Trumbo

We open with some background offered in text.  Dalton Trumbo was a member of the Communist Party from 1943 to 1948.  In 1947, Trumbo's (Bryan Cranston) career is rocketing, having been signed to the most lucrative contract ever offered to a screenwriter.  Then disaster struck as the Congress started looking for communists in Hollywood.  Trumbo and others were called to testify but refused to answer the question of 'are you now or have you ever been a communist?'  Failure to answer put them in contempt of Congress.  Trumbo served 11 months in federal penitentiary after which he was blacklisted.

 

However, Trumbo continued to make a living as a writer, passing his work to writers who weren't blacklisted and getting a portion of the pay.  He also wrote under several pseudonyms.  He is shown assisting his fellow blacklistees to do the same.  During this time, two of his screenplays won Oscars. 

Hedda Hopper (Helen Mirren) is the big villain and John Wayne (David James Elliot) proves to be a fellow traveler.  Ronald Reagan is also shown testifying against Communists before the House UnAmerican Activities Committee.  Hedda is painted as a particularly foul and mean woman, eager to ruin the careers of communists or, in the case of Edward G. Robinson (Michael Stuhlbarg), those who had associated with communists.  She, not the government, is the villain in this movie.

One of the funnier moments in the movie was when Trumbo's eldest daughter - about 11 at the time - asked if she was a communist.  Trumbo offers a test.  He paints a scene where she has a sandwich and some other child does not.  What do you do?  Tell that child to get a job?  Sell the sandwich at a huge profit?  "Share," she announced.  Yes, you are a communist, her father declares.  And that is the limit of the discussion on what communism is.
 

As far as it goes, the movie tells its story quite well with both humor and drama.  The movie shows no doubts about which side is correct and brings up the First Amendment on several occasions.  Trumbo comes across as an unflinching defender of freedom of thought.  The movie closes with a conciliatory victory speech given in 1970, showing that Trumbo was a bigger, nobler man than one could really expect.

 

And now the rest of the story...

 

Almost a decade before the movie begins, Dalton Trumbo wrote an anti-war book called Johnny Got his Gun.  The book was published only 2 days after World War II commenced.  Only the month before that, Russia and Germany had signed the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, a non-aggression treaty that preceded the two powers dividing Poland between them.  Trumbo's book remained in publication until the Nazis attacked Russia.  Then, both Trumbo and his publisher pulled it.  As a Communist, he now wanted the US to get into the war to assist Russia, the only Communist state at that time.  In the wake of WWII, the Iron Curtain brought about many more Communist states in Eastern Europe, all puppets of the growing Soviet Empire.  In 1949, China fell to the Communist Mao Zedong.  The Fascists - Germany and Italy - at their peak were geographically tiny compared to what the Communists now held.

In WWII, the US liberated France, Belgium, Netherlands, et al.  Russia subjugated Eastern Europe.  Trumbo was on the Communists side!  There was no First Amendment protection in the Soviet block but Trumbo was eager to use it to allow him to propagandize for the Communists here.  His Capitalist counterpart in the Soviet Union ended up in the gulag but the United States is the bad guy.  Right.

Communism - as practiced - was the deadliest ideology of the 20th Century.  It was far deadlier than Fascism and Nazism combined.  Stalin, Mao Zedong, Pol Pot, and their ilk murdered tens of millions.  To lionize a communist propagandist just shows that most people are still unaware - by design - just how bad communism was and is.

But back to Trumbo.  The Blacklist was not some government requirement that such people not be employed.  It was Hollywood itself choosing not to associate with communists.  Freedom of association is also in the First Amendment.  Trumbo brought his troubles on himself and got off fairly easily.

Victor Frankenstein

The story opens in the circus, where a young nameless hunchback (Daniel Radcliffe) is a clown and - quite surprisingly - physician.  Yes, this hunchback has such a gift for anatomy that the circus allows him to treat injuries.  When a trapeze artist falls and is at threat of dying, the hunchback quickly diagnoses the problem and determines a fix that saves a life.  Victor Frankenstein, who is there to witness, is truly impressed.  He steals the hunchback away from the circus and makes him a partner is his great project.  Interestingly, the initial project is a chimpanzee named Gordon with parts from a variety creatures.  After a successful demonstration of the life-giving power of a good electrical jolt, the pair win a sponsor who will allow them to try something much bigger and more human.

 

The hunchback, who turns out not to be a hunchback, is given the name Igor by his new friend.  Igor was Victor's roommate but Victor refuses to elaborate.  Hmm.  For a maltreated circus clown, Igor is inexplicably brilliant and possess an encyclopedic knowledge of anatomy.  He grasps Frankenstein's ideas with ease, though often seeing the trees and ignoring the forest.  He also has a better grasp on how to act in polite company than Victor.  On top of that, it is implausible for such a gifted medical mind to have been unaware that his affliction was not a hunched back but something entirely treatable.

 

Victor (James McAvoy) is a true mad scientist.  He is full of passion and mood swings.  He might be considered manic-depressive, though mostly manic.  Wow, really manic.  He is impatient with those who cannot grasp his genius.  Unrestrained by ethics or morals, he will do whatever it takes to create life.  After all, if he can conquer death, will not that outweigh any ill done on the path to achieve it?

