Ignorant by Design

George Korda has an article where he discusses the basic historical knowledge of American students, offering some data on middle school students to college seniors.  The results are terrible.  Here is an excerpt:

In 2000, the American Council of Trustees and Alumni found that seniors from America’s colleges and universities were graduating with, "alarming ignorance of their heritage and a profound historical illiteracy…four out of five—81%—of seniors recently surveyed from the top 55 colleges and universities in the United States received a grade of D or F on history questions drawn from a basic high school curriculum…Seniors could not identify Valley Forge, words from the Gettysburg Address, or even the basic principles of the U.S. Constitution.

Korda goes on to say that people ignorant of the Constitution, Bill of Rights, Declaration of Independence, and such are much less likely to squawk if the principals therein are not observed.

This ignorance is no mistake.  It is intentional.  Most schools are run by governments.  Governments prefer docile and obedient peasants.  It makes exercising power so much easier when the people nod numbly rather than fighting a tyrannical government.  Governments are making moves against homeschoolers because it both threatens a state client - teachers unions - and a state interest - students inculcated with state-supported ideology.  Look at how many young people are in favor of Bernie Sanders, an avowed socialist.  A government-funded school is unlikely to teach students about the immense distrust that the Founders felt toward government.

 

Is this a conspiracy?  No.  This is the invisible hand of the market, much like Adam Smith explained.  Politicians, bureaucrats, and government employees who run and populate the school systems innately know that they should not produce citizens who are inclined to oppose those very politicians, bureaucrats, and government employees.  Instead we have seen a gradual embrace of more and more government control.

 

1913 Income Tax

1935 Social Security

1935 Welfare

1938 Minimum Wage

1946 School Lunch Program

1964 Food Stamp Act

1965 Medicare

1967 State-run Media (Corporation for Public Broadcasting)

2003 Medicare Drug Benefit

2010 National Healthcare (Affordable Care Act)

 

These are only some highlights.  It would require a very long list to mention all the ways government has taken over aspects of life that were once the responsibility of the individual or the family.  The process will not end until the government controls everything.  The uninformed graduates of government schools are all in favor of this, unaware that it contradicts the founding principles of the nation.

Whiskey Tango Foxtrot

The story opens in 2006 at a party in Kabul with all the Western journalists when an explosion rocks the building and sees them all getting into action to cover the story.  Kim Baker (Tina Fey) is soon in the streets of Kabul and finds herself groped by a passing Afghan.  She rebukes him with a stream of clumsy profanity in Pashto.  And then the movie backs up to 2003 where we find Kim in an office in New York, writing an article about corn starch or something like that.  During a meeting, the news agency is seeking people to cover Afghanistan now that the veteran foreign correspondents have been moved to the Iraqi theater.  Feeling her life is dreary and empty, Kim volunteers.

Though the movie takes place in Afghanistan from 2003 to 2006, little is learned of the war.  This is a movie about Kim.  She likes the risks and is often more concerned with getting a scoop than staying safe.  This gung-ho attitude wins her admirers.  Most scenes are played for comedy but there are stretches of drama and violence.  Several times through the movie, it is intimated that war correspondents are adrenalin junkies who put themselves at risk to get high.  Kim certainly takes some risks.  Is this a movie about an addict who recovers?  Maybe.  It isn't a movie of the Afghan War, the Taliban, or Osama bin Laden.  Beyond learning a smattering of military jargon and a flavor of Afghan culture through the eyes of a Westerner, there isn't anything educational here.

 

Among the supporting cast, only two really merit attention.  Billy Bob Thornton is excellent as the cucumber-cool general.  His best moment was probably when one of his marines blew up a Toyota with an $80,000 rocket.  Martin Freeman plays a Scottish photojournalist and love interest for Kim.  He was the most important character besides Kim.  Like her, he was eager to put his life in danger for the sake of a good story but, unlike her, he accepts that as a normal part of life.

 

Entertaining movie.

The Madness of King Barack

In the wake of the attack in Brussels and despite the repeated claims by ISIS that it is infiltrating Syrian refugees with Jihadist, President Obama has again stated his intent to bring 100,000 refugees to the United States.  He assures us that the refugees will be vetted.  How do you vet these refugees?  Call up the police station in Aleppo and ask if this or that Syrian refugee has a criminal record?  Ask the Assad Regime - which current US Policy demands be overthrown - if we can trust this refugee not to go on a killing spree?  Look how successful all the refugee resettlement has been in Europe.  Why does President Obama want to replicate that here?  Exactly who was he elected to represent: Americans or Syrian Refugees?  Or maybe illegal immigrants?  He's always taking the side of the foreigner and telling us how our 'values' demanded it.  Really?

