Two Things...

1.  I think am more excited to see this than I was to see The Force Awakens.  I mean, Wow! This looks amazing.  I hope it lives up to the hype because the Episode VII gave me reason to be hopeful again for Star Wars movies.  Don't burn me, Disney.

2.  To millennials distraught over Donald Trump's election, please, please, PLEASE, in the name of Jesus, do not make Rogue One political.  As I watched this trailer in light of Tuesday and the aftermath, it almost immediately occurred to me the film's theme - the struggle of the rebellion against impossible odds against the overwhelming might of the evil Galactic Empire - could easily be co-opted as a metaphor for the heroic opposition to the sinister Donald Trump.  Given the highly diverse cast of heroes that appears absent of white men (which I'm not criticizing), pitted against the new villain, an old white guy, it's not a stretch to see how this could seized upon and embraced on social media, and become a thing.  That would suck.

Star Wars is for everybody.  It's not political.  And it would be a crime to make it a source of division, so please don't make it one.  Star Wars was my first love, and I am genuinely gratified that Rogue One (like Ep. VII) by virtue of its international cast, has the potential to allow more different kinds of people, especially children, to feel what I felt for Star Wars as a child, which was magical.

Maybe I'm being ridiculous.  Maybe I'm too cynical.  I hope so.  Perhaps the apparent themes of unity in Rogue One will have the opposite effect and bring people together in these uncertain times. That would be cool.  Here's to me being wrong.  There's been a lot of that lately.

Comedy That Heals (maybe?)

I caught this Saturday Night Live skit over the weekend and I must say, I found it cathartic.  In an election season where the polarization and rhetoric are toxic, SNL manages to remind us in that we all have much more in common than what we are led to believe on TV or social media (while making us laugh).  I was pleasantly surprised Monday to discover the skit has been making the rounds on the internet with an overwhelmingly positive reception.  The way I see it, the only way you can be offended by this skit is if you are looking to be offended.

Increasingly, it seems we categorize ourselves and one another, and with those categories come simple assumptions about what the other group thinks, behaves and even whether they are all good or bad.  In my life, I find people are much more complicated.  And looking a certain way or thinking a certain way doesn't entirely define an individual or a group, much less determine a minimum threshold for basic decency and respect.

Anyway, it's not much.  But right now with our politics and culture so broken and divided, I'll take it.

What we need more of...

At the end of a debate in the race for New Jersey governor, Chris Christie responds to a cheap shot from his opponent with UTTER CLASS. Americans are craving this kind of civility in Washington.

President Obama? Congress?

Take notes.

"We have to break through our kind of private idea that kids belong to their parents..."

I don't even know what to say to this.  In a new ad from MSNBC, Melissa Harris-Perry explains her view of parenthood.  It says a lot about the network's relationship with reality that no one apparently thought this would be controversial.  Leaving aside the warped, insane idea that children belong to their community rather than their parents, and what that really means, let's just examine her contention that we don't invest enough in public education.  According to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, the United States spent, on all levels of public education, $15,812 per student in 2009.  That's the highest in the world.  State and local governments spent $859.9 billion on public education in 2010, according to the U.S. Census Bureau. That’s a 30.1 percent increase from $660.5 billion (adjusted for inflation) that the U.S. spent in 2000.

So if we followed Ms. Harris-Perry's advice and took a more collective view of children, we would... spend even more money?  Sorry -- "investments."  And that would make our schools better?  What could she possibly point to as evidence of this?  Parents understand perfectly well the community's role in the life of their children.  They live it everyday through their churches, schools, neighborhoods and civic organizations.  They don't need academics and government bureaucrats lecturing them from on high.

"The Second Amendment is Bullshit"

I'm actually grateful to Bill Maher for saying what I suspect not an insignificant number of people on the left believe, but aren't quite willing to say aloud.  I made sure to use a clip that included the entire context of the conversation, so as to be fair and not go ape over a one-sentence soundbite (at 2:23).  I think the context is actually quite useful in showing what Maher and other like minded people would like to see, which is the elimination of most all guns in private hands like in many European nations.  In listening to the panel, it's clear they don't understand (and probably don't know any) gun owners/enthusiasts.  They paint a caricature of them that is colored with derision.  It's also evident that Maher, either doesn't understand (I think he does), or doesn't care about American history and its founding.  There is reasonable debate to be had over the meaning of the Second Amendment, but I think Maher's comments speak to the aspirations of so many on the left, who wish to see America transformed into a kind of egalitarian, government-centered society, that sheds those mores of the past which inhibit the state's power to bring about necessary change.   Back in 2001, President Obama expressed a similar sentiment over the limits placed on government by the Constitution.