 

Inspector Turpin (Andrew Scott) has an uncanny knack for seeing the truth of things.  When first introduced, he demonstrates a keen ability to intuit the truth from the lies that are offered.  Though it is never explained why, Turpin is obsessed with a case that involves the theft of animal body parts that have occurred.  Though I thought I knew the reason why he was obsessed, it was never confirmed in the movie.

 

Lorelei (Jessica Brown Findlay), the saved trapeze artist, falls madly in love with Igor.  She did the same thing as Sybil in Downtown Abbey, falling for the chauffeur.  It is peculiar that Igor the clown - not a lot of skill required - was pursued as he attempted to escape the circus but Lorelei - a major attraction - was abandoned after her injury, not her first.  Her happy acquisition of a sugar daddy who has no sexual interest in her is perhaps a bit too convenient.  Like Igor, she adapts to polite society with surprising ease.
 

Of course, it wouldn't be Frankenstein without the monster.  The monster does look impressive but doesn't last.  Heck, it didn't get out of the castle to wreak havoc on the peasants.  Like much of the movie, the creation and destruction of the monster is entirely too convenient.  Too much is left nice and tidy.  However, Igor does get a letter from Victor in which Victor declares his plan to try again.  Was there a plan for a sequel?  I rather doubt this will be successful enough to see that happen.

 

The movie was fun to watch and had a surprising amount of laughs - all provided by Frankenstein, not the clown.  Go figure.  James McAvoy's wild and frantic Frankenstein was great fun.  McAvoy's Frankenstein had more energy than the lightning bolt that gave life to his monster.

Mayor Asterisk

13 months after Laquan McDonald was killed by Officer Jason Van Dyke in Chicago, the dashcam video of the incident has finally been released.  The 17 year-old was walking down the street with a knife in hand and refusing officers' orders.  Then Van Dyke arrived.  In the video, he draws his gun and suddenly Laquan is down.  Just looking at the video, I didn't understand the issue.  You run around with a knife and refuse to drop it when ordered by police, you should expect to get shot.  No, what bothered me is how he was just left to bleed.  It wasn't until I read the story that I learned that Van Dyke had emptied his 16 round clip!  Laquan was riddled with 14 bullets, the vast majority of them after he was already lying on the street.  Van Dyke has been charged with first-degree murder for the incident.

 

As it happens, Mayor Rahm Emanuel - former Chief of Staff for President Obama - was coincidentally running for reelection as mayor.  Had the dashcam video been released prior to the February election or the April run-off election, Emanuel would have had a much more difficult path to reelection.  Where he had black pastors working to get him the black vote, he might instead have seen Black Lives Matter protestors at his every campaign event.

 

The big problem here is the mishandling from the beginning.  If the video had been revealed to the public immediately and the murder charge had been levied in November of 2014, it could have been a political asset, a demonstration that the mayor was intolerant of police malfeasance.  Instead, the year long delay makes one wonder what else the mayor is keeping under wraps.  However, there is also the possibility that, even correctly handled, there might have been massive demonstrations that would have hurt Emanuel.  I suspect that is what he feared and why it took so long to come to light.

Spectre

Bond is back and so is Ernst Stavro Blofeld.  After a decades long absence, Blofeld is back as the head of Spectre though his backstory has dramatically changed.  The movie opens with Bond in Mexico City for Dia de los Muertos (Day of the Dead).  He's on a mission to kill a man.  The action that follows is ridiculous to the extreme and a return to the silliness that we saw in Quantum of Solace.  Also echoing Quantum of Solace, Blofeld's secret hideout is amazingly combustible.  Why do James Bond's villains use dynamite, hydrogen, and gasoline as construction materials?

 

Mr. Hinx (Dave Bautista) is an excellent henchmen along the lines of Odd Job and Jaws.  He is pure aggression and his dialogue is next to nil.  Where Jaws had steel teeth, Hinx has sharpened steel thumbnails, the better to gouge eyeballs.  Unlike Odd Job and Jaws, Hinx is not some grim humorless thug.  No, he spends a lot of time smiling, especially after killing someone or shooting holes in your plane.  He is also surprisingly well-dressed.  I hope to see him again in the next film.

 

Blofeld has proved a more durable villain in the movies - 8 so far - than in the novels - only appeared in 3.  In the novels, Spectre and Blofeld were introduced in Thunderball (9th novel).  Bond killed Blofeld in You Only Live Twice (12th novel).  The movies opted to replace the Soviets with Spectre right from the start so that Blofeld and his fluffy white cat appear in almost every Sean Connery Bond film.  I did like how Blofeld (Christoph Waltz) is made the architect of the previous 3 movies.  The mysterious Quantum group was just a facet of Spectre and the chief villains in each of those films was just a minion of Blofeld.  Blofeld is mostly unemotional and unmoved by whatever is happening.  He is never angry and rarely shows anything beyond mild amusement.  He plays a good host but it is just an act.  Reminded me a bit of Jake Gyllenhaal in Nightcrawler.

 

The Daniel Craig period as Bond has seen a lot of more depth to the character and very few of the post-kill witticisms.  In Casino Royale, we saw his first love - Vesper Lynd - and her death.  Quantum of Solace was basically a waste though it does fold into the storyline of Spectre.  In Skyfall, we see his childhood home and learn how he was an orphan.  Here in Spectre, we learn of Hans Obenhauser, a man who adopted him after his parents' death.  This was only ever mentioned in the short story Octopussy in the novels but is greatly expanded here.  Wow, I really didn't see that coming.

