Cloud Atlas

The movie starts by jumping through time.  We see Adam Ewing meet Dr. Goose on a beach in 1849, Robert Frobisher jumps out of a hotel window to avoid paying the bill in 1936, reporter Luisa Rey leaves a party and gets stuck on an elevator in 1973, publisher Tim Cavendish watches a client attack a critic in 2012, Sonmi-451 is interviewed in prison in the 22nd century, and Zachry the tribesman hides among the rocks as his companions are slaughtered by cannibals a century after the apocalypse.  It is confusing, to say the least.  It is also strange to see the same actors taking parts in each of the time periods.  Tom Hanks is Dr. Goose in 1849, he's a hotel manager in 1936, a nuclear scientist in 1973, a would-be author in 2012, a briefly seen actor on TV in the 22nd century, and a cowardly tribesman after the apocalypse.  Halle Berry, Hugh Grant, Jim Broadbent, Susan Sarandon, Hugo Weaving, Keith David, and the rest likewise have roles in most of the time periods, often with so much makeup that I didn't recognize them.  Really, who expects Hugh Grant to play a face-painted, blood-thirsty cannibal or Halle Berry to be a blonde Jew in the 1930s?

 

Eventually, the bonding agent of the various storylines comes to light.  Zachry the post-apocalyptic tribesman watches a video of Sonmi-451 the 22nd century clone who watches an old movie about publisher Tim Cavendish who reads a book submitted by reporter Luisa Rey who reads old love letters written by Robert Frobisher who reads the diary of Adam Ewing.  Also, the lead character in each story has a birthmark that looks like a shooting star.

 

The movie is quite long, only a shade under 3 hours.  Each story has a very different feel, making the transition from one to the next sometimes awkward.  There is the Pacific voyage of 1849, the drama of the 1930s, the mystery of the 1970s, the comedy of 2012, the sci-fi epic of the 22nd century, and the post-Apocalypse.  Often, the makeup fails.  Hugo Weaving is not convincing as a Korean, and Doona Bae is even less convincing as a Caucasian from 1850 or a Mexican woman from the 1970s.  However, Hugo Weaving's turn as Nurse Ratchet was funny if not convincing.

 

Doubtless, this was a joy for the actors who got to play a variety of roles - some of which were vastly against type - in one movie.  Really, how else could Hugh Grant be cast as a cannibal, Halle Berry as a blonde Jew, or Tom Hanks as an Irish thug?

 

Entertaining in its parts but not satisfying as a whole.

Perplexing Debate

Romney apparently didn't read my recent blog on Obama's foreign policy failures.  If he did, he didn't use it.  In fact, he seemed to cede foreign policy to Obama.  He let the Benghazi question slide and did some cheerleading for a few of Obama's positions.  Romney seemed to be shooting for a tie.  He was like a football team that plays a prevent defense in the last few minutes of a close game.  Clearly, he came in with the impression he has a lead and didn't want to change the momentum.

Obama was very aggressive, perhaps a bit too much so.  His worst line - which probably was viewed as his best line by partisans - was when he disparaged Romney regarding the navy, saying that we now have things called aircraft carriers where planes can land and ships that go under water.  That's a great put down on Real Time with Bill Maher but beneath the dignity of a President.  When he didn't sink into attacks on Romney, the President presented his case quite well.  Many times, I thought Obama was mopping the floor with the oddly passive Romney.  However, I was also bothered by how Obama painted a picture of foreign policy that could be refuted and Romney declined to do so.  Obama declared terrorism to be the greatest threat to the US.

Romney painted the big picture for American foreign policy, some of which I approve and some that I don't.  He doesn't want to nation build but he wants to get these Middle Eastern countries to have peaceful, growing economies.  Wow, if only someone had thought of that before.  How long has the Israel-Palestinian peace process been going?  It is unlikely the Middle East will change its ways short of being forced to change.  Force means violence and violence tends to mean war and Romney's rhetoric kept war at a safe distance.  He was all for the sanctions regime against Iran but wanted more.  The economy did come up several times as an issue for foreign policy.  An indebted nation inevitably is forced to withdraw from the world stage and Romney made that point.  Romney identified a nuclear Iran as the greatest threat to the US.