 

This is yet another reason why Trump is doing so well.  Trump on Muslim refugees: No.  Trump on illegal immigrants: Get out.  Trump on trade deals that benefit foreigners more than they benefit American workers: No.  Does Trump sound Nativist?  Certainly.  It is a reaction to what has been implemented for several years and not to the benefit of the American people.  This government was established by We The People and yet the government seems more concerned with helping They The Foreigners.

 

When the government is indifferent to the people, you have the rise of Donald Trump, Ted Cruz, and Bernie Sanders.  Each of them has denounced government in one way or another.  Each of them is distrusted or disliked by the establishment politicians in his party.  There is a rebellion brewing and it isn't going to end with this election.

Bernie Revived?

Bernie has managed to win the last 5 contests but still trails by a wide margin in delegates.  He has 1004 while Hillary is well in advance with 1712.  Hillary still needs to win only 33% of the remaining delegates while Bernie needs 67%.  In his recent 5 states sweep, he has secured 76% of the delegates available.  Wow!  If he can keep that up, he could turn the corner.  Factoring out the super delegates, Bernie has 975 to Hillary's 1243.  That is inside the margin where a switch of the super delegates could swing the election to Bernie.  That is highly unlikely but possible.

In a winner-take-all scenario, Hillary is crushing Bernie.  She has won 19 states that represent 1911 delegates while Bernie has won 14 with 752 delegates.  In popular vote, Hillary has 8.9 million to Bernie's 6.4 million.  That's 58% to 42%.  That has narrowed a bit thanks to Bernie's recent surge but can he overcome that by the convention?  To really justify a switch among the super delegates, Bernie needs to cover that gap.  Again, highly unlikely.

 

Hillary is still on a glide path to win the nomination handily but Bernie's strength does make it a more entertaining campaign.  If only he hadn't taken character issues off the table, he might have been more competitive.

The Pansy Generation

It worries me that anyone could react this way to something like this.  If you can't feel safe because someone scribbled Vote Trump in chalk, you are doomed to a life of fear.  With all the Safe Spaces and Political Correctness, too many youths have been coddled to the point of having no ability to deal with even the mildest adversity.

What tone might this story have taken if a number of students had had this same reaction to a chalk sign saying Vote Bernie or Vote Hillary?  There would be much laughing and ridiculing of these students, which is the appropriate response.  They have been 'protected' for so long that they haven't developed the callouses that adulthood requires.  We all want to protect our kids but we also need to remember that they will eventually grow up  and it would be nice if they had some maturity by then.  Otherwise, they might cry at the sight of an innocuous chalk drawing.

Islam cannot be Reformed

This article offers a view that is too often overlooked.  Much as there are people who are culturally Jewish though religiously secular, the same is true of many Muslims.  Those Muslims who take the religion seriously, who follow the actual preaching and teaching of Muhammad, are the ones who kill the infidel and blow themselves to bits.  When a non-Muslim makes that point, it is dismissed as the ravings of a bigot.  It becomes more difficult to dismiss when Ayann Hirsi Ali or Nabeel Qureshi offer the same points.

 

Unlike Christianity or Judaism, Islam is not just a religion.  Judaism was a slave religion as far as the ancient Egyptians were concerned and most of Jewish history is one of being a subjugated, and usually hated, minority.  Christianity spent its founding centuries with a status similar to the Jews.  Each was a self-contained belief system that was separate from governing.  Jesus said "Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's."  Here is a separation of church and state from the very beginning.  Islam arose under entirely different circumstances.  Muhammad rose to be the ruler of a burgeoning empire and the religion thus has governmental aspects to it.  Islam has an integrated legal system, Sharia.  Where the West has come to revere the separation of church and state, Islam holds that church and state are inseparable.

 

There is talk of an Islamic Reformation, echoing the tumultuous Christian Reformation.  The Christian Reformation was a rebellion against the massive superstructure that was the Catholic Church.  Jesus said nothing of Popes, Cardinals, Archbishops, and so forth who lived lives of luxury at the expense of believers.  The Fall of Rome had left a power vacuum in the West that, with both positive and negative consequences, the church filled.  Martin Luther attacked this religious construct that had little basis in the teachings of Christ.  There is much to be said on both sides of that argument.  However, the reformists believed they were establishing the religion based more on teachings of the founder, discarding much of the tacked on aspects that had evolved over the centuries.  With that in mind, how could Islam have a Reformation?  Protestants sought to return to the source material.  There are currently Muslims doing exactly that with the Koran and they are called ISIS and al Qaeda.  There can be no Islamic Reformation that both quells the Jihadi impulses and is true to Muhammad.  Like the church and state under Sharia, Jihad and Muhammad are inseparable.

