Pyramids

The West has charted a course for its destruction and appears incapable of changing course as the doom becomes ever more obvious.  Having instituted programs such as Social Security and Medicare, the government unwittingly created a disincentive to have children.  Back in the old days, a kid was an extra worker on the farm.  Later still, the children that survived to adulthood became the caregivers for their parents.  Once the government promised to make other people's children pay for your retirement, the benefit of having children greatly diminished.  The fertility rates among Western countries have fallen while life expectancy has skyrocketed.  There are no longer enough workers to support the ever-expanding pool of government-funded retirees.  What to do?  There were two choices: wean the people off the unsustainable model because it is a Ponzi scheme or import more workers to take up the slack for a generation or two.  Without exception, every Western country has chosen the second option.  Now, decades into the process, the system remains unsustainable but is now made worse by vast populations that have not adopted Western values.  In Europe, these populations are strongly opposed to Western values.  These government pyramid schemes can continue for a bit longer, certainly long enough for the current batch of politicians to secure their futures while dooming the nations they 'represent.'

 

As I say, the doom is obvious and becomes more obvious with each passing year.  In Europe, fringe parties are gaining traction because the mainstream parties have steered the Titanic into the iceberg and are responding with nothing more significant that rearranging the deck chairs.  In the United States, the situation is sufficiently dire that Donald Trump is trouncing the mainstream version of the Republican Party.  Even among the Democrats, a socialist is providing far more of a challenge to Hillary Clinton than would ever have been thought possible.  Years of frustration with the government has led to this and it is only going to get worse.  No matter who wins, much of the country is going to be furious.  Expect another massive wave election in 2018 and more rumblings of Article V Conventions by the States.  It is going to get bumpier and more contentious as more power migrates to Washington.  Supreme Court nominations are going to be near impossible now that it has assumed the role of culture police - gay marriage in all 50 states, voters be damned.  Fasten your seatbelts!

Who is paid too much?

This article points out that college presidents have a higher average salary - by a factor of more that 2 - than CEOs.  Look at the skyrocketing student loan debt!  Why aren't we calling college presidents greedy?  Of course, Hillary Clinton earned more than triple what your average CEO gets by delivering a single speech at Goldman Sachs.  That must have been some speech!  I'd like to see a transcript of a $650,000 speech but Hillary has thus far refused to release it.  I'll bet it was all about how she was planning to wreck the unfair Wall Street money machine just like Bernie would have told them.  Right?  Yes, her keen insights have certainly been worth the money and this was in no way a pay-off to a potential future president.  No, no, no.

 

It is hard to complain that CEOs earn too much and then overlook college presidents.  Or Hillary Clinton.

Deadpool

Deadpool opens with a freeze-frame exploration of an SUV mid-tumble on the highway while a half dozen men within are battling the red-clad Merc with a Mouth.  Credits appear, offering only descriptions, not names.  Thus, the movie stars British Villain, CGI Character, and Hot Chick among others.  Of course, we also see a People Magazine with Ryan Reynolds on the cover as Sexiest Man Alive.  The film is rife with such silliness, which quite befits the character.  From exploring this frozen instant of a frantic fight, the movie finally rolls with Deadpool (Ryan Reynolds) in a cab driven by Dopinder (Karan Soni from Other Space).  Deadpool gets out of the cab in the middle of a highway overpass where he jumps off and plummets into the very SUV from the opening credits.  Crazy comic combat commence!  Several times during this messy melee, there are flashbacks to explain the purpose of this fight.  Thus, this fight lasts for half the movie.  :)

 

Deadpool has a constant monologue, offering endless commentary as the narrator but also offers asides by breaking the fourth wall (even within a 4th wall breakage, he breaks the 4th wall.  "That's like 16 walls!") to address the audience directly.  He offers commentary about the movie's budget, actors who have played roles in Marvel movies, and so on.  He is rude, crude, amoral, and frequently annoying, especially to his enemies but also his friends.  He is a kick-ass fighter but also a few fries short of a happy meal.  He repeatedly forgets things; it was quite funny when he forgot his bag of guns and ammo in Dopinder's cab.  I viewed Guardians of the Galaxy as the funniest Marvel film but this one far exceeds it.  I laughed so hard during Deadpool's fight with Colossus that I cried.  There is often a slapstick quality to the movie that hits just the right note.