 

Romney did have the 'vision thing' while Obama offered no Obama Doctrine.   Interestingly, I think both men touched on the greatest threat to the US in their answers.  A nuclear Iran would likely provide terrorists with a nuclear device.  I'd probably lean toward an Obama win, mostly because Romney didn't engage him.  However, some have said that Romney was trying to avoid being portrayed as a warmonger, which he did quite well.  Considering that as a strategy, perhaps it could be called a tie.  By essentially promising to mostly maintain Obama foreign policy, Romney pushes the electorate to decide based on domestic issues, returning us to the first debate where he had a decisive win.  Yes, I'd tend to agree that this debate didn't paint a stark contrast and thus is unlikely to change minds one way or the other.  Even so, I still say Obama won.

Guest Blogger

free cellphones for the so-called "poor"

https://www.safelinkwireless.com/Safelink/program_info/faq/texas
check the Qualify question

family of 1, free Obamafone if you earn $16k or less
family of 4, free Obamafone if you earn $34k or less

Folks with 34k shouldnt be asked to pay $10 a month like Fred pays.
I can show my last 4 months of paystubs and get a free Obamaphone and stop paying $10/mo of my own money

Woohoo! get on that government gravy train!
Entitle me!
Entitle me!
Quick, entitle me before I get disenfranchised.
I should vote for Obama because he gave me a free cell phone

Should I continue to pay $10 for 100 minutes with Tracfone,
or get 250 minutes for free with Obamafone?

Why should I pay when liberals are trying to give me a better phone for free?  Yes, Lifeline is an old program, but FREE (no longer $6 like I used to pay for lifeline) is new as is 150% of Poverty to qualify.  When minimum wage was $5, Lifeline was $6... now the wage is $7 and Lifeline is $8, right? Wrong, its free... surprise!!

So their plan of getting everyone onto the government dole is going to work like a charm on me:  I will stop paying my own way and have the taxpayers pay my way when CLEARLY I am capable of paying for a $10 phone, as is any "Family of One" making $16k

Foreign Policy Failures

Many seem to think that Obama has done well on foreign policy.  I disagree.  Let us consider some of the events of the past four years.

Iran: When the elections in Iran appeared to have been stolen by Ahmedinejad and the people rose in protest in the Green Revolution, Obama was silent.  Would US support have aided the rebellion?  It is hard to know but considering our enmity with Iran, it was clearly a missed opportunity.  His engagement plan has demonstrably failed but he and his administration keep getting behind a podium and demanding that Iran 'live up to its international obligations' as if that will have an impact.  If Iran gets a bomb, they are unlikely to be contained by Mutually Assured Destruction as the USSR was.

Russian Reset: In an effort to win Russian support, Obama canceled planned missile defense stations in both Poland and the Czech Republic.  In the wake of this betrayal of allies, the Russians repaid by blocking sanctions against Iran and arming Bashar al-Assad the Syrian dictator.  Russia may no longer be an enemy but it is certainly a rival and should be treated as such.

 

Iraq: Obama claims success for the withdrawal that had been planned under the Bush Administration.  There had been an expectation of a continuing US presence, much like we maintained in Germany and Japan after WWII.  Instead, we had a complete withdrawal and Iraq is sliding.  It is likely that Iran is supplying arms to Syria through Iraq.  Iraq has seen a rise in violence since out departure and we have little ability to influence the course of events.

