com ... maybe yougotwhatyoufuckingwantednowshutthe hellupeverybody.com?
3. Annoyingly prevalent use of the phrase, "selected, not elected"
4. "Blood on the streets." Only in your dreams, Erica Jong.
5. Viable American coal industry
2. A new version of sorryeverybody.com ... maybe yougotwhatyoufuckingwantednowshutthe hellupeverybody.com?
3. Annoyingly prevalent use of the phrase, "selected, not elected"
4. "Blood on the streets." Only in your dreams, Erica Jong.
5. Viable American coal industry
What's More Insufferable?
Gloating, or petulant whining?
I have a feeling we're about to find out. Probably wise to stop looking at Facebook Updates for the next couple days.
I have a feeling we're about to find out. Probably wise to stop looking at Facebook Updates for the next couple days.
Top 10 reasons Republicans should vote for Barack Obama--David Letterman style
10. If you take a picture of your ballot you'll have proof you're not racist.
9. He sure is dreamy.
8. Imagine the half-hour commercial he's going produce that will interrupt the Super Bowl!
7. He may not wear tights, but he is a real live Robin Hood...and who doesn't love Robin Hood?
6. That Joe Biden sure is funny.
5. He gives great speeches. I mean, he doesn't write them himself, but he's really good at reciting them and that's very important.
4. Socialism is the new black (pun intended).
3. His Myspace page has more hot chicks on it than John McCain's does.
2. His charm is so contagious, vaccines have been created for it. Oh wait, that's the Dos Equis' most interesting man in the world guy, never mind.
1. Because Colin Powell said so.
9. He sure is dreamy.
8. Imagine the half-hour commercial he's going produce that will interrupt the Super Bowl!
7. He may not wear tights, but he is a real live Robin Hood...and who doesn't love Robin Hood?
6. That Joe Biden sure is funny.
5. He gives great speeches. I mean, he doesn't write them himself, but he's really good at reciting them and that's very important.
4. Socialism is the new black (pun intended).
3. His Myspace page has more hot chicks on it than John McCain's does.
2. His charm is so contagious, vaccines have been created for it. Oh wait, that's the Dos Equis' most interesting man in the world guy, never mind.
1. Because Colin Powell said so.
Sunday, November 2, 2008
On peant butter and jelly sandwiches
Following up on Tom's post below on taxes and selfishness, Obama seems to be confused on a lot of issues as far as taxation goes.
He mentioned last week that he fears McCain will accuse him of being a secret Communist because he once shared a peanut butter a jelly sandwich when he was in grade school.
Nice try Barack, but you get an "F" in reading comprehension. If you voluntarily share your sandwich with someone else, that's not Communism, that's Charity. Communism is what happens when Government FORCES you to share your sandwich with someone else.
No wonder Obama is doing so poorly with people who identify themselves as religious... he, apparently, cannot tell a Communist from a Christian.
He mentioned last week that he fears McCain will accuse him of being a secret Communist because he once shared a peanut butter a jelly sandwich when he was in grade school.
Nice try Barack, but you get an "F" in reading comprehension. If you voluntarily share your sandwich with someone else, that's not Communism, that's Charity. Communism is what happens when Government FORCES you to share your sandwich with someone else.
No wonder Obama is doing so poorly with people who identify themselves as religious... he, apparently, cannot tell a Communist from a Christian.
Saturday, November 1, 2008
Selfishness
So now I'm selfish because I want to keep more of the money I make and give less of it to the federal government. So says Barack Obama.
The relevant excerpt here:
"The reason that we want to do this, change our tax code, is not because I have anything against the rich," Obama said in Sarasota, Fla., yesterday. "I love rich people! I want all of you to be rich. Go for it. That’s the American dream, that’s the American way, that’s terrific.
"The point is, though, that -- and it’s not just charity, it’s not just that I want to help the middle class and working people who are trying to get in the middle class -- it’s that when we actually make sure that everybody’s got a shot – when young people can all go to college, when everybody’s got decent health care, when everybody’s got a little more money at the end of the month – then guess what? Everybody starts spending that money, they decide maybe I can afford a new car, maybe I can afford a computer for my child. They can buy the products and services that businesses are selling and everybody is better off. All boats rise. That’s what happened in the 1990s, that’s what we need to restore. And that’s what I’m gonna do as president of the United States of America.