 

Another interesting development is that this Bond is part of a team.  M (Ralph Fiennes), Moneypenny (Namoie Harris), Q (Ben Whishaw), and Bill Tanner (Roy Kinnear) have sizeable roles that span the movie, not just the opening office bit when 007 is dispatched on his mission.  Part of this has to do with how the modern world works.  As Bond can't be an awesome computer hacker - very important in modern intelligence - that facet goes to Q.  Also, the proliferation of cellphones means that the office is always available, thus contact to M or Moneypenny is as easy as pie.  This is a departure from the novels but I welcome it.

 

A rarity for Bond movies, none of the Bond girls died.  Daniel Craig has not shown himself to be the lady's man of previous Bonds.  Though he has a beauty with him at the start, he leaves her in the room before anything happens and never returns.  His only love interest here is Madeleine Swann (Lea Seydoux), who appears not to be just another ship passing in the night.

 

All in all, a fun Bond flick with more weight to it than others in the franchise.  The series has moved into an overarching storyline, fitting it more to the mold of the Borne movies or Harry Potter.

Turkey Shoot

The Turks have shot down a Russian fighter jet and NATO asks why didn't Turkey just escort the jet out of Turkish airspace.  The evidence in the aftermath is that Russia only just clipped a strip of land that projects - like a peninsula - into Syria.  The incursion was only a few seconds.  Really, Turkey, why so trigger happy?

It seems that Russian jets have been making a habit of drifting into Turkish airspace.  Here's a story from October 6th:

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/oct/06/nato-chief-jens-stoltenberg-russia-turkish-airspace-violations-Syria

Moreover, it should be remembered that Turkey and Russia have a long and troubled history.  They have been at war with one another 12 times in the past 450 years.  Much of the Balkans were lost during wars with the Russians.  Though it has been nearly a century since they last clashed in war during World War I, they remained belligerent toward one another.  Turkey became part of NATO during the Cold War, continuing the adversarial relationship.  Russia is just as aware of this history and should have known that repeated poking would provoke a response.

 

Though no fan of Erdogan, I'm generally on Turkey's side here.  Whether or not there were warnings this time around, there had been warnings in the recent past.  This was not some passenger plane that was a little off course, this was an armed fighter.  Russian pilots dismissed them and have paid the price.  I am willing to bet that there will be an end to the airspace incursions.

 

That aside, this is the first time in over half a century that a Russian plane was shot down by a NATO member.  Precisely this was feared when Russia joined the Syrian Civil War.  Russia and NATO allies have different objectives in Syria and it is inevitable that there will be clashes.  It is unlikely this will be the only one.

 

Theodore Roosevelt said that one should speak softly and carry a big stick.  He was accused of being a jingoistic warmonger.  However, there were no wars during his presidency.  In fact, he won the Nobel Peace Prize for negotiating a peace between Russia and Japan during the Russo-Japanese War (1905).  He sent the Great White Fleet - consisting of 16 battleships and various escorts - around the world to display American naval power.  With such an outward show of strength, the warmonger never had a war.  That was by design.

 

By contrast, Barack Obama has shown nothing but weakness and withdrawal.  He talks of smart diplomacy and the right side of history but the conflicts multiply and our enemies grow stronger.  For the last 7 years, we have negotiated with adversaries (Iran, Russia) and undercut our allies (Poland, Israel).  The incident on the Turkish border is a direct result of the catastrophic foreign policy of the Obama Administration.  Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton shares in this disaster and promises to stay the course.

Ouroboros

An ouroborous is a snake that eats its own tail.  Such creatures have existed in many mythologies though the most noted is probably Jormungandr, the Norse serpent that encircles the world.  It is fated to slay Thor during Ragnarok (Norse Doomsday) while also being killed by the thunder god.  I mention this because the Democratic Party is starting to resemble an Ouroboros.  A few months ago, I noted here that most Democratic Presidents would be found lacking as far as racial sensitivity was concerned.  At that time, the problem was Thomas Jefferson and Andrew Jackson.  Now the issue is Woodrow Wilson.

http://dailycaller.com/2015/11/18/princeton-students-take-over-presidents-office-demand-erasure-of-woodrow-wilson/

As more and more Democratic Presidents are attacked by Democratic constituencies, the foundation will erode.  Recall, it was the Democratic Party that defended segregation and Jim Crow into the 1960s.  It was Orval Faubus - Democrat Governor of Arkansas - who opposed racial integration and Dwight Eisenhower - Republican President - who federalized the national guard to enforce Brown vs. Board of Education.  Eisenhower also signed the Civil Rights Acts of 1957 and 1960.  Today, the only one anyone remembers is the Civil Rights Act of 1964.  It should be noted that Strom Thurmond - then a Democrat - filibustered the 1957 Civil Rights act for more than 24 hours, setting a record for a one man filibuster.  What about the infamous Bull Connor?  Yeah, he was a Democrat.  Governor George "segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever" Wallace was a Democrat.