Arab Spring: Obama initially equivocated on the spread of uprisings, much as he had with the Green Revolution two years earlier.  Then he embraced the idea of toppling dictators, even though they were allied to us.  The most notable is Mubarak of Egypt, a longtime ally to the US.  The fall of Mubarak has brought the Muslim Brotherhood to power.  Egypt is on the path to be another Iran, where we let the Shah fall and got something vastly worse, both for us and for the people of Iran (watch Persepolis for a view from Marjane Satrapi, an Iranian woman who lived through it).

Libya: Gaddafi had been defanged in the wake of Saddam's capture in Iraq and was no longer a threat to the United States.  Whereas Obama allowed the Arab Spring to work its havoc without much US intervention, here he decided to take part.  Again, as with Mubarak, we have traded the bad for the worse.  The weak government cannot contain the al Qaeda-allied groups that killed our ambassador in Benghazi.  The argument in favor of this action was to prevent a massacre; that same argument could apply - with far more evidence - to the situation is Syria.  So, the intervention wasn't based on a coherent policy.

 

Afghanistan: It is obvious that our war is disintegrating.  It is becoming more difficult to trust our 'allies' among the Afghani and we are drawing down our forces for a withdrawal.  The Taliban need merely wait for our exit to once again take control and, shortly thereafter, resume support for al Qaeda or its clones.  It is hard to give Obama much grief for this failure since he was following the doomed policy of Bush.

 

Israel: Obama has repeatedly chastised our strongest ally in the Middle East as it tries to survive in an increasingly dangerous region.  The administration, which glorifies the peace process, has bungled it by demanding that Israel stop building houses in Israel.  The Palestinians were only too happy to adopt that position, stalling the peace talks.  Obama's dislike of Netanyahu is no secret.

 

Economy and Debt: Interestingly enough, the greatest damage to US foreign policy may be the state of our economy and exploding debt.  Great powers inevitably cut the military when debt service rises.  We are following the path of Great Britain but will not have a congenial cousin to take the reins as they did.  Pax Americana is heading for the rocks and President Obama isn't changing course.  In fact, he is promising a tax increase in a weakening economy.

 

Osama bin Laden: Here is the great success of the Obama Administration.  It is more of a public relations success than a strategic success.  OBL had incarcerated himself to avoid US reprisal and had kept his outside contact to a minimum.  Thus, he was essentially outside the chain of command.  He hadn't directed al Qaeda in years and had had little influence.  Killing OBL for us was similar to al Qaeda killing former President George W. Bush.  His death was a blow to morale among al Qaeda but not its command and control. 

 

Obama's foreign policy is the repeated projection of weakness.  Even when he seems to show strength (say Libya), he avoids full engagement and suffers the accusation of Leading from Behind.  Or there is Afghanistan where he pressed for a surge but planned the withdrawal on a timeline not an objective.  Wars end when you win or lose, not when a date is reached on the calendar.  His foreign policy appeases enemies and slights allies.  The US is less respected now than it was under George W Bush.

Equal Time

I read a funny headline yesterday:

Bizarre Coincidence: Democrats Get More Time in All Three Debates.

As I mentioned in a blog on the first debate, Obama had roughly 3 minutes more than Romney.  I was a bit surprised since Romney had so dominated that debate it felt like he spoke more.

In the VP Debate, Biden got a minute and a half more than Ryan.  If that's not bad enough, he badgered Ryan with constant interruptions (almost one per minute, which is impressive when Ryan spoke for less than half the time of the ninety minute debate).  More interesting still, Biden declared that he had voted against the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan though the Congressional Record shows he voted to authorize both.  The moderator, Martha Raddatz, didn't play favorites.  She interrupted Paul Ryan 31 times and Joe Biden 19 times.  Yes, it is great to have a neutral referee.