New Delegate Math

I have seen varying counts depending on which site I check but they are all pretty close.  Just for sake of discussion, let's go with this one.

Starting with the Republicans, Trump's commanding lead has become virtually insurmountable.  Baring a miracle, I don't see that Cruz can catch Trump, let alone surpass him.  With 749 delegates, Trump needs 498 more to secure the nomination outright.  That means that he needs 59% of the remaining 848.  That's a tall order.  However, he is almost certainly going to take California and New York, which is half of what he needs.  If he can pull of 42% of the rest, he wins.  I give him excellent odds of doing that and cancelling the idea of a contested convention.  Cruz has 465 delegates and needs another 772.  That's 91% of the remaining, which isn't possible as there are proportional states still to go.  He cannot win the nomination except through a contested convention.  Lastly, there is Kasich with 143 delegates.  There are not enough delegates left for even a miracle.  If he wins another state, I will be surprised.  Kasich can only hope to deny enough delegates to Trump to force the contested convention.  Even if that happens, why would someone who proved so lackluster through the campaign be selected as the nominee?  Consider also, under a winner-take-all system, Trump would have 22 states worth 1012 delegates to Cruz's 10 states and 429 delegates.  Cruz would be viewed as desperate and Kasich (1 state, 66 delegates) as a crackpot.

 

On the Democrat side, Hillary has a lead even more commanding that Trump has among the Republicans.  With 1690 delegates, she needs only 692 (31%) of the remaining delegates to secure the nomination.  By contrast, Bernie needs 1436 (64%) to capture the nomination.  Yes, there is something funky about math.  Both can win.  Let me check the NY Times again.  Clinton has 1690: check.  Bernie has 946: check.  Democratic delegates remaining is 2245.  Add those three numbers together and we get 4881 delegates, 118 more than the 4763 available.  Well, that will teach me to trust the NY Times.  In any case, Hillary can be absolutely crushed by nearly a two to one margin for the rest of the primaries and still win.  At this point, even if she is indicted, she will win the nomination.

 

A Trump v. Clinton election is a virtual certainty.  Trump has a surprising amount of cross-over appeal but is anathema to much of the conservative base of the Republican Party.  Will he be able to attract enough Independents and disaffected Democrats to make up the gap?  Hillary owes her political career to her husband's charm and political skills.  Can that and the loyalty of the Democratic base push her to victory?  I cannot think of two more flawed candidates in my life time.  Would you like bad or bad?  Disaster or catastrophe?

Holy War

Europe finds itself in another religious war despite having largely abandoned religion.  The aggressors have not abandoned religion.  In fact, the Muslims responsible are embracing their religion as practiced by Muhammad.  Muhammad was not a man of peace.  He did not call for turning the other cheek.  Islam means submission and Muslim means 'one who submits.'  There is nothing about peace despite American Presidents' comments to the contrary.  Those who have not submitted to Allah are, by definition, infidels.  Infidels must been subjugated and become dhimmis (2nd class citizens) who pay the jizyah (annual tax on non-Muslims) or be killed.  However, in our politically correct, multi-cultural world, such things cannot be said of any religion, with the possible exceptions of Judaism or Christianity.  I would love to see a movie like Spotlight (Academy Award for Best Picture) that looked at Islam.  No one would dare make that film.  Why is it fine to expose the failings of Christianity but not Islam?

 

Europe has opened the floodgates to rapists, bombers, and holy warriors who, oddly enough, share a common religion.  Even as the evidence mounts that this has been a misguided policy, the governments still insist on prosecuting those who warned of this very outcome.  Yes, those who warned of the danger have been ignored.  Theo Van Gogh was murdered for speaking out against Islam 12 years ago.  Geert Wilders has sounded the alarm and was barred from entering the UK as an 'undesirable person.'  Wilders identifies Islam for what it demonstrably is, and that is unacceptable among the politically correct multiculturalists.  Despite repeated attacks from Spain to England to Germany to France to Sweden, Europe still wants to hold the door open for more Muslim immigrants.  Who said that insanity was doing the same thing repeatedly and expecting a different result?

 

Today's bombings in Brussels, preceded by Allahu Akbar, are also unlikely to change the path of the European Union.  The EU is treating the situation as a police matter, not a war.  How do you fight criminals who seek to die in the process of committing their crimes?  Suicide bomber is a strategy of war, not crime.  Europe has so long sheltered beneath US protection that they have forgotten that war is hell (William T Sherman) and only the dead have seen the end of war (Plato).  Unless and until the Europeans admit that they are under siege by Jihadis, the situation will only get worse.