 

The Ku Klux Klan was an ally of the Democratic Party from its founding, achieving its highest membership in the mid 1920s.  Let's look at Klansmen who entered politics:

Harry Truman, Democrat President: Briefly dabbled with the Klan in the mid 20s, when it was at its peak.  If he did join (it is in doubt), it was in order to get votes for his reelection campaign of 1924.

Robert Byrd, Democrat Senator: Achieved title of Kleagle and Exalted Cyclops but left organization in 1940s.

Hugo Black, Democrat Supreme Court Justice: Joined in early 1920s to gain votes.

Theodore Bilbo, Democrat Senator: Stated in interview that once a Klansman, always a Klansman.  One had to take an oath to that effect.

Bibb Graves, Democrat Governor: Joined to improve electoral chances.

Clifford Walker, Democrat Governor: Revealed as Klansman in 1924.

George Gordon, Democrat Congressman: First Grand Dragon of Tennessee.

Benjamin Stapleton, Democrat mayor of Denver: Appointed Klan members to most positions in municipal government.

David Duke, Democrat (pre-1989) & Republican (post-1989) Legislator: Democrats' favorite Klansman because he has an R after his name these days.  According to Duke, he left the KKK in 1980, which puts him in the Democrat column.

Truman is going to have to go.  Half the government buildings in West Virginia are named for Robert Byrd; need to rename them all.  Democrats prior to the 1960s are almost certainly going to be unacceptable to the Black Lives Matter crowd.  The ones after 1960s should also be unacceptable but thanks to the deft political skills of LBJ and a compliant media, everyone now thinks that it was the Republicans - party of Lincoln, the party founded to oppose slavery - who were the slave owners and segregationists.

 

The Democrats have championed Political Correctness and been only too happy to attack minor incidents in their opponents' past as a reason such people should be reviled.  They never expected this to be used against them, especially by those they had inculcated with PC.  Oh, the irony.  The poetic justice.  I am curious to see how much more this ouroboros is able to devour itself.

Illegal Immigrants can also be Terrorists

Apparently, some of those refugees that President Obama wants to admit to the country over the objection of half the governors are impatient.  Yes, they decided to cross the border independent of the president's demands for Syrian asylum:

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/11/18/report-8-syrians-caught-at-texas-border-in-laredo/

Keep in mind that these are the ones we caught.  Recall that 10 to 20 million - perhaps more - illegal immigrants have already sneaked into the country.  These are the people that George W. Bush, Barack Obama, JEB, Hillary Clinton, Marco Rubio, et al. can hardly wait to legalize via amnesty.  Let's do a bit of calculation here.  Back in 1986, three million were granted amnesty, so this current crop of 10 to 20 million (or more) have crossed the borders since then.  Say 30 years, just for a nice round number.  Also, let's stick to the 10 to 20 million range.  That means anywhere from 330 thousand to 670 thousand foreigners manage to sneak across our borders EVERY year since 1986.  On the low side, that is about a thousand a day who are successful!  And we just caught 8 Syrians.  How many did we NOT catch?  I'm sure it's nothing to worry about.

The Nuance of JEB

Yet again, Jeb has taken a stand at odds with the people who must vote for him if he is to win the Republican nomination.  While Republican, and even Democrat, governors are lining up in the wake of the Paris attacks to refuse to accept Syrian refugees and Speaker Ryan is suggesting a pause in such refugees, Jeb announces that he would not stop accepting refugees.  No, he says he would deal with the problem in Syria.  Gee, that's great Jeb but, with Obama as president, that isn't going to happen.  Deal with what is, not what you wish it was.  Again and again, Jeb appears to be completely oblivious to the current political realities.  He calls illegal immigration an 'act of love' and looks ready to try to push his brother's failed 2007 Amnesty.  The voters keep announcing what they want and Trump espouses it.  Voila!  Trump is in the lead.  Jeb then bashes Trump and his poll numbers sink further.  Despite repeated restarts of his campaign, he remains tone deaf to his electorate.

 

Jeb is ever eager to announce his prior gubernatorial experience in a year when candidates with no political experience at all are leading by double digits.  The voters have seen the wonders worked by 'experienced' politicians with decades in government and the results speak for themselves.  Trump and Carson, two men with zero elective experience lead the field.  In such an environment, running on elective experience is counter-productive but Jeb still hasn't figured that out.

 

It is time for Jeb to join fellow governors Bobby Jindal and Scott Walker and bow out.  Jeb is in the mold of Romney, Dole, and McCain.  They were all moderate Republicans with plenty of experience and no desire to attack the Democrat nominee.  Jeb has more venom for Trump in the primary than he will ever have for Hillary in the general election.  That is a losing strategy.  Even his brother would likely have lost in 2004 if not for the Swift Boat Veterans attacking Kerry.  Given a choice between the perfect candidate who will lose and an imperfect one who will win, choose the winner.

Crashing the Party

During the tenure of George W. Bush as President, the Republican party suffered down the ticket.  Nine Senate seats (and control of the Senate in 2006), 42 House seats (plus control of the House in 2006), 7 governorships, and 324 seats in the various legislatures & assemblies through the states. which saw the switch of control in 13 chambers.  When the Democrats took the Presidency in 2008, James Carville looked at this recent history and viewed it as a generational switch to the Democrats, a new period like that from 1932 to 1952 of Democrat control of the Presidency.