To that extent, as radical as I think the people try to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn't that radical.  It didn't break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution, at least as it's been interpreted, and the Warren Court interpreted it the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. Says what the states can't do to you. Says what the federal government can't do to you, but it doesn't say what the federal government or the state government must do on your behalf.

Some on my side have gone too far reading into this quote, but I think it accurately expresses the frustration of some on the left who would like to see the government take a more active role in establishing the kind of society they long for.  As a conservative, it's refreshing to see an issue in which the left is so out of step with the American people, and the frustration that they, their representatives in government and the news media, cannot move public opinion like they have on so many other issues like "the rich not paying their fair share" and gay marriage.

For good or for ill, Americans love their guns.  So much so that even the combined media blitz following Sandy Hook and the shameless demagoguing by the President failed to get any kind of "meaningful" gun control passed.  Even liberal politicians tread lightly on the issue because of their constituents.  Ever wonder why President Obama was utterly silent on gun control during his first four years or in the Presidential campaign?  He wanted to be reelected.  What's worse for liberals is that all this manufactured hysteria after Sandy Hook to get strict gun control passed has only served to make Americans more protective of their firearms; more wary of government efforts to curb their second amendment rights, and creating another a kind of hysteria to load up on guns and ammo.  Companies like Remington, Glock, and ATK having been running their factories 24/7 for months and STILL cannot keep up with demand.  So as a result of the left's barrage of outrage and push for government action (the "do-something disease") every time a crime or tragedy like Sandy Hook occurs, the gun companies they have so much contempt for are making money hand over fist.

If this issue proves anything, it is the power of representative government.  Since 1789, politicians have tried to bend, walk over, sneak by, or flat out ignore the Constitution. Thankfully, in spite their efforts, the will of the people still holds some sway in the halls of power in Washington, and that gives me some comfort, even if Bill Maher thinks it's bullshit.

A Wild Horse

David Brooks of the New York Times is an interesting columnist.  A self-described moderate conservative, his opinions swing from one end of the political spectrum to the other, driving both conservatives and liberals crazy, depending on the day.  From my perspective, he sometimes drifts off the reservation, but about every third column, he really nails it.  Such is the case in his Monday editorial.  While the liberals and the media carp over the GOP being extremists, racists, out of touch and dying off as a party, Brooks brilliantly points out the bankrupt (literally and figuratively) philosophy of today's Democratic party.

There is a statue outside the Federal Trade Commission of a powerful, rambunctious horse being reined in by an extremely muscular man. This used to be a metaphor for liberalism. The horse was capitalism. The man was government, which was needed sometimes to restrain capitalism’s excesses.  

Today, liberalism seems to have changed. Today, many progressives seem to believe that government is the horse, the source of growth, job creation and prosperity. Capitalism is just a feeding trough that government can use to fuel its expansion. 

For an example of this new worldview, look at the budget produced by the Congressional Progressive Caucus last week. These Democrats try to boost economic growth with a gigantic $2.1 trillion increase in government spending — including a $450 billion public works initiative, a similar-size infrastructure program and $179 billion so states, too, can hire more government workers. 

 ...

Today, progressives are calling on government to be the growth engine in all circumstances. In this phase of the recovery, just as the economy is finally beginning to take off, these Democrats want to take an astounding $4.2 trillion out of the private sector and put it into government where they believe it can be used more efficiently.  

How do the House Democrats want to get this money? The top tax rate would shoot up to 49 percent. There’d be new taxes on investment, inheritance, corporate income, financial transactions, banking activity and on and on. 

 ... 

The progressive budget in the House seems to have been written by people hermetically sealed in the house of government. They work in government. They represent public-sector workers. They seem to have had little contact with private-sector job creators and no idea about what factors might play in their thinking. It’s a reminder that while Republicans may embarrass on a daily basis, many progressives have lost touch with what actually produces growth and prosperity.  