 

I have not been a fan of Reynolds but he is perfect for this role.  In much the same way that Tom Hanks finally found the right character in Big and Will Farrell found it in Elf, Ryan Reynolds has finally found his character: he is Deadpool.  After watching this, one can see why comic fans were disappointed by the version of Deadpool seen in X-Men Origins: Wolverine.  Deadpool comments on that too.

 

Very entertaining and worth seeing.  Thumbs up!

Threats we wish weren't empty

Here is a reason to vote for Trump.  Of course, All those who threaten to leave never do.  How many Hollywood leftists said they would leave the country if George W. Bush was elected?  How many followed through?  These self-important public figures say such things because they think their fans will vote against a candidate to keep them in the country.  In this case, the departure of Al Sharpton would almost certainly improve race relations.  To Sharpton's credit (I can hardly believe I just typed that), he was obviously joking.  Only Hollywood stars can deliver such a threat and sound sincere.  The story was only framed this way to get me to click on it.  Mission accomplished.

Inevitable?

Trump (45.9%) crushed Rubio (23.9%) and Cruz (21.4%) in Nevada, giving him three consecutive victories.  He won in New England, he won in the South, and now he has won in the West.  His only loss was a second place finish in the Midwest.  Amazingly, he won Hispanics!  How does the man who is best known for wanting to deport illegal aliens (which is strangely synonymous with Hispanic) win the Hispanic vote?  Plus, the turnout was record setting.  Trump had more votes in 2016 (34,531) than were cast for all Republican candidates in 2012 (33,000).  The voter engagement has dramatically increased from 2012.

 

State	2012	2016	% Up
Iowa	121,000	180,000	49%
New Hampshire	248,900	284,000	14%
South Carolina	603,000	730,000	21%
Nevada	33,000	75,000	127%

 

Meanwhile, Bernie Sanders' socialist rebellion among the Democrats, which would appear to be hugely popular just based on what I see on Facebook, is proving to provide far less energy than the last contested nomination in 2008.

 

State	2008	2016	% Down
Iowa	239,972	171,109	-29%
New Hampshire	288,672	250,983	-13%
Nevada	120,000	80,000	-33%

 

All the enthusiasm and energy is currently with the Republicans.  Will that hold through November?  It looks very like a Trump vs. Hillary election.  Neither Hillary nor Bernie can fire up the base like Barack Obama did in 2008.  Unless she is indicted, Hillary is going to be the nominee.  She lacks her husband's political gifts and charisma, which means the turn out so far probably reflects the turn out in November.  By contrast, Trump can do no wrong in the eyes of his supporters.  Unless something changes soon, it looks like President Trump might be inevitable.

Political Indictment

The politically-driven charges against former Governor Rick Perry have been dismissed by order of the appeals court.  Perry was indicted for the crime of vetoing a budget.  He had threatened the veto against the budget for Travis County District Attorney Rosemary Lehmberg.  She had previously been arrested - and filmed - for driving drunk.  She's a mean drunk and tried to order the police to release her.  Perry wanted her resignation or he wasn't going to fund her office.  She didn't resign and he vetoed the budget.  That was sufficient to indict.  Clearly, the governor should not be able to veto or attempt to remove criminals from public office.

There is talk that this hamstrung his short-lived bid for the presidential nomination but he really didn't have a chance.  He had sunk himself in 2012.  Still, the Democrat DA who brought the case was glad to pick off a potential rival to Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders.  That, of course, was the point of the doomed prosecution; it did exactly what it was meant to do.  The same thing was done to Tom DeLay, by the same Travis County DA's office!  Huh, imagine that.