 

During the tenure of Barack Obama as President, the Democrats have suffered down the ticket.  13 Senate seats (and control), 69 House seats (and control), 11 governorships, and 913 legislators at the state level, shifting control in 30 chambers.  President Obama has been a disaster for his party's elective offices.  Will anyone, other than me or someone on FOX News, ask Carville about his prediction?

 

This clearly demonstrates that Obama is not as popular as he is portrayed in the media.  Following his prescriptions for the nation, his party had suffered massive setbacks, far worse than the supposedly hated Bush inflicted upon his party.  If the Republicans manage to retake the Presidency and the new president is just as unpopular as Bush was, the Democrats will still be in the hole from where they stood in 2008, especially at the state level.  This shift in power at the state level does not bode well for the 2020 gerrymandering that will greatly impact the Congress from 2020 to 2030.

 

Looking at this, it makes one wonder why the Republicans in Congress are so cowed by the President.  With all this growing strength, why the continued spinelessness?

A Tale of Two Stories

French TV BLASTS Racist Republicans for Blaming Attacks on Refugees

http://usuncut.com/world/france-24-blasts-republicans-blaming-attacks/

At least one man linked to Paris attacks registered as refugee

http://news.yahoo.com/two-men-linked-paris-attacks-registered-migrants-greece-195255102.html

I did enjoy how the first story claims to have the correct response to Islamaphobia.  Of course, I don't think there is any such thing as Islamaphobia.  Let's look at the definition of a phobia:

A phobia is a type of anxiety disorder, usually defined as a persistent fear of an object or situation in which the sufferer commits to great lengths in avoiding, typically disproportional to the actual danger posed, often being recognized as irrational.

 

There is nothing irrational about fearing Islam, even for a Muslim.  Sunnis and Shi'ites have been slaughtering one another for centuries.  ISIS is actively seeking to infiltrate other countries to commit exactly the sort of atrocities that just occurred in Paris.  Certainly, the governments of the West have not gone to disproportionate lengths to avoid Islam.  No, they view Muslims as victims who need special treatment and understanding.  It is obvious that the West has failed to take adequate precautions against Islam.  There is no phobia when the fear is entirely justified.  Of course, the term was created to allow Islam access to victimhood and the right to not be offended.  Ah, multiculturalism and political correctness, is there no end to your bounty?

 

Though Europe is up in arms now, I fully expect this to die down and things to drift back to the status quo.  After all, the US absorbed a 9/11 attack and quit fighting without winning.  Europe will do the same.  It will have to get much, much worse before the West commits to victory.

The Rising Tide of Terrorism

"We have contained them."

- President Barack Obama regarding ISIS, Good Morning America this morning

A few hours later, Paris erupted in violence with Muslim men screaming Allah Akbar as they gunned down and blew up more than a hundred French citizens in various locations in the city.  It is not yet known if the attacker were faux refugees from Syria.  In February, ISIS did declare plans to infiltrate Europe with terrorists.  Mission accomplished?  How many hundreds of thousands of refugees have already arrived in Europe and what portion are terrorists.  Germany has seen many new refugees vanish from venues provided to house them.  Might some of those have made their way across the mostly borderless Eurozone to join the attack?

 

I don't keep up with French politics and therefore don't know what has been done in the wake of Charlie Hebdo attacks in January of this year.  I would say that the evidence shows that not enough was done.  At the moment, a curfew has been imposed and the borders have been closed.  But the problem is already inside the borders.  France has a Muslim population of 6% as of 2007.  Where might that stand now?  What percentage of those 4 million Muslims are likely to be 'radicalized?'  Even at the low number of 1% of them, that is 40,000 Jihadists already within the borders.  Sadly, the number is higher than 1%.  That's a big problem.

 

Elsewhere in Europe, England is 5% Muslim, Spain is 3.7% Muslim, Italy 2.6%, Sweden 5.1%, and - prior to the big push - Germany was 1.9%.  This is not to accuse all Muslims of being terrorists but the terrorist come from this population.  The Lutherans, the Roman Catholics, and the Anglicans aren't causing the problem.

 

With this in mind, the US is almost 1% Muslim and this is the fastest growing migrant population.  We have already seen radicalization in the population and yet the president is pushing to have 10,000 Syrian refugees resettled in the US.  The Tsarnaev brothers (Boston Marathon bombers) came to the US as refugees.

 

Like it or not, there is a religious war in progress and one side doesn't realize it.  The aggressors use religious words and phrases: Infidel, Allah Akbar, Great Satan.  The timing could hardly be worse with the West suffering a civilization breakdown with the rise of multiculturalism (no culture is better than another), political correctness (self-censorship), and victim culture (large subsets of the population are now victims who have a 'right' to not be offended).  Heck, Jihadists have been adopted into the victim culture, an oppressed group that we must understand, not destroy.

 

Sadly, like we have done as 9/11 has faded further into history, France will likely get into the fray briefly and then lapse back into apathy.  I especially don't expect President Hollande to become the next de Gaulle.  These attacks will certainly benefit the more nativist parties throughout Europe.  Look for Hungary's example to spread.