America surrenders to Cuba

The United States defeated the Axis Powers of WWII and the Soviet Union but, in a surprise turn of events, lost to the Cuban Communist Dictatorship of the Castro brothers.  Yes, today, President Barack Obama allowed himself and his country to be shown in defeat.  The martyred JFK had imposed the embargo and it took Obama to declare defeat before the Castro brothers died.  Whatever one's view of the embargo, it has almost no impact on the US economy while a heavy one on the Cuban economy.  Why would we ever want to assist a murderous communist regime?  It is always peculiar to see glowing reviews of Cuba in certain circles, especially since this 'paradise' has a negative immigration rate.  Why, more then 50 years after the revolution, are Cubans still trying to escape?  Do they not know what a wonderful place Cuba is?

During a joint press-conference, Raul Castro demanded that the US end it's blockade.  Blockade?  Yeah, that ended more than 50 years ago.  Perhaps that was bad translation and he meant embargo.  I fully expect Obama to acquiesce to the demand, with or without Congressional support.  Also, Obama might even try to give Guantanamo Bay back to Cuba as a means of finally closing Gitmo. 

 

What has the US gained by opening an embassy in Cuba and having this high-level meeting?  What benefit do we get from our surrender?  Another Caribbean Island for vacationers to visit?  By contrast, the Castros have brought America to heel, using an American President as a willing prop for their victory celebration.  Though not as disastrous as the Iran Deal, this is yet another in a seemingly endless run of foreign policy failures by the Obama Administration: Russia (repeatedly), Ukraine, Iraq, Iran (repeatedly), Libya, Yemen, Syria, Israel, Egypt, France, and on it goes.  I am amazed at what a willing accomplice the State Department has been in his collapse of American foreign policy.

 

Both Hillary and Trump promise to mostly continue with the Obama foreign policy.  Outstanding!

Hello, My Name is Doris

The movie opens at the funeral of Doris Miller's (Sally Field) mother.  Doris's brother (Stephen Root) wants her to sell the Staten Island home to split the inheritance; his wife is particularly shrewish about it.  Soon after, Doris goes to work and encounters John (Max Greenfield) in the elevator and he talks to her, complimenting her glasses.  Doris is smitten.  Soon thereafter, she discovers that John is a new employee in the office where she works.  Later, she goes with her lifelong friend Roz (Tyne Daly) to a self-help lecture where Willy Williams (Peter Gallagher) tells her that "impossible" should be pronounced "I'm possible."  Doris takes this to heart and so begins her effort to woo John, a man who is half her age.

 

Often funny - especially when Doris has an imaginary make-out session with John - but also sad.  The usual May-December romance has the woman as half the man's age.  That Doris thinks there is a real chance is often uncomfortable to watch.  She misreads signals and misinterprets conversations in such a way to make her fantasy real.  Doris spent the last forty years caring for her invalid mother and missed the life she might have had.  By the end, it does seem the Doris has bloomed and will finally have a fulfilling life.

 

Just okay.  Wait for cable release.

Bosch

Hieronymus "Harry" Bosch is a homicide detective for LAPD.  He has been the central character in a long running series by Michael Connelly.  Amazon has adapted the character for a TV (does it really count as a TV series if it is aired on a website?) series.  It is currently in its second season.  Season is also an interesting term when one considers the entire 10 episode season was available to watch on March 10th; I finished watching today.

Season one followed Bosch as he tried to solve the 20 year old murder of a missing 12 year-old boy.  This gets entangled with a serial killer who claims responsibility.  And then there is the fact that Bosch is in court for having shot and killed a suspect.  Though told episodically, it is really just a miniseries that centers on one big case and a variety of subplots.  Good stuff.  Too my surprise, season two proved better than the first.  A murder for hire is made to look like a mob hit and Bosch gets the case.

 

Not having read any of the books, I can't judge how well Titus Welliver does in bringing the literary character to life.  However, I really like his version of the character.  He has this seen-it-all, unflappable quality to him.  In a way, he reminds me a lot of Robert Mitchum.  Doesn't look like him, but he has a very similar manner about him.  It works very well for a military and police veteran.

 

The cast in both series is really quite good.  Of the three major supporting characters, Chief Irving (Lance Reddick) shines most.  Perhaps that is the way it comes through in the novels.  His partner, Jerry Edgar (Jamie Hector), serves as a sounding board and is mostly defined by being extremely well-dressed.  Lt. Grace Billets (Amy Aquino) is underdeveloped.  She's a run-of-the-mill boss in any police drama who mostly let's Bosch manage himself with the occasional 'hey, now!' for good measure.  Irving had a big story arc this season and perhaps such is on tap for Edgar and Billets should a third season materialize.  I certainly hope so.

 

Thumbs way up!