 

It is amazing how easy it was for a Rick Perry (Republican) to be indicted for exercising his legal authority as governor while at the same time it is near impossible to indict a Hillary Clinton (Democrat) for setting up a private server to dodge FOIA requests, putting classified and top secret material on an unsecured off-site server, instructing subordinates to send Top Secret documents via unsecured email, and deleting half the server's contents while assuring investigators that none of the deleted material was related to her position as Secretary of State (except that one of the deleted emails was found on General Petreus's email account).  Yes, it is wonderful to live in a nation of laws, where all people, regardless of political party, are treated equally.

Crony Capitalism

Here is a good discussion of crony capitalism.  He covers the topic well and with great brevity.  Bigger government inevitably leads to more lobbying to capture some of that growing pool of money.  You want to get rid of lobbyists?  Cut the amount of money government spends.  With a $4 trillion budget up for grabs, anyone who can field a lobbyist is going to try to siphon some of that cash.  Duh!  I have mentioned before that it is more of a protection racket.  Microsoft spent squat to lobby the government.  The government took notice of this company gushing with cash and wanted its cut.  Voila!  Suddenly, we have the United States v. Microsoft Corporation, where Microsoft was dragged to court for daring to give their product - Internet Explorer - away for free.  Monopolist!!!  However, Microsoft now has lobbyists in Washington, paying the protection money that Congress demands lest further punitive action is taken.

 

Whether one sees the issue as government shaking down private enterprise or private enterprise buying off government officials or some combination of the two, an expansive government is the root cause.  Limit government to limit the crony capitalism.

Bring Back DDT

I read this very interesting and informative article about DDT.  I did not know it had been deployed during WWII or how important it proved to be.  When I was reading a lot about Theodore Roosevelt, I remember that thousands died of yellow fever and malaria during the construction of the Panama Canal.  After DDT was introduced, malaria deaths practically vanished.  The link has the details.  With the coming of the Zika virus, yet another ailment spread by mosquitos, wouldn't it be nice to just wipe out the mosquitos?  And though I still see commercials asking people to call a lawyer about asbestos exposure, I have never seen a similar add about DDT.  Why is that?

Obviously, this article is offering one side of the story and may be overlooking problems or not fairly expressing Rachel Carson's view.  She was concerned that overuse of pesticides would create immunity, in much the same way as antibiotics are creating superbugs.  Valid concern but we haven't stopped the use of antibiotics - and let people die - in order to prevent bacteria from developing such an immunity.  We have taken that path with pesticides to the detriment of millions who have died from malaria in the intervening decades.  I suspect there are many countries that would have preferred the long term costs of DDT use than the long term costs of mosquito-born illnesses.

The Witch

It is around 1630 and a family of Puritans have just been banished from a New England plantation.  They travel into the wilderness where they establish a farmstead.  The family consists of William (father), Katherine (mother), Thomasin (eldest daughter), Caleb (eldest son), Mercy and Jonas (twins), and Samuel (infant).  The trailer shows Samuel goes missing while playing peekaboo with Thomasin and so begins the witching of the family.  More wicked events follow, often coincided by the appearance of a hare, a black goat, or a raven.  There is plenty of suspense and tension.

The look of the movie is tremendous.  The costumes, the sets, and the dialogue provide an immersive experience.  The characters are well-developed and interesting.  However, the story stumbles in the end.  The goal of the movie was to take folk tales from the time period and make a movie of them.  Though I have read many reviewers on IMDB who think the ending was brilliant and gave a very compelling basis for their view, I still found it lacking.  The end comes too suddenly with insufficient development.

 

As for horror, it was not scary.  After seeing it, I can only imagine that Stephen King was paid a hefty sum to say that it scared the hell out of him.  Such a master of horror should be inured to all but the most terrifying movies and this isn't one of them.