What a Differnce Party-Affiliation Makes

It appears that the media is going through Ben Carson's biography Gifted Hands (1990) with a fine toothcomb in order to demonstrate that he is not qualified for the Presidency.  So far, there have been stories about his informal invitation to attend West Point, his self-reported but unconfirmable (by the media) violent youth, his meeting of General Westmoreland, and even his claim that he ushered some white students into a lab to protect them from a riot in the wake of Martin Luther King Jr.'s assassination.  All of these take place in the mid to late 60s.  I suspect more such attacks will commence when the reporters read the chapters that cover the 70s and 80s.  This is fine.  Past writings are fair game and a politician should be made to clarify or defend such writings.

 

Of course, Ben Carson is not the first black man to run for president who had a biography in his past.  Indeed, Barack Obama had two biographies: Dreams from My Father (1995) and The Audacity of Hope (2006).  Between these two books, Obama admits drunk driving, regular use of marijuana in his teens, use of cocaine, a communist mentor, a political kickoff at the home of a former terrorist, and admiration for a reverend who 'damned' America in a sermon.  Oddly, the media was mostly disinterested in these biographies and the revelations therein.  Yes, he had to answer for Reverend Wright in a speech where he placed Wright's comments in historical context.  After that, the matter was dropped by the media.  Interestingly, Hillary Clinton grabbed hold of it in a later debate and said that Wright's anti-American sermon immediately in the wake of 9/11 was intolerable.  Further, she pointed out that we don't chose our family but we do chose our church.  John McCain gave Obama a pass on Reverend Wright and went on to lose the election.

 

A Democratic candidate admitted crimes and associations with communists and terrorists and the media shrugged.  Nothing to see here.  A Republican candidate - at worst - boasts of events in his youth and is branded a liar!  No double-standard at all.

Bernie Sanders: Incompetent Campaigner

After the Democrat debate, Jim Webb and Lincoln Chaffey dropped out of the race, which left only Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders, and Martin O'Malley.  Thanks to Bernie announcing that he didn't care about Hillary's "damned emails," he took character off the table as a reason to choose between them.  If character is not an issue, then it comes down to policies.  Hillary and Bernie voted the same almost 80% of the time while they were in the Senate together.  Policy-wise, they are pretty close.  Since the debate, Hillary has made up lost ground.  In October, she was polling at 46% but has risen 10 points.  Sanders has also risen but only by 4 points to 31%.  O'Malley finally registers in the polls at a paltry 2%.  This according to the FOX News poll.

 

If Sanders is serious about winning the nomination (I don't think he is), he has to make the case that he is a better candidate.  With his views relatively close to Hillary's stated views, he needs to tack toward something that differentiates them.  Those 'damned emails' are a real scandal that has deserved far more attention than they have gotten.  However, if a Republican mentions them, it is instantly viewed as partisan and therefore discarded by Democrat voters.  Bernie could make a bipartisan case and deliver a serious hit on her ethics and honesty.  Sanders is essentially an isolationist as far as foreign policy, so he could make hay with Hillary's Libyan adventure.

 

"We Came, We Saw, He died."

Hillary Clinton on Muammar Gaddafi

 

She was proud of the intervention then, but in the aftermath of Benghazi, this is a monumental failure waiting for an opponent to exploit.  It is almost certainly going to come up in the Presidential Debates if Hillary is the nominee.  Sanders may as well use it, if only to prepare her for the inevitable attacks later.  After all, it was Al Gore who first used Willie Horton against Dukakis.  How about the Russian Reset; are things going swimmingly between us and Putin thanks to her smart diplomacy?  Maybe she can dump that disaster on Kerry.  Hillary was proud of the amount of miles she traveled during her tenure as Secretary of State; what is her legacy?  Treaties?  Ally-building?

 

Maybe her time as Secretary of State was unimpressive but she still has her time in the Senate.  She voted in favor of invading both Afghanistan and Iraq.  Of course, like many Democrats, she recanted on Iraq and voted against the 2007 Iraq surge.  Her most famous quote as Senator is probably this:

I am sick and tired of people who say that if you debate and you disagree with this administration, somehow you're not patriotic, and we should stand up and say, "WE ARE AMERICANS AND WE HAVE A RIGHT TO DEBATE AND DISAGREE WITH ANY ADMINISTRATION!"

I completely agree though I don't think she does.  Disagreement with Obama has too often been labeled as racism and disagreement with her is sexist.  In any case, the accomplishments in the Senate are not impressive.  I know of no legislation with her name on it (I count that as an achievement since I would rather not have new laws but her base disagrees with me) and her voting record is unremarkable.  Those votes for Afghanistan and Iraq are a big problem for the base but Bernie is letting them slide.

 

Hillary is a weak candidate.  She is such a weak candidate that a little-known senator in his first term was able to defeat her for the nomination in 2008.  In much the way Sanders is treating her now, she did not attack Obama despite some easy and obvious issues.  McCain opted to follow Hillary's losing strategy and, unsurprisingly, lost.  Now, Sanders is no Barack Obama but if he made an issue of Hillary's lack of achievement, her perceived untrustworthiness, and her scandals, he could eek out the nomination.  I don't think he'll do that, in which case I suspect he has already resigned himself to losing.  However, even in loss he can win influence.  Hillary parleyed her loss into Secretary of State.