In the latest debate, Obama spoke four minutes more than Romney, despite Ms. Crowley's constant assurance that she was watching the clock to make sure the time distribution was equal.  Billed as a town hall-style debate, it was not.  Ms. Crowley had accepted questions submitted by the audience then picked the ones she wanted asked.  In a pool of 80 people, that allows considerable opportunity for the moderator to steer the debate.  Really, who would pick the question of "How are you different from George W Bush?"  Worse still, she jumped in to fact check (with the wrong facts, she later admitted) Romney's accusation regarding Benghazi but she was completely silent when Obama claimed that oil production on Federal lands was up.  She didn't attempt to redirect Obama to answer the question of  who is responsible for denying more security in Benghazi.  Much like Raddatz, she was roughly equal in interrupting the candidates: Romney 28 times and Obama 9 times.  Balance.

But back to the funny headline.  Is it any wonder that the Democrats get more time when Democrats are moderating the debates?  I used to watch the MacNeil/Leher News Hour on PBS and it was decidedly left of center.  I always enjoyed when Mark Shields and David Gergen would represent Left and Right viewpoints but somehow repeatedly agree.  It wasn't much surprise when the 'rightwing' Gergen joined the Clinton Administration.  See, balance.  President Obama was a guest at Martha Raddatz wedding but that probably didn't impact how she dealt with Obama's running mate.  Candy Crowley claimed a still anonymous Republican told her that Romney-Ryan was a 'death wish' ticket.  Clearly, she is unbiased.

 

Next week, we will have Bob Schieffer.  What are the odds that the bizarre coincidence continues and the interruption count dramatically favors the Democrat?

 

I read a pundit who suggested that Republicans demand the opportunity to choose two of the moderators in future debates.  It would be interesting to see how different the debate went if Charles Krauthammer or Bill O'Rielly were the moderator.  Why do PBS, CBS, ABC, and CNN get to moderate debates but not FNC?

Peculiar Numbers

Miracle of miracles, the unemployment rate has dropped below 8% for the first time in nearly 4 years and it happens coincidentally the month prior to the election.  But there is something funky with the numbers.  I checked out the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) and got the following numbers:

Month / Jobs Created / Unemployment Rate

1. January / 275K / 8.5%
2. February / 259K / 8.3%
3. March / 143K / 8.3%
4. April / 68K / 8.2%
5. May / 87K / 8.1%
6. June / 45K / 8.2%
7. July / 181K / 8.2%
8. August / 142K / 8.3%
9. September / 114K / 8.1%
10. October / no data / 7.8%

So, February saw the creation of 259,000 jobs and didn't budge the unemployment rate for March.  The 275K jobs in January saw a drop of 0.2% in the unemployment rate.  Now, between August (142K) and September (114K), there have been 258K jobs created but the unemployment rate drops by half a point!  So, fewer jobs than in January have had double the impact.  Something doesn't smell right here.

 

Mitt Romney has been reporting that if the same number of people were in the workforce as when Obama was inaugurated, the unemployment rate would be closer to 11%.  What he is talking about is the Labor Force Participation Rate.  It was 65.7% in January 2009 but has fallen to 63.6% as of September.  What that means is that of people between the ages of 15 and 65, 2% of them have dropped out of the labor force and are no longer counted in the unemployment numbers.

 

Then there is the growth rate.  The economy grew at a 3% rate in the first quarter (Jan to Mar) of this year and that shows in the job creation numbers.  That dropped to 2% in the second quarter, which likewise is reflected in the job numbers.  It fell to 1.3% in the third quarter and yet we have this sudden burst of employment?  Again, something doesn't make sense here.  Let's say I'm skeptical.

Romney 1, Obama 0

Unlike the last presidential debates which I could not stomach beyond the introductions, I managed to keep with this one throughout.  Here are some random observations and thoughts.

Obama hammered on Romney's tax cut plan, claiming that it would cut $5 trillion mostly for the rich and result in a $2000 tax hike on the middle class.  He repeated it again and again to become rather tiresome, especially since Romney would take his turn denying it.  He notably did not pursue the widely-broadcast Romney gaffe about the 47% whose votes he is not seeking.  Many Democrat pundits were befuddled by its absence.  Perhaps it was just me, but it seemed as though Obama was sometimes debating as if he was not the incumbent.  He noted that Romney didn't have specifics for his plan but Obama's plan - specifics or not - has clearly failed to get the economy moving.