South Carolina and Nevada

Trump (32.4%) has another victory and all the Palmetto State delegates too.  Jeb! (7.9%) has finally admitted what has been obvious for months and suspended his campaign.  Where will his sliver of voters go now?  I doubt they will go to Trump, as Trump has been particularly abrasive toward Jeb.  It is pretty clear that it is a three way race with only Trump, Rubio (22.4%), and Cruz (22.3%) having enough support to reasonably stay in the race.  Kasich (7.6%) had over a hundred town hall meetings in New Hampshire to achieve a distant second; Santorum used the same strategy to win Iowa in 2012 but it gained him little traction thereafter.  Kasich and Carson (7.2%) will be the next two to suspend their campaigns, perhaps after Nevada but pretty certainly after Super Tuesday.  Trump will be best served if both Cruz and Rubio are still in the race after Super Tuesday so that the anti-Trump wing of the party can't coalesce around one of those two.  It is also possible that as the last 'establishment' candidate, Trump and Cruz will serve to split the anti-establishment vote and give Rubio his path to victory.  Interesting days ahead.

 

Meanwhile, Nevada chose Hillary (52.7%) over Bernie (47.2%), thus providing Hillary her first solid victory from the voters.  It could hardly be more appropriate that the land of gambling and prostitution chose Bill Clinton's wife rather than America's anti-capitalist scold.  Hillary is likely to win South Carolina as well.  Despite her apparent unpopularity, she has the Clinton network to manage her ground game.  Young voters prefer Bernie - much as they preferred Obama in 2008 - but turn out has been down among Democrats this year.  That's bad news for Bernie.  Low turnout tends to benefit the establishment.  Nevada participation was down by a third from 2008, showing the voters are less interested in the Clinton - Sanders race than they were in the Clinton - Obama race.

 

On the issue of turnout, the Republicans have had tremendous participation so far.  If the relative voter enthusiasm holds to the general election, this could be a Republican landslide.  As I said in an earlier post, the presidency almost always switches parties after a two term presidency.  Lacking a roaring economy only makes it more likely to flip.

Consent

He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate... shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court,...

US Constitution, Article 2, Section 2

 

This details the president's authority to appoint justices to the Supreme Court.  Note that it is limited by the Advice and Consent of the Senate.  The Senate is not required to act expeditiously, schedule hearings, or play nice.  The Senate can refuse to confirm every single appointment from day one; their consent is not mandatory or it wouldn't be consent.  This is one of those checks we hear about in our checks & balances government.  The Senate is well within its authority.  As for the Democrats, they have no cause for complaint.  When the shoe was on the other foot, they imposed the nuclear option to bypass the minority party entirely on judicial nominations.  They rammed through, on a party line vote, the House version of the Affordable Care Act in the days before Scott Brown became the 41st Republican vote in the Senate, thus allowing zero input from the minority.  You reap what you sow.

 

There is currently an argument that Republicans want the people to decide the next Supreme Court Justice via their vote in November.  Democrats have countered that the people made that decision in 2012 when they reelected President Obama.  Of course, the people elected a Republican Senate in 2014.  Wouldn't that mean the people voted to obstruct the president more recently than they voted to support him?  In any case, the President is entirely within his rights to nominate a judge for the Supreme Court and the Senate is entirely within its rights to refuse consent.  Checks & Balances.

 

Of course, the Republicans are spineless and will likely collapse before the month is out.  That spinelessness, that lack of principals is why the Republican base is willing to roll the dice on Trump.  There will probably be hearings but will enough linguini-spined Republicans vote in favor of Obama's nominee to get 50 votes?  How many Jim Jeffords and Arlen Specters are still hiding in the Senate?  Considering the track record, I would give Obama even odds that his nominee is confirmed.

Progressive Income Tax Explained

This video is very funny.  Obviously, it simplifies a lot but it makes a very good point.  I side with Harry throughout.  Dick's flat tax would be nice but no income tax would be better.  Imagine the shrinkage of the government if it couldn't play rich against poor against middle class with the progressive tax scheme?  Oh, who am I kidding?  The government is spending trillions of dollars it doesn't have so a sudden loss of tax revenue would hardly impact our spendthrift government.