 

I've seen a meme on Facebook that congratulated Sanders for dismissing the 'damned emails,' calling him a gentleman for it.  Sad to say, but gentlemen lose elections.  Bob Dole was a gentleman.  John McCain was a gentleman.  Mitt Romney was a gentleman.  Romney was savaged by the Obama campaign, made responsible for the death of a former employee's wife, painted as a bully for an incident from high school, falsely accused of not paying his taxes, and on and on.  Yes, it would be nice if elections had some sort of Marquis of Queensbury rules but they don't.  If you can't reply in kind, you're probably going to lose.  Of course, since Sanders is playing the gentleman and also losing, Hillary is content to have a 'civil' primary campaign.  But if the situation was reversed, Hillary would not let an email scandal or the like be ignored.

Keystone XL Pipeline

After a 7 year review and only days after Canada requested that the approval process be placed on hold, President Obama rejected the XL pipeline for environmental reasons.  Of course, the best thing for the environment would have been to approve the pipeline.  How could that be?

First, the Canadian oil sands are going to be drilled and burned regardless of our decision.  Therefore, if it is going to be exploited, we should be looking to make it as clean as possible.  With the US rejecting it, Canada will instead have to build a pipeline to British Columbia and ship it to China.  China does not have a record of environmental friendliness; there is a reason so many Chinese are wearing dust masks in the smog-clogged cities.  As the US is shutting coal plants, China is building them at a rapid clip.  Gallon for gallon, the oil would produce a lot less pollution if the US refined and burned it than any other option.  Again, if it is going to be exploited, our best option from an environmentalist viewpoint is to route it to the cleanest option.

 

Second, as the oil sands are going to be used, someone is going to build a pipeline and profit from it.  Either it is going to British Columbia or to Houston.  If it goes to BC, the US gets little if any economic benefit from it.  On the other hand, if it goes to Houston, the United States will build the pipeline and get value-added benefit for transporting and processing it.  Refusing the project does not stop it, it only means the US economy will not benefit from it.

 

Third, there are already half a million miles of oil and natural gas pipelines crisscrossing the United States.  Another two thousand miles is a miniscule increase in the overall network.  Moreover, the safety record of pipelines is much better than the alternative means of transport: trains or trucks.  Over the years, I've seen lots of stories about hazardous spills from overturned trucks and derailed trains but I can't recall any related to broken pipelines.

 

It took 7 years to come to the wrong factual decision.  However, it does satisfy the greens who are a major part of the Democrat base.  This was a political decision, not a practical or rational one.

Jindal's Misconception

Governor Jindal of Louisiana has challenged Senator Cruz of Texas to a debate on Obamacare.  Politically, this is a shrewd move.  Cruz (10.5%) polls much higher than Jindal (0.7%) and Cruz has also declared that he is willing to do as many debates as possible.  However, his choice of debate topics is risky.

“You get Ted Cruz who wants to shut down the government, but he’s never even come up with his own plan,” Jindal said. “We’ve written our own plan and campaigned on it, rather than just complaining about Obamacare.”

I have not read Jindal's alternative to Obamacare but, whatever it may be, it will remain an overstep of Constitutional authority.  The federal government has no place in healthcare.  There is no amendment, no clause, no delegated power on the subject.  As such, the Tenth Amendment returns it to the states or the people; the federal government should be silent on the issue.  States are another matter.  If Bobby Jindal wanted to develop a healthcare law for Louisiana, that's fine by me.  Oregon and Massachusetts both had healthcare laws prior to Obamacare.  Medicare and Medicaid remain intact.  This is likely the argument that Cruz will offer.  Replacing one unconstitutional law with another - even if it is better and less mandatory - would still be wrong.  Healthcare should return to the states, counties, cities, or even individuals to decide.  How is Jindal going to reply to that?

 

Trust in government is at a low ebb and proposing a new government program, even to replace an unpopular one, is the wrong path to take this election season.  The voters don't want the NSA to listen to them a little less, they want the NSA to not listen at all.  If you simply repeal Obamacare, all returns to what it was beforehand, which was much less expensive than now.  The pendulum is swinging back from big intrusive government toward smaller, hands-off government, most especially among Republican primary voters.

 

I like Bobby Jindal but I don't think this will improve his standing.  Unless some of the higher tier candidates crash and burn, Jindal isn't going anywhere this time around.

Why the Terrorists are Winning

Just read an interesting article about an atheist professor who gladly criticizes Christianity, Judaism, Mormonism, but steps gingerly around Islam.  Why?  Fear of reprisals.

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/penny-starr/atheist-okay-disparage-christians-islam-limits-because-fear

With previous enemies, the United States has been only too happy to demean and dehumanize them.  Watch some of the Disney cartoons that were anti-axis.  The Japanese were depicted in a way that is now considered extremely racist.  There was no fear of upsetting Hitler, Mussolini, or Emperor Hirohito.  They were the enemy.  In war, it is often necessary to dehumanize the enemy lest the horror of what is being done cripple the war effort.  There is a reason that Muslims say that Jews are descended from pigs and America is the Great Satan.

I am not proposing that we start some propaganda campaign that vilifies all Muslims but we sure as heck should not be afraid to merely point out some obvious issues.  As the article notes, Muslim bakeries also refused to make a cake for a gay wedding but there was no firestorm of protest.  Why not?  Fear.  You want to see a real War on Women?  Go to a Muslim country and take a look at the Burqas and that women can't leave the house unescorted by a male relative.  Driving a car?  Certainly not in Saudi Arabia.  Gay rights?  Ha!  ISIS tosses gays from tall buildings to their death.  Iran publicly hangs gays from cranes.  But George W. Bush kept telling us that Islam is a religion of peace.