With Senate Democrats refusing to produce a budget since 2009 (nearly four years ago), Republicans included a provision in the January debt ceiling bill that forced the Senate to produce a budget or face a suspension of pay. Facing a threat to their income, Senate Democrats finally obliged. Their proposed budget eliminates the sequester cuts, raises taxes by $1 trillion and never balances the budget.  Today, the House rejected the Senate budget by a vote of 261-154.  The Congressional Progressive Caucus was also rejected 327-84.

Where's the President in all this?  He still hasn't proposed a budget, missing the deadline (February 4) for the third year in a row and for the fourth time in his presidency.

With Republicans disillusioned, stumbling around trying to find their identity, Democrats may think they have the future locked up.  But their innate and intransigent aversion to cutting even a penny of government spending means they will not turn away from the looming iceberg of unrestrained spending, unsustainable entitlements, and soaring debt.   In fact, the Democrats will steam straight for it, all the while claiming the iceberg will melt if the rich would just pay their fair share.

Leadership?

Government at its "Platonic Ideal"

Great minds think alike.  I mentioned a couple days ago the sequester standoff will hurt President Obama and Democrats in the long term, because if the world is still here the morning after the sequester kicks in, their message that every dollar spent by the government is crucial and indispensable becomes hollow.  And that would be a catastrophe for the Democratic Party.  Yesterday on CNN, the venerable Charles Krauthammer said the same thing, only it sounded much better.

Sequestration Sobriety

Two days ago, I made the point that hysteria over sequestration cuts was unhinged from reality.  To believe a 2.4% cut of the increase in federal spending over the next ten years is calamitous, is to say that government can never be cut, EVER, under any circumstances.  The folks over at the CATO Institute have taken the numbers from the Congressional Budget Office and made a chart that puts the sequestration cuts in perspective.

You Stay Classy, Mr. President

With President Obama safely reelected, the news media, unburdened from having to provide cover for the White House, is now free to actually cover the White House. Among the first to take that bold step is the New York Times.  They reported this past Friday that President Obama has transformed his reelection campaign into an advocacy network with the goal of raising $50 million, which would make it one of Washington D.C.'s largest lobbying operations.  But,

Unlike a presidential campaign, Organizing for Action has been set up as a tax-exempt “social welfare group.” That means it is not bound by federal contribution limits, laws that bar White House officials from soliciting contributions, or the stringent reporting requirements for campaigns. In their place, the new group will self-regulate.

According to the Times, the new campaign, called Organizing for Action, will sell access to the White House for those who can pay.  Next month OFA is holding a "founders summit" where donors paying $50,000 each will get to mingle with top Obama aides.  But those with deeper pockets get access to the President himself. The Times reports,

Giving or raising $500,000 or more puts donors on a national advisory board for Mr. Obama’s group and the privilege of attending quarterly meetings with the president, along with other meetings at the White House. Moreover, the new cash demands on Mr. Obama’s top donors and bundlers come as many of them are angling for appointments to administration jobs or ambassadorships.

 And from shady, it starts to get sticky:

Many traditional advocacy organizations, including the Sierra Club and the National Rifle Association, are set up as social welfare groups, or 501(c)(4)’s in tax parlance. But unlike those groups, Organizing for Action appears to be an extension of the administration, stocked with alumni of Mr. Obama’s White House and campaign teams and devoted solely to the president’s second-term agenda. 

 Change we can believe in?

Media Malpractice

Shortly after the 2008 presidential election, Libertarian radio talk show host John Ziegler produced a documentary chronicling what he saw as the biased news coverage that propelled Barack Obama to the Presidency.  I had this documentary in my Netflix cue for probably two years.  I avoided it for two reasons. One, I knew watching it would bring back all my frustrations and anger about the news media's behavior in 2008.  Two, I didn't want to watch an overly partisan, echo chamber-style documentary.  But since President Obama's reelection, the news media has been on my mind a lot, and I decided to give the film a tumble (unfortunately, it's no longer available streaming).  I use the term documentary loosely.  I still remember those innocent days when we assumed documentaries were by nature objective, or tried to be.