The idea of From each according to his ability and to each according to his needs was popularized by Karl Marx, Father of Communism.  That describes the progressive income tax.  Is it any surprise that Hillary Clinton calls herself a Progressive?  Bernie is much more honest, declaring himself to be a socialist who honeymooned in the Soviet Union (that's the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics).  Bernie doesn't think the tax rate described in the video goes far enough.  No, Harry should pay much more.  And so should Dick!

New Hampshire Primary

A bit late on this but here's what I've got.  First, big money isn't what it used to be.  Here are a few charts that shows how much the candidates spent and how that broke down per vote.  In theory, if money is what makes you win, the dollars per voter figure should be roughly equivalent.  Therefore, if Candidate A spends $10,000 and Candidate B spends $20,000, Candidate B should get twice as many votes.  At least, that is what the 'money in politics' people will tell you.  But this didn't work out in Iowa and New Hampshire.

Nearly $100 million was spent on Jeb's campaign, dwarfing his nearest competitor by a factor of 2.  And yet, in Iowa he came in 6th with less than 3% of the vote.  He did better in New Hampshire, achieving 4th place with 11% of the vote.  Again, according the money in politics people, Jeb should have won but he is barely registering.  He spent $2600 per vote.

By contrast, Ted Cruz won Iowa with 27.6% of the vote and, despite spending less than half a million dollars in New Hampshire, achieved 3rd place with 11.7% of the vote.  He has spent $472 per vote.

But here is the big one.  Trump, who is almost exclusively self-financed, was 2nd in Iowa and 1st in New Hampshire for a mere $87 a vote.

If big money was the secret to winning the nomination, the top three Republicans should have been Jeb, Carson, and Rubio.  That is not to say that money has no role, it clearly does.  However, lots of money behind no message vs. little money behind a popular message, the message is winning rather than the money.  At least, that is how it works on the Republican side.

Among the Democrats, we have something that looks undemocratic.  Iowa was a virtual tie, with Hillary getting 0.2% more votes than Bernie.  In New Hampshire, it was a rout.  Bernie got a shade over 60% of the vote to Hillary's 38%.  Between the tie and the slaughter, Hillary has a commanding lead in delegates, 394 to Bernie's 44.  How can that be?  The Democrats have super delegates, party members who can pledge for whichever candidate they like, regardless of voting.  As it happens, though the voting delegates of New Hampshire (24) were split between Bernie (15) and Hillary (9) based on the vote totals, the 8 super delegates were spit among Hillary (6) and Unpledged (2).  That means the 22 point landslide in Bernie's favor found him getting 15 delegates to Hillary's 15.  Sure does look like the party bosses have decided on the nominee before the rank and file voters even have a say.  That's why it's call the Democratic Party.

 

Historically, this should be a Republican year to win.  In the last 60 years, only once has the party not changed after two terms: George Bush in 1988.  Reagan was sufficiently popular even after 8 years of ups and downs to convince the voters not to switch parties.  I don't think Obama will have that same effect.

Hail, Caesar!

Our story opens with Eddie Mannix (Josh Brolin) in confession.  He admits that it has only been 24 hours since his last confession.  He is there to admit lying to his wife about quitting smoking; he had had two or three today.  Next we find him snatching a young actress from an unsanctioned photo shoot in the predawn.  No sooner is he on the movie lot than his secretary peppers him with the issues of the day.  This is a man with a high-stress long hours job.

 

The most significant story is that of Baird Whitlock (George Clooney), a big star who is notorious for drinking and womanizing, is missing.  Kidnapped from the studio, he awakens to find himself among a group of Communist screenwriters, none of whom happened to be named Trumbo.  They prove entirely non-threatening but take some effort to convert him to communism.  He proves to be too dull to really understand them but he does prove to be sympathetic.  When he gets back to Capitol Pictures, Mannix sets him straight.

 

Toward the end of the movie, Mannix is again in confession and admits that it has been 27 hours since his last confession (see above).  Sure, it was humorous that he goes to confession daily but it struck me as odd.  If you are the kind of man who goes to confession every day and offers up such sins as smoking behind your wife's back, how is it you aren't mentioning paying a ransom, lying to reporters, arranging shady deals to protect the image of your flawed movie stars, etc.?  Is this supposed to reveal that he is morally blind about what he does?  Or, more likely, was it just a weak attempt at humor that doesn't otherwise reflect on the character?  Through this stressful day, he is repeatedly offered a job that will pay more, have fewer hours, and less stress; he declines because he thinks what he is doing now is the right thing to do.