 

Arabic is the fastest growing language group in the United States.  Tens of thousands of Syrians are coming to America thanks to Obama's brilliant Middle East strategy.  This only serves to give the professor growing cause to be fearful.  Several of the crazed gunmen in recent years were legal Muslim immigrants.  The Boston Marathon Bombers were Muslim immigrants who were on welfare!  We were supporting them with tax dollars while they were planning to kills us!  The Chattanooga shooter was a legal Muslim immigrant.  More than a dozen others have been arrested before they were able to carry out plots against America.  This after we created a Department of Homeland Security.

 

In cases like these, deport the rest of the family.  If this is the sort of fruit that these immigrants are bearing, that family tree needs to be uprooted and sent packing.  Of course, that won't happen until the problem gets much, much worse.

 

The US has not seen the sort of assassinations of critics of Islam that have occurred in Europe, Africa, and Asia.  Professor Zuckerman is overly cautious.  However, it is only a matter of time before it arrives on our shores, all the more likely thanks to our suicidal immigration laws.  In the long game, Islam is stealing a march (as Wellington said of Napoleon).  Why kill us now if they can demographically overwhelm us in several decades?  Europe is well on the way to being Eurostan.

Distrust the Candidate

Immigration is one of the biggest issues of this election season and most of the Republicans are on the wrong side of the debate.  Jeb Bush and Hillary Clinton have essentially the same view on immigration despite being from rival parties.  Marco Rubio, who is in the process of unseating Jeb as the establishment's preferred candidate, tried to get amnesty passed several years ago but has since disavowed it.  Sort of.  He has declared that he would not reverse Obama's Dreamer Act; that would be the one that Congress declined to pass into law but the president enforced it anyway.  Hey, faithfully execute the laws is so passé.  Basically, Rubio has shown his cards.  He is going to claim to be a border hawk and against illegal immigration until - should he win - he is inaugurated.  Then, hello amnesty!  Too many Republicans have a short-sighted view on immigration.

 

The fastest growing immigrant group is Muslims.  Islam is entirely incompatible with the First Amendment.  Rather than forcing new immigrants to live under the rules that they knew existed when they chose to immigrate here, we are seeing self-censorship of anything that might upset Muslims.  Those who don't practice self-censorship are the bad guys in most media reporting.  "If you hadn't drawn that cartoon of Muhammad, you wouldn't have been shot.  It's your own damn fault!"  There will come a time when an area is majority Muslim and it will vote for Sharia law.  This is a when, not an if.  Muslim immigration has done wonders for Paris and Stockholm but I'm sure it will work out much better for us.

 

Rubio probably thinks that because he is Hispanic, he will benefit from an Amnesty.  He is delusional.  Amnesty is Republican suicide.  Ever notice how the Democrats are so concerned that Republicans will never win the White House again if they don't change their views on illegal immigration?  If the other party were ruining its chanced to compete with mine, I certainly wouldn't mind and absolutely wouldn't give them advise that might harm my party's chances.  Sure, the Democrats only want what's best for Republicans.  BS!  Republicans, being stupid, have swallowed this nonsense and are prepared to give millions of votes to the Democrats by passing some form of amnesty.

 

Amnesty is an existential threat to the party and yet most of the candidates are in favor.  Few have learned from history.  Republicans lost California thanks to the last amnesty.  Lose one more big state and their presidential prospects will vanish for many years thereafter.

 

This is why Trump still dominates.  Carson and Cruz are on the same page with him but Trump is the one who trail blazed the issue and he may ride it all the way to the Presidency.

The Martian

The movie opens with 6 astronauts already on Mars, busy doing their various research.  Mark Whatney (Matt Damon) is happily noting the consistency of the dirt.  He is the mission botanist.  It is then that a sandstorm is spotted with sufficient severity that the mission needs to be aborted.  During the evacuation, Whatney is struck by debris and thrown into the darkness.  With all signs indicating he is dead and the storm threatening to topple their only means back to space, the other astronauts lift off.  When Whatney awakens to an alarm on his suit, he soon discovers his dire situation.  He has no way to communicate with Earth and his food supply is limited.  It will be four years before another manned-mission arrives and he has less than a year of food.  And so begins the problem solving.

 

The movie is like Apollo 13 on steroids.  Houston, we have lots of problems!  But, step by step, inch by inch, Whatney overcomes his problems.  And new ones arise.  With the notable exception of the storm that starts the ball rolling, the science is great.  It really did have that Apollo 13 feel as Whatney and NASA worked through every problem, figuring how to put a square peg in a round hole.  The geek references were always fun; the Council of Elrond was played quite nicely, especially since Boromir (Sean Bean) was in attendance.

 

Though the cast is extensive, the movie is entirely focused on Whatney.  Where Ed Harris shared dominance with Tom Hanks in Apollo 13, in this movie, everyone else was secondary.  Looking at the billing, it is surprising that Kristen Wiig was listed third when she had such a minor role.  Here is a movie about making tough decisions or solving difficult problems; her character did neither.

 

It is a long movie but never boring.  Thumbs up.