But for good or for ill, Michael Moore changed that and filmmakers of all political persuasions have followed his lead.  I actually don't mind politically oriented documentaries, but I think they ought to be called something else.  Too many people hear "documentary" and assume an unbiased enterprise.  Can anyone really say Bowling for Columbine or Fahrenheit 9/11 are unbiased ?  Hollywood makes this distinction, but only when the documentary's bias suits them.  For example, Davis Guggenheim produced and directed An Inconvenient Truth, which won the Academy Award for Best Documentary in 2006.  Guggenheim is a big liberal.  Last year, President Obama tapped him to direct his 17-minute reelection film, The Road We've Traveled.*  But not even Guggenheim, the man behind the Magna Carta of left-wing environmental doctrine, was safe when he dared to wander off the liberal reservation.  In 2010, he produced and directed a truly outstanding nonpolitical documentary, Waiting For Superman that was critical of, among other things, teacher's unions as a barrier to educational reform.  If you haven't seen it, stop here and go watch it right now and decide for yourself.  It's currently available streaming on Netflix.  Despite near unanimous praise from critics and viewers from all over the political spectrum, WFS wasn't even nominated. Why?  There were alleged inaccuracies.  Interesting that the Academy was suddenly so scrupulous in vetting its documentaries.  Did they run Fahrenheit 9/11 or An Inconvenient Truth through the fact checker before nominating them?

Back to Media Malpractice.  I'll start with the negative.  It's a pretty low budget documentary, not that it needs a lot bells and whistles.  It's made up almost entirely of news footage and a few interviews.  But the music is kind of rinky-dink and seems out of place at times.  There's several segments of Ziegler's media appearances to promote the film's release that are totally unnecessary.  But the biggest problem is the inclusion of an interview with Sarah Palin that is the centerpiece of the film.  The interview is really not necessary and in my view, works against, or at least distracts from the purpose of the film.  A few words about Sarah Palin.  I'm not a fan.  I  don't dislike her.  I just think she is an ineffectual and distracting voice in the Republican Party.  It's not entirely her fault.  The media has made her into such a toxic and divisive figure, she can no longer be effective. And in my view, she has made it worse in the intervening years by becoming a pundit, publicly inserting her opinion into every issue and embracing her celebrity among the right.  There is no doubt, as the film, documents, the media savaged her unfairly, but her presence in the film, reacting to footage she has never seen, and trying to explain her poor performances in interviews with Katie Couric and Charlie Gibson makes her look like a victim.  And even though I felt bad for her, the fact is that in politics, looking like a victim, even if you are one, makes you look weak.  And that's what comes across in the interview.   It was uncomfortable at times, watching her react to some of the cruel and outrageous things said about her and her family, but distracting.  The film would have been more effective without her (and shorter).

Having said that, the film still largely works because it relies primarily on news footage, and aside from narration to give context, it lets the media speak for itself.  Most of the film is designed to show the contrast in news coverage of Barack Obama versus that of John McCain and Sarah Palin.  But it also shows how the news media attacked liberal heroes like Bill Clinton and Geraldine Ferraro when they dared to criticize their chosen one.  In other words, the bias went far beyond adoring coverage of Obama.  It repeatedly covered for him when he came under criticism, sought to diffuse or ignore any damaging information that surfaced.  Another thing that is clear from the footage is how little vetting of Obama there was.  Any mention of potentially damaging actions, quotes, relationships or associations from his past were met accusations of racism, dirty politics, or focusing on things that don't matter.  Whereas with Palin, nothing was out of bounds.  Hordes of reporters descending on Wasilla, AK.  Her family, her wardrobe, her every word was the object of scorn and ridicule.  And what of Joe Biden's almost daily gaffes and idiot prone behavior?  Nothing. Even after four years, it's shocking.

The films ends with a series of interviews with twelve Obama voters chosen at random from a voting precinct on election day.  The director asks a series of questions about the the different candidates.  What the results showed is that the voters knew every negative, even petty thing about McCain and Palin, but little or nothing of the issues, and were virtually unaware of any story that reflected negatively on the Obama-Biden ticket.  The purpose of the segment was not to show that Obama voters were somehow stupid (one was a Cal Berkeley grad), but that their knowledge of politics was a  perfect reflection of what the news media offered.  It's an effective scene.