From the previews, I got an entirely inaccurate view of what the film was going to be.  It was clear that Clooney was kidnapped and Brolin was then confronting other stars.  Was he plotting a rescue mission with these various performers?  No.  They are largely unrelated stories beyond being on Capitol Pictures movie lot.  As such, the movie is just a day in the life of Eddie Mannix, showing disparate stories that never tie together.

 

My favorite character was Hobie Doyle (Aiden Ehrenreich) the singing cowboy suddenly roped into a romance movie.  It was like casting Roy Rogers in a role written for Cary Grant.  In fact, I would have liked to see that as the whole movie.  The scene where the director, Lawrence Laurentz (Ralph Fiennes), becomes increasingly frustrated with Hobie's inability to speak his lines was awesome.  And here is Hobie trying so hard to be accommodating.  Fiennes would direct him to give a "mirthless chuckle" or glance "ruefully" at the actress and Hobie would reply with a confused nod.  The interaction between them was great.  He was again quite charming and convincing with his romantic-interest-for-gossip consumption date.  The uncultured Hobie proves to offer some of the best advice to Mannix and later saves the day.  Recut this movie with Hobie as the central character and you might have a much funnier and more enjoyable film.

 

By contrast, the rest of the side stories are neither funny nor charming.  DeeAnna Moran (Scarlett Johansson) is abrasive and annoying.  Her storyline was mostly tedious and her scenes weren't in the least bit funny.  Burt Gurney (Channing Tatum) has a Gene Kelly-inspired song and dance number that was quite impressive but that is about all he does.  Tilda Swinton's role as the competing twins, Thessaly and Thora Thacker, was truly silly.  If the movie had embraced farce rather that merely flirted with it, this would have worked better.  However, I did enjoy seeing Christopher Lambert and Clancy Brown in the movie; the last movie with both of them was Highlander (1986).

 

The movie clearly sought to recreate the studio system of the 50s and touch on the types of films that were churned out.  Along the way, we see a Roman Epic, a romantic drama, a musical, a swimming extravaganza movie, and a Western.  They spared no expense in recreating some of these.  We don't see just a snippet to give us a flavor.  No, we get the whole number.  That struck me as overdone and distracting from the story.  If this is to be a day in the life of Eddie Mannix, each of these Brolin-free scenes puts the story on hold while the directors riff on 50s films.

 

There are definitely some very funny bits but it is mostly underwhelming as a comedy.  It was like the Cohen Brothers thought it would be cool to film a Gene Kelly dance number, an Esther Williams swimming scene, a Roman legion on the march, a Gene Autry Western, and then mashed them all into one movie.  Individually, some good stuff, but as a whole it was mediocre.

Hawkeye Thoughts

There is talk that because Trump did not win Iowa that he is now toast.  He failed the expectations game and his support will now desert him.  I am doubtful.  Unlike a primary, a caucus requires a much greater commitment.  Stopping by your local polling station to pull a lever is a lot easier than attending a caucus.  There are efforts by other participants to win you to their candidate while you try to woo them to yours.  Since one is committing the evening to the event rather than just swinging by the polling station, a ground organization is far more important in Iowa.  Had Iowa been a primary, Trump likely would have won.  The big test will be how he does in the New Hampshire Primary.  If he doesn't win this one, then his support may ebb.

Though Rubio looks to be on the rise, he has the huge issue of his Gang of Eight fiasco.  In a year when an outsider like Trump was able to rocket to the top on the issue of immigration, it would be folly to nominate a Senator who attempted to foist amnesty on the voters.  Immigration is the Republicans' trump card and Rubio cannot play it.  This duplicates how Romney could not press Obama on Obamacare thanks to his passage of Romneycare in Massachusetts.  I like Rubio but this is the wrong year for his run.  He's young and has plenty of time to come back in later years, hopefully after atoning for his Amnesty foolishness.