Bernie Cooked

With his lackluster showing, Bernie's campaign is becoming embarrassing.  He only has 851 delegates to Hillary's 1606.  He needs to win 66% of the remaining delegates to get the nomination.  Despite all the talk of his magnificent insurgency, he only gets further and further behind with each primary.  A more traditional Democratic candidate would bow out as gracefully as possible and allow the party to unite against the Republicans.  Hillary's eventual victory is plain as day.  Unless Bernie has inside information on a pending indictment, it's time to suspend his campaign.

Interesting bit about the Democratic primaries.  There are 4051 delegates allocated through state contests and 712 allocated by Super Delegates.  It is possible, though highly unlikely, that one candidate to accumulate 2381 delegates (1 short of the 2382 need for the nomination) through state elections (58.8% of the total) and then lose to the candidate with 1670 delegates because the super delegates chose that person instead.  Such is not the case, but it is interesting just how far the super delegate system can thwart the will of the voters.

Kasich the Spoiler

So far, 1404 delegates have been allocated in the Republican primaries.  With his narrow victory in the state where he is currently serving as governor, John Kasich has collected 143 delegates, which puts him 1,094 away from clinching the nomination.  There are 1,068 delegates that haven't been allocated.  Hmmm.  Let's suppose that Rubio will support Kasich and ask his delegates to vote for him.  In that event, he could count on 312 delegates and only require 925, which is 87% of the remaining delegates.  This is obviously not going to happen.  Just look at how he did in every other race held yesterday.  No chance.  At this moment, Rubio still has more delegates than Kasich and has won 3 primaries to Kasich's 1 and he has suspended his campaign.

 

As it is, Trump needs to win 53% of the remaining delegates to capture the nomination outright.  Entirely doable, especially with some winner-take-all states like New Jersey (51), Arizona (56), Pennsylvania (71), and especially California (172) still to come.  Ted Cruz's path has become much tougher.  With Kasich still in the running, the anti-Trump vote will remain split.  Cruz needs 77% of the remaining delegates, which is nigh impossible now.  The most likely outcomes are a Trump victory or a contested convention.  It is possible that the absence of Rubio will boost either Cruz or Kasich to win close contests with Trump.

 

If no one has the 1237 delegates for the win, Kasich might be able to do some bargaining with either Trump or Cruz.  Perhaps even Rubio could play a hand since he has enough delegates that may make a difference.  It is a path fraught with peril.  Trump has already won 21 contests, more than double Cruz (9); Rubio (3) and Kasich (1) are historical footnotes.  Unless things turn dramatically in Cruz's favor tomorrow, Trump will have the plurality of delegates and be closest of anyone to 1237.  To choose another candidate is to risk a Trump walkout and guarantee his voters go with him.  If the Republican Party didn't want Trump, it should have coalesced around an anti-Trump candidate weeks ago.  Of course, the person who had the best shot, Cruz, is detested by the establishment.

 

A contested convention that doesn't end with Trump as the nominee will likely bring about the most impressive third party run since Theodore Roosevelt's Bull Moose Party in 1912; this was the only election in which a third party captured more electoral votes than one of the traditional parties.  There is a righteously indignant electorate and such a move could permanently crash the party.

No Media Bias Here

Based on this picture, was it assembled by a Republican, Democrat, or Independent?  Someone made the editorial decision to choose unsmiling Republican candidates and smiling Democrat candidates.  That was not by chance.  I found this on Yahoo News.

Interestingly, the group are mostly aligned in right-wing to left-wing order.  Cruz is more conservative than Rubio is more conservative than Kasich is more conservative than Hillary is more conservative than Bernie.  Trump really belongs next to Kasich.  Perhaps it is in delegate order, in which case Trump is in the correct spot.

Kamikaze Kasich

Amazingly, in a year where a party outsider is crushing the establishment candidates with calls for stopping illegal immigration and deporting those who are here, John Kasich thinks it will be a winning strategy to promise Amnesty with 100 days of his inauguration.  It is as if the man has no idea what has driven the campaign thus far.  Rubio has be handicapped throughout this campaign because of his support for something short of Amnesty in the Gang of Eight.  JEB, who described illegal immigration as an act of love, flamed out despite over $100 million in funding.  George W. Bush tried to get comprehensive immigration reform that had a Path to Citizenship, not Amnesty, and the electorate rose up against it to such a degree that it died.  Nearly a decade of clear signals from the people has not pierced Kasich's skull.  I wonder if he is trying to torpedo his already sinking candidacy.

If Kasich doesn't win Ohio, he should drop out.  If he wins only Ohio, he will be mathematically unable to get the 1237 delegates to win the nomination and he should drop out.  He can only be a spoiler and create a convention fight that is unlikely to benefit him or his party.  However, as noted in an earlier post, he has no elective future after his stint as governor.  There isn't much of a downside for his shenanigans and the establishment might even appreciate it.