For what it is, it's a decent film, and worth watching if for no other reason than to remind us why we need a press that behaves professionally and has some regard for fairness, objectivity and accuracy.


* Narrated by the reassuring baritone of Tom Hanks, The Road We've Traveled is the gospel of Barack Obama as told by his apostles.  In this gospel, Obama, a man only in the scientific sense, single-handedly saved us from the abyss in 2009, and gave us four years of unprecedented virtue and prosperity.  And if we're brave enough; if we as a nation can bring ourselves to be worthy of his leadership, he is willing to be our President for another four years.

The Politics of Crisis

One of the most frustrating stunts in politics that is practiced by all sides, on the local, state and national level, is the gun to your head, "if you don't pass this, **insert necessary government service** will be cut/suspended/eliminated."  There's a word for that -- extortion.  Everyone has seen it. Government officials threaten citizens to pass spending measures, raise taxes, pass levies or services will be gutted.  The problem is, the services they opt to put on the chopping block are always vital services like schools, police, and fire departments whose absence would cause the most pain and/or disruption.  They never cut bureaucracies, non-vital programs, or find ways to streamline operations by eliminating waste and inefficiency.

The current sequester "crisis" is the same.  Having conceived of, and signed into law the sequester, President Obama is now demanding that congress raise taxes (after just getting new tax hikes) or he will allow the sequester cuts to kick in, which according to his rhetoric, will invite Armageddon.  Air traffic controllers, first responders, TSA workers will be laid off.  Military readiness will damaged.  Women and children will be cut from aid programs.  And it's all the Republicans' fault.  So what are these horrific cuts that threaten to undo the fabric of reality?  Annual federal spending will increase from its current $3.6 trillion to $6 trillion over the next ten years.  The sequester will cut 2.4% of that increase (click here for emphasis).  In other words, federal government spending will continue to increase (considerably) every year.

If we cannot withstand a 2.4% cut in the rate of increase over ten years, we might as well tell the European Union to save us a spot, 'cause we're DONE;  we will never be able to limit or slow the growth of, much less cut, government.

In her Wall Street Journal column, Government by Freakout, Peggy Noonan points out the problems with this style of governance, even if it works politically.

What effect do all the successive fiscal cliffs, ceilings and sequesters, have on public confidence? On the public's spirit? They only add to the sense that Washington is dysfunctional and cannot possibly help us out of the mire. 

It shows the world we lurch from crisis to crisis by habit now. This makes us look incapable and beset. 

It further sours the sourest White House-Capitol Hill relationship of modern political history. That relationship probably can't get worse—it was actually breaking news this week that the president picked up a phone and called a Republican senator—but it's not good to see no possibility of repair. 

It leaves the vulnerable feeling more anxious, and the sophisticated feeling more jerked around. The president is usually called popular, but his poll numbers are well below Bill Clinton's and Ronald Reagan's at this point in their presidencies. He's pretty much stuck at George W. Bush's levels. The president and his people overestimate his position in this 50-50 country. 

Beyond that, the president damages himself with his cleverness. At the end of the day he looks incapable of creating a sense of stability. The thing he misses as he shrewdly surveys the field is what he is: the president. He is the man people expect to lead, to be wiser. He is the one they expect to come up with a plan that is a little more than Let's Threaten Catastrophe.

The President could at any point work with Republicans to diffuse this "crisis."  But he won't.  He wants this fight.  Congressional Republicans are unpopular.  He has the bully pulpit.  Higher taxes or bust.  But I'm not so sure it will work in his favor, at least in the long term.  If the sequester kicks in, and the world doesn't end, it corrodes the Democratic mantra that every single government program, every single government dollar spent, is absolutely essential.

I don't think the President wants people catching on.

Our Unserious President

This guy is entering Bill Clinton territory.  The political calculation and utter dishonesty of President Obama is galling.  What makes him worse than any other Washington politician?  Because he was elected on the promise that he wouldn't be that guy.  The House has passed two bills to replace the sequester.  Senate Democrats have introduced a plan.  Where's the President?  Apparently he believes the Presidential campaign is still going on as he travels across the country demonizing Republicans as bad guys who only care about the rich, and refuse to let him help the American people. The President apparently doesn't remember or care he is in a divided government and seems to think his sweeping 51% victory in November (in which he received 4 million fewer popular votes and 33 fewer electoral votes than in 2008) makes him a de facto monarch and that Republicans should submit to his every decree (nevermind they were also reelected by the American people).