 

Hillary is in big trouble.  Her two tenths of one percent victory is really a tie.  Bernie, who has been largely ignored by the media, somehow closed a double-digit gap thanks to a message that resonated with the base.  The base loves the farthest left candidate and Hillary can't credibly go there thanks to her history.  She voted for Bush's Iraq invasion, she lobbied Obama to stay in Iraq, for a greater commitment in Syria, and was the top cheerleader for the Libyan adventure.  She is comparatively a hawk in a party dominated by doves.  The party doesn't want Bernie - which is why he gets as little coverage as he does and why there are so few debates - and will probably enlist Biden or Warren if Hillary doesn't turn things around quickly.

 

Bernie is a true believer.  Most Democrats deliver the same lines that Bernie does but, once safely in office, they sidle up to the fat cats on Wall Street and enjoy the sweet life.  Bernie will attempt the socialist ideals he espouses, ruining that sweet life for all Washington elites.  When no one thought he had a chance, he was treated as the crazy uncle.  Now that he has gained traction, the long knives will come out.

 

Carson peaked too soon and is unlikely to recapture it.  He is unlikely to break the top 5 in New Hampshire.  He would have been more suited to the campaigning styles of earlier eras.  The 24 hour news cycle rewards larger than life personalities while overlooking the quietly humble.  The former is more entertaining but the latter is better suited to the presidency.

 

Kasich, Jeb, and Christie need a good showing to keep the money rolling.  I doubt Christie is going much beyond New Hampshire as many are still annoyed with his embracing Obama only days before the 2012 election.  Efforts were made to enlist him in 2012 but now he isn't wanted.  He missed his window.  Jeb wants to stay in the field and hope to benefit from the winnowing.  Short of some serious disasters for the top tier candidates, I don't see a route for his recovery, and for that I am thankful.

Iowa Caucus Results

Ted Cruz has pulled out a victory but that is a mixed blessing.  Only one Republican who won the Iowa Caucus - excepting those who were unopposed - went on to win the Presidency.

George Bush won it in 1980 but Reagan became the nominee

Reagan wasn't opposed in 1984

Bob Dole won it in 1988 but George Bush became the nominee

Bush was unopposed in 1992.

Dole won in 1996 and then went on to lose to the incumbent, President Clinton

George W. Bush won in 2000 and went all the way.  There's your path, Ted!  It is an ugly path that did not end well.

George W. Bush was unopposed in 2004.

Mike Huckabee won it in 2008 but McCain became the nominee.

Rick Santorum won in 2012 but Romney got the nomination.

Trump and Rubio are still sorting out 2nd and 3rd place.

Among the Democrats, Hillary currently has a slight lead.  However, the Democrat winner of the Iowa Caucus has always been the eventual nominee since 1996.  And it didn't really count in 1992 because Tom Harkin, an Iowa Senator, was running and demolished everyone.  If Hillary can hold on to her lead, history is on her side for being the Democratic candidate.

 

Already, Huckabee (R) and O'Malley (D) are suspending their campaigns.  Now that the voters have spoken, the culling will being in earnest.  Huckabee pulled better numbers than Christie and Santorum.  Christie has some hope of improvement in New Hampshire but Santorum needs to call it quits.  Beyond the top three Republicans, Carson and Paul showed best.  Kasich is polling well in New Hampshire and may reboot there.  I don't know what Jeb's plan is; I can hardly wait to hear him spin this into a positive.

Oscar-Nominated Animated Short Films

Recently saw the 5 short films nominated for Oscars this year.