For his part, Romney pounded on the $716 billion cut from Medicare several times.  He also touched on the $90 billion for Green Energy.  Whereas Romney was quick to counter Obama on the tax plan, Obama let these go unanswered.  Though these were the ones repeated, Romney fired volley after volley on a range of economic issues: unemployment, deficit, debt, Obamacare, etc.  Some of these came across as zingers.  Though it only got a mention, I really appreciated that Romney brought up the 10th Amendment; if we actually followed that one, the budget would be in surplus next year.

Of the two, it is obvious that Romney was well-prepared with a quiver full of arrows and a number of ready responses to predictable Obama lines of attack.  By contrast, Obama was not prepared for predictable Romney attacks and didn't have anything beyond the $5 trillion tax cut.

 

Of course, between the two, I far prefer Romney.  Recognizing that I was biased, I still thought Romney presented his case better.  It was funny how he didn't let the moderator moderate him.  Speaking of the moderator, Jim Leher seemed to frame Obama's responses on a couple of questions: I recall he asked the president to respone to Romney's assertions on deficit reduction by announcing that "you want a balanced approach."  He may have done that in both directions but this instance struck me.

 

Amazingly, though Romney dominated the debate, he actually spent less time talking.  The post-debate showed that Obama spoke for something over 42 minutes and Romney for something short of 39 minutes.  Even Democrats agree that debate one goes to Romney.

 

The next debate between them will be in a townhall format which should benefit the charismatic Obama and hinder the often wooden Romney.  Plus, expectations for Romney have just jumped while Obama's have sunk.  Thus, I expect Obama to come out much better there.

The Benefits of "Gouging"

Whenever there is a natural disaster (more often than not it seems to be a hurricane in Florida), the media decry the inevitable rise in prices that strike the affected area.  This is viewed as villainy by those charging inflated prices; the term of gouging is inevitably bandied about and some government official threatens investigations and prosecutions.  They do not realize that what they describe as 'gouging' is really a market signal to get more supply into the region quickly.

Let us consider.  Suppose that Florida is expecting a hurricane and suddenly every home owner rushes to the local Home Depot to buy ply wood to cover windows, and the local supermarket to stock up on supplies, and Radio Shack to get lots of batteries.  The problem is that there is not enough to go around.  These businesses do not have stock on hand to provide the supply demanded.  Worse, some home owners will, if the prices are unchanged, buy far more than they really need, perhaps even with thoughts of reselling at a profit to neighbors who weren't first in line.  A rise in the price forces consumers to only buy what they need for the immediate crisis and also allows the existing supply to provide for more people.

For example, suppose that Joe and his family are going to leave the area.  They plan to drive up to Georgia and wait for the storm to pass.  Though Joe has enough gas to get out of the affected area, if he sees that the gas price is unchanged he might be tempted to top off his tank.  If too many drivers did that, the people with empty tanks might find themselves stuck in the storm's path.  Now, if the price doubled, Joe would certainly not get gas when he has plenty to get to someplace with less expensive gas thus preserving gas for Tom, who is running on empty.  Tom will not fill his tank at the inflated price but will get enough to escape.

The hiked price has another benefit.  Jim in Georgia sees that bottled water is selling for double in Florida.  Thus, he buys as much as he can carry and heads south.  Yes, Jim is profiting but he is also providing the desperately needed product.  Had the price not risen, Jim wouldn't be rushing in with added supply.  Capping the price is a sure way to cause massive shortages.

Price is a market signal.  If the price goes up, it tells people that supply was insufficient to meet the demand at the lower price.  It also encourages others to enter the market and increase the supply.  It should be noted that such spikes in prices in localities are always temporary because in the long run, the market will adjust to a higher consumption and drive the prices back down.  'Gouging' only happens in the short run and brings more benefits than costs.