"John McCain and Sarah Palin they call this socialistic," Obama continued. "You know I don’t know when, when they decided they wanted to make a virtue out of selfishness."
Sure Barack Obama loves rich people. Who else would he have to tax if not rich people? He couldn't tax the poor people because that wouldn't make a good campaign slogan. So instead he claims that if you don't want your taxes raised, you must be selfish because who doesn't want to help poor people or make sure that everybody has a shot, right?
Except the tax code was never thought of as a way of redistributing wealth. It was not thought up as an instrument of social change. It was designed to fund the expense of running the government. It first appeared during the Civil War years to fund, you guessed it, the Civil War. It was repealed shortly thereafter. It came back in 1894 to offset the reduction in the tariff rates but then it really came back around World War I. The rates were relatively low then, but they rose with a vengeance during World War II and stayed high with few exceptions until President Ronald Reagan's time in office when the top tax rate plunged from 70% to 38.5%.
Everybody knows that they must pay some tax in order for government to function. But paying taxes is not a form of charity. If I choose to give or share my money to someone who didn't work for it, e.g. to the homeless guy down the street, to my sibling or buddy who is a little short on his rent this month, or to a charity, that is my choice and I can decide how much to give. I do give to various charities throughout the year. Lately my charities have been almost exclusively military veterans groups who make the lives of our troops or their families a little bit easier. And that's my choice.
When the federal government takes my money and then gives it to someone who didn't work for it, then I have no choice. And it seems as if Barack Obama doesn't understand that concept.
The relevant excerpt here:
"The reason that we want to do this, change our tax code, is not because I have anything against the rich," Obama said in Sarasota, Fla., yesterday. "I love rich people! I want all of you to be rich. Go for it. That’s the American dream, that’s the American way, that’s terrific.
"The point is, though, that -- and it’s not just charity, it’s not just that I want to help the middle class and working people who are trying to get in the middle class -- it’s that when we actually make sure that everybody’s got a shot – when young people can all go to college, when everybody’s got decent health care, when everybody’s got a little more money at the end of the month – then guess what? Everybody starts spending that money, they decide maybe I can afford a new car, maybe I can afford a computer for my child. They can buy the products and services that businesses are selling and everybody is better off. All boats rise. That’s what happened in the 1990s, that’s what we need to restore. And that’s what I’m gonna do as president of the United States of America.
"John McCain and Sarah Palin they call this socialistic," Obama continued. "You know I don’t know when, when they decided they wanted to make a virtue out of selfishness."
Sure Barack Obama loves rich people. Who else would he have to tax if not rich people? He couldn't tax the poor people because that wouldn't make a good campaign slogan. So instead he claims that if you don't want your taxes raised, you must be selfish because who doesn't want to help poor people or make sure that everybody has a shot, right?
Except the tax code was never thought of as a way of redistributing wealth. It was not thought up as an instrument of social change. It was designed to fund the expense of running the government. It first appeared during the Civil War years to fund, you guessed it, the Civil War. It was repealed shortly thereafter. It came back in 1894 to offset the reduction in the tariff rates but then it really came back around World War I. The rates were relatively low then, but they rose with a vengeance during World War II and stayed high with few exceptions until President Ronald Reagan's time in office when the top tax rate plunged from 70% to 38.5%.
Everybody knows that they must pay some tax in order for government to function. But paying taxes is not a form of charity. If I choose to give or share my money to someone who didn't work for it, e.g. to the homeless guy down the street, to my sibling or buddy who is a little short on his rent this month, or to a charity, that is my choice and I can decide how much to give. I do give to various charities throughout the year. Lately my charities have been almost exclusively military veterans groups who make the lives of our troops or their families a little bit easier. And that's my choice.
When the federal government takes my money and then gives it to someone who didn't work for it, then I have no choice. And it seems as if Barack Obama doesn't understand that concept.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)