Sanjay's Super Team (USA): With the full weight of Pixar Animation behind it, this one has the best look of all the shorts.  Sanjay is a young boy who is a huge fan of the Super Team, a trio of super heroes on a kids cartoon show.  He even has an action figure for the leader of the team.  While he is trying to watch his cartoon, his father is praying to a trio of Hindu gods (I'm guessing they are Hindu, I am unfamiliar with the religion).  The friction between quiet prayer and loud cartoon soon comes to a head and dad turns off the TV and summons Sanjay to the small household shrine.  Sanjay soon finds himself transported into the shrine to do battle with an evil spirit with the trio of gods.  The story is rudimentary and best suited to kids.  The movie ends with pictures of an adult Sanjay Patel (the director) with his father

World of Tomorrow (USA): Here was the worst animation of the bunch - barely above the level of stick figure drawings.  South Park has better animation.  And yet, this had the most engaging yet ludicrous story.  It is immensely funny and also often sad.  The movie opens as a very young Emily answers a video phone, putting us in the not too distant future.  The woman on the screen proves to be Emily's future self.  Sort of.  You see, Emily will some day clone herself and transfer all her memories to that clone.  And that clone will clone herself and transfer memories, resulting in the Emily from the future, whom Emily Prime mistakes for her grandmother.  The future that old Emily reveals is very bizarre.  It is quite funny to have old Emily trying to impart details of the future to a toddler incapable of understanding them.  Emily Prime just sees pretty colors.  Old Emily has a deadpan delivery that makes it even more hilarious.  By far, this was the best of the bunch though the visuals were quite lacking.

Bear Story (Chile): The tale of a sad and lonely bear who lost his family when he was kidnapped by a circus.  After watching this movie, I suspect most children will be inclined to burn down the circus tent.  Though the visuals are quite good, I found the story to be an overly sad story.  In the end, he does not rejoin his family though he has created a puppet show of sorts that does show him rejoining them.  The melancholy score just accentuates the downbeat quality of the movie.

We Can't Live Without Cosmos (Russia): Two cosmonauts in training demonstrate that they are the top of the class.  It is clear that one is better than the other and goes to great efforts to help his partner get top marks.  Through the training, we see a rocket on the pad waiting for its crew.  Sure enough, the pair are chosen.  They suit up and then only one boards the rocket.  The other is the backup cosmonaut.  The mission ends in disaster.  The story then tells the tale of how the backup cosmonaut deals with the loss.  This is quite good though tragic.  Competent but basic animation, in line with a Saturday morning cartoon quality.

Prologue (Spain): The animation is stupendous in this short but that does not save it from the lack of a story.  Four soldiers, two of whom are inexplicably naked, meet in a grassy field.  A Greek Hoplite and one of the naked men face a Greek archer and the other naked man.  The battle is brutal and none of the men survive.  However, a young girl has witnessed the carnage and runs to inform an older woman.  The end.  Huh?  Whatever the point of this was, I missed it.

 

In addition to the nominees, there were several Highly Commended shorts, only three of which I can recall:

 

If I was a God (Canada): A Claymation short about a middle school boy with delusions of godhood.  Of course, our hero demonstrates he is an idiot by electrocuting himself rather than the frog he is dissecting.  Thinking that some of the incidents in his life indicate he may be a god, he ponders how the world would work if he were.  Interestingly, this is likely just the type of film a middle school student would enjoy.  Mostly pointless.

 

Catch It (France): A family of meerkats emerge from their burrow to spot a lovely fruit on a nearby tree.  They gaze lovingly upon it and even stroke the fruit.  Then a vulture scared them back into the burrow.  The vulture, complete with a Snidely Whiplash cackle, takes the fruit and flies off.  This is too much!  The meerkats give chase and thus commences a comedy of meerkat vs. vulture.  Mildly entertaining with decent 3D animation.

 

The Short Story of a Fox and a Mouse (France): A fox is pacing through a snowy woodland, hunting for a mouse.  Suddenly, a mouse pops out of the snow and dashes away with the fox in pursuit.  The mouse manages to escape the fox by climbing a tree only to find himself on a branch with two owls who show a similar interest as the fox.  As the mouse flees, fox and owls give chase.  These are not personified animals so there is no dialogue.  It seeks to be a feel-good short where the fox and the mouse become friends.  Meh.  Not bad but if this was Highly Commended, what must the rest of the field been?