Mortdecai

Charlie Mortdecai (Johnny Depp) is enormously proud of his newly-grown mustache, which is probably the most distracting and pointless part of the film though it is constantly at the fore.  Mustache aside, Mortdecai is descended of an aristocratic English family and something of an art expert but he has fallen into financial difficulty.  In an effort to get some cash, he is in Hong Kong to sell a rare Chinese vase to a shady collector.  Sadly, it turns out that he cheated this very collector in a previous sale and there is now going to be violent retribution.  Luckily, Mortdecai brought his manservant, Jock (Paul Bettany), who proves to be a hardy fighter.  The pair escape but the vase is destroyed as is the money.  He has hardly returned to his English estate when Martland (Ewan McGregor) of MI-5, who happens to be an old acquaintance from university, pressures him to investigate a certain painting.

When I saw the preview for this movie, I thought it was going to be a detective movie.  Mortdecai looked to be an unconventional inspector with ulterior motives.  Nope, he's just a conman who specializes in fine art.

 

The plot is actually quite good.  There's a missing painting from a Spanish master that may have the Swiss bank account for a Nazi bigwig on the back.  Russians, terrorists, and rival collectors are all trying to get the painting.  What a great McGuffin.  This could have been a great caper movie if the lame comedy bits had just been dropped.  Rather than a cowardly oaf, I would like to have seen Mortdecai as a shrewd but desperate rogue trying to save his estate.  That is what he did but it came across as more fool's luck than calculated genius.  The constant nonsense about the mustache was grating.  Yes, the titular character is a lily-livered buffoon with a hugely over-inflated and unjustified ego.

 

Just as with Mortdecai, the rest of the characters are almost universally difficult to like.  Johanna (Gwyneth Paltrow) is mostly a nag who is apparently nauseated by her husband's silly mustache and only too happy to make him believe she is about to have an affair with Martland.  Martland spends most of the movie trying to get Johanna into bed, often using his MI-5 channels to get Mortdecai out of the country to better enable such a tryst.  Jock is ever eager to suffer severe injury in the service of Mortdecai, much of that injury delivered by none other than Mortdecai.  Also, for no apparent reason, he attracts women like he was in an Axe commercial.  The villains are all some combination of avarice and stupidity with a large dollop of animosity toward Mortdecai.  Not surprisingly, this does not play well as comedy.

 

It is no wonder this movie bombed.  Best avoided.

Spy

Bradley Fine (Jude Law) has infiltrated a villa in Budapest in search of a nuclear bomb in the possession of Tihomir Boyanov.  After sneaking into the basement level, he gets the drop on Boyanov and demands that he reveal the location of the nuke.  Boyanov dismisses Fine's threats, declaring he is the only person who knows where it is so he dare not shoot.  Fine suddenly sneezes, accidently shooting Boyanov in the head.

"What did you do that for?" Susan Cooper (Melissa McCarthy) demands.  She is sitting at a computer in the United States observing his every action and giving him intel.  His escape is engineered by Susan as she walks him through enemies and arranges a timely airstrike to cover his retreat.  It is quite clear that he views her as a valued secretary while she has a crush on him.  With Boyanov dead, the only hope is that his daughter, Rayna, (Rose Byrne) might know where the nuke is.  Fine goes in and is killed!  Moreover, it is revealed that all agents have been compromised.  Susan offers to go into the field.  And the hilarity commences.

Generally, I have found McCarthy to be mostly grating and irritating when I have seen her.  I could not watch all of Identity Thief, found her annoying and unconvincing in The Heat.  She was extremely forgettable in St. Vincent.  In Spy, she has found her role.  I very much enjoyed her various unflattering cover identities, laughed at her exchanges with Jason Statham, loved when she browbeat Anton, and liked the hostile repartee between her and Rose Byrne.  It reminded me a lot of Get Smart with Steve Carell.

Rick Ford (Jason Statham) is horrified that the 'lunch lady' is being sent in the field instead of him.  He quits the CIA in protest.  However, Susan repeatedly encounters him in the field and frequently finds herself saving his life.  Statham proves to be surprisingly funny as an over-the-top parody of himself.

 

There are a few bits that fall flat.  Nancy (Miranda Hart) loomed a bit too large as Susan's awkward sidekick.  Still, it was mostly goofy fun with some surprisingly entertaining action.  Melissa McCarthy, action star?  Yeah, in this film.  And it worked.

Who believes in Free Speech?

I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.