The President's behavior is atrocious.  First of all, to blame Republicans for the sequester when it was his idea (here and here) is scurrilous.  Second, how does he expect to solve the problem when he dictates terms to, refuses to negotiate with, and slanders the very people he must work with in order to avoid the sequester?  Finally, the President's disgusting habit of using human props, in this case "first responders" who are funded almost entirely by state and local taxes, to manipulate public opinion and hammer Republicans for cuts that were his idea which he signed into law, really is despicable.  Senator Rand Paul among others has suggested dozens of easy, painless ways to cut spending and avoid the sequester, but the President isn't interested.  He insists the only solution is to raise taxes again because we've already cut so much. Really?  Four straight $trillion deficits and huge annual spending increases.  During his state of the union address, President Obama proposed some twenty new government programs but insisted they wouldn't "add a dime to the deficit."  It's just absurd, and it demonstrates why I believe he will go down in history as a failed President.  He had a chance to deal with the issue of our time (spending and debt) and chose more big government.

A Time For Choosing

Celebrate Ronald Reagan's birthday with what is arguably the greatest political speech of the 20th Century, and in my view, the most relevant to the challenges we face today. 

Hope and Change: A Retrospective, part 5 of 5

What to you get when you combine George Washington, Denzel Washington, Jesus, Abraham Lincoln, Martin Luther King, and Neil Armstrong?  Demi Moore and Ashton Kutcher know the answer.

By the way, I'm glad it took Barack Obama for them to consider being patriotic Americans, good citizens and neighbors; to care about the planet and their fellow man. None of that was possible under George W. Bush.

Hope and Change: A Retrospective, part 4 of 5

Remember yesterday's video with kids engaged in creepy Obama worship?  So, here's the adult version.  According to these celebrities, it's OK to be proud of America... because of Barack Obama.

What a relief.

Hope and Change: A Retrospective, part 3 of 5

This video (from 2008) is just downright disturbing.  Now, I make it a policy to NEVER compare American politicians to Hitler Stalin, Lenin, or Mao.  Far too many people do this and it's not only stupid and wrong, it's irresponsible.  But I think you can make a fair comparison between a video like this, and the propaganda films of Lenin, Hitler and Mao.  All of them feature children with reverent voices joined together praising their leader in messianic fashion (you can look them up for yourself on You Tube).

We're gonna spread happiness
We're gonna spread freedom
Obama's gonna change it
Obama's gonna lead 'em.
We're gonna change it
And rearrange it
We're gonna change the world.

Again, I am in no way comparing President Obama, his beliefs or policies with these genocidal dictators, only the creepy way in which admirers revere him as as savior. Can you imagine any such circumstance where school children are singing in praise of a Conservative leader, one who has yet to win or accomplish anything of note?

Hope and Change: A Retrospective, part 2 of 5

Four years after this comical, yet altogether reverential video, you have to wonder what happened to the seemingly boundless enthusiasm Barack Obama enjoyed in 2008.

Hope and Change: A Retrospective, part 1 of 5

No matter where you stand politically, you have to admit will. i. am is a gifted musician/artist.  This is an incredibly creative and effective video.  Having said that, I find it kind of sad.  President Obama was elected, in part, as the fulfillment of the civil rights movement (despite having no connection or history with it), and the one who would unite us across racial and political lines.  Given what a disappointment he has been to even his most fervent supporters, this video just comes across as empty.  And the celebrities look (even more) silly as they sing with such reverence for the Senator from Illinois back in early 2008.

War Games

In a presentation that is both surprising, eerie and more than a little disturbing, Japanese artist Isao Hashimoto has created a time-lapse map of the 2,053 nuclear explosions that took place between 1945 and 1998.  First thought, I had no idea there were this many nuclear tests.  Second, why is France responsible for so many? And is there anywhere in the old Soviet Union that wasn't the site of a nuclear test?