The Friends of Voltaire by Evelyn Beatrice Hall

 
I remember when this quote was all the rage. Anyone who believed in the First Amendment would roll this one out every time the Nazi Party or the Ku Klux Klan wanted to march down main street. It used to be that the biggest self-proclaimed First Amendment defenders were Democrats. But not anymore. Here is an article that lists the Democrat-aligned groups that prevented Donald Trump from speaking in Chicago. I too disagree with a lot of what Donald Trump says but it would never occur to me to prevent him from speaking. I could say the same for Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton. It is troubling - and should be to his supporters - that Bernie's name was chanted among those who stormed Trump's planned rally. Instead, there appears to be pride in denying free speech to an opponent.

In the wake of the Citizens United decision, Bernie Sanders proposed an amendment to limit the First Amendment. He thinks free speech is good for some but not all. Hillary Clinton agreed with him.

It's not much of a right if it is totally limited and constrained.

Hillary Clinton

 

Hillary said this in relation to abortion and how the Texas legislature is regulating abortion clinics out of existence. Of course, one wonders how universal she thinks that statement is? Is free speech still a right if it is totally limited and constrained? How about the Right to Bear Arms?

 

This pattern of liberal activists preventing opponents from speaking has been going on for a long time at college campuses. The problem appears to be spreading.

10 Cloverfield Lane

Michelle (Mary Elizabeth Winstead) is hastily packing and leaves the house.  An engagement ring and a set of keys are notably left on the table.  She drives into the night.  While on the road, she is called by Ben, her fiancé.  He asks that she return home, noting that couples have fights and work through them.  She hangs up.  As the phone rings again, she suddenly finds her car careening off the road, tumbling over and over.  When she awakens, she finds herself chained to a wall and told by Howard (John Goodman) that there has been an attack and he has saved her by bringing her to his bunker.  She is understandably skeptical but Emmett (John Gallagher Jr.) confirms that there was an attack and he had forced his way into the bunker.

The movie follows the stresses of life in a bunker with these three characters.  Howard appears to be a crackpot but has managed to be prepared for exactly the situation at hand.  Or is he lying?  Emmett is a kind hearted bumpkin, a fellow who can somewhat vouch for Howard and knew about the bunker because he had helped build it.  Michelle witnesses events that appear to confirm the story of an attack but also has reasons to doubt.  How she navigates makes for a fun movie.

Thumbs up!

Leftists Love Autocracy

Justin Trudeau, Prime Minister of Canada, is in a bit of hot water for praising China, shown here.  Many are baffled by why a man from a Western Democracy would admire 'basic dictatorship.'  I am not.  Liberals have a long history of admiring dictatorships.  Cuba is beloved by the left, getting praised for its universal healthcare and education by the likes of Michael Moore and Bernie Sanders.  Sean Penn was a booster for Hugo Chavez.  Thomas Friedman of the New York Times, like Trudeau, praised the one party autocracy of China, noting that they were reasonably enlightened.  Many New Dealers thought very highly of Mussolini's Italy and Stalin's Russia.  Lefties love autocrats.

 

Liberals and Progressives want to use the power of the state to impose their policy preferences on the populace.  Consider: freedom is silence of the law.  If there is no law on a given subject, you are completely free to do whatever appeals to you.  Law is an abridgement of freedom.  In many cases, that is necessary.  However, why aren't we free to plan (or not plan) for retirement without government interference?  Social Security is mandatory.  Why aren't we free to arrange (or not) our health care?  Medicare is a mandatory tax and the Affordable Care Act makes it a crime to lack health insurance.  Why aren't we free to drive with (or without) a seatbelt?  There is a lot of nanny-statism on the left.  Really, we have gotten to limiting the size of soda bottles in some jurisdictions.

 

There was a time before all of these programs and yet we don't read stories about the dead piled in the streets for want of retirement savings or health care.  As Jefferson observed, the tendency is for government to advance and liberty to retreat.  Those in power want more power.  Each new generation of politicians want to exercise a little more power than their predecessors.  As such, they always admire those who already have more power, especially when there is no opposition to prevent such power grabs.  Ah, the joys of dictatorship!

 

Any politician who admires 'basic dictatorship' should be voted out of office as soon as possible.  Any politician who offers praise for any authoritarian government should be immediately rejected by the voters.

Democrat Delegate Mathematics

You just have to love the Democrat primary process.  Bernie had a surprise upset win in Michigan but somehow won fewer delegates than Hillary!  Oh, those super delegates.  This is the sort of event that will cause Bernie voters to not vote for Hillary in November.  Worse, this is an unforced error.  Hillary is crushing Bernie and could afford to let him have more delegates.  In a winner-take-all system (dumping super delegates into the pool with the rest), Hillary would have 1,023 to Bernie's 516.  Hillary has won 12 states and Bernie has won 9.  Hillary won 4 of the 5 states with over 100 delegates.  Bernie won 5 of the 6 states with fewer than 40 delegates.  There would be no hard feelings under a system that rewarded these facts.  The super delegates - most of which pledged support before the base had a chance to vote - can only infuriate the Bernie voters.

 

Using the abstruse current rules, Hillary has 1223 delegates to Bernie's 574.  Hillary only needs to win 39% of the remaining delegates to secure the nomination while Bernie would need 61%.  As it stands, Bernie has won 40% of the popular vote to Hillary's 60%.  I don't see that flipping.  As I have noted before, unless she is indicted or her persistent cough is shown to be a serious medical issue, she is going to win the nomination.  She should disavow her super delegates - whether that is possible or not - and ask them to allocate themselves based on who wins the states they represent.  This would go a long way to mollifying Bernie voters and she will get the nomination anyway.

Republican Delegate Mathematics

Why are Rubio and Kasich still in the race?  Is there a possibility that either can win?  Let's look at the numbers:

32 States and Territories have not yet voted in the Republican Primary:



• 17 States and Territories are winner-take-all for a total of 901 delegates.
• 9 contests are proportional with 325 delegates.
• 6 are oddballs with actual delegates elected based on how they say they will vote but not necessarily bound by that.  This pool has 167 delegates which might be considered analogous to Democrat super delegates.

Rubio has 151 delegates, 1,086 shy of what he needs to win the nomination.  If he swept the winner-take-all states, he would still be 185 short.  He would need to secure 38% of the proportional and oddball delegates to win the nomination.  Thus far, he has only secured 15% of such delegates.  There is no chance that he can win the nomination by winning delegates, he will not be selected the nominee in a brokered convention, and he will cripple future prospects if he loses Florida next week.  There is no upside.  The only reason to stay is to force that brokered convention in which case he is announcing his status as a pawn to the establishment in an anti-establishment year.  A pawn to the establishment that he ran against to secure his seat in the Senate.

 

Kasich is event further back than Rubio but at least he got some delegates on Tuesday with a good showing in Michigan.  Still, with only 54 delegates, he needs 1,183 more to secure the nomination.  If he wins all the winner-take-all states, he will be 282 short.  That would require 57% of all the proportional and oddball delegates.  So far, he has only captured 5% of the delegates.  There is talk that he is hoping to secure the Vice Presidency.  If he wins in Ohio - a very valuable state in the general election - he will have a stronger hand.  If he loses, he's out.

 

Cruz has 359 delegates, 878 short of the magic 1237.  He needs to get 61% of the remaining delegates to win the nomination.  Not possible as long as the Rubio and Kasich are in the mix.  It will become nigh impossible depending on the results of next week.  His best hope is that Rubio and Kasich suspend their campaigns and the anti-Trump vote goes to him.  If Trump really does have a ceiling of support in the high 30s to low 40s, the math could turn around very quickly.

 

Trump has 458 delegates, 779 away from the nomination.  He needs 54% of the remaining delegates.  If the field remains as crowded as it is, he should win pluralities in a lot of the winner-take-all states.  Had the races to date been winner-take-all, Trump would have almost 200 additional delegates.  By far, he has the best odds of securing the nomination and avoiding a brokered convention.

 

Kasich has no elective future after his current stint as governor and thus has no reason to leave the campaign.  Rubio can only damage future prospects for elective office by remaining and would be wise to bow out and throw his support to whichever of the frontrunners he prefers.  Cruz will be mathematically eliminated before Trump.  Will he bow out at that point or also push for a brokered convention?  I'll blog on that if it comes to pass.

Marco Poll Low

As of this writing, Marco Rubio has managed to finish a very weak 4th in the two biggest races of the day.  Compared with the support he was getting just last week, his campaign has collapsed.  The successor to JEB is proving to have about the same traction.  A one time darling of the Tea Party, Marco beat the establishment candidate for Senate then went to Washington to join the establishment.  That may be a bit harsh but it is how a lot of the base feels.  In a year when immigration is the hot button issue, a pro-amnesty candidate who sided with the other party against his base is going nowhere.  At least, not in the Republican party.  Rubio may get some delegates tonight in Idaho or Hawaii but he will be much further behind both Trump and Cruz.  Heck, Kasich will have gained ground on him.  The only reason to stay in the race is to force a brokered convention.  Every delegate he gets will give him more sway in that event.  However, if he loses Florida, which is looking likely, he will damage himself for future efforts.  Cruz won his home state and, if he falls short this year, can try again, but if Rubio loses Florida, his prospects will dim considerably.  If he bows out in the next day or two, he can remain viable for a future run.  I suspect he will stay until he loses Florida, then he will have to bow out.

Media is saving Bombshells for the General Election?

In this article, Ted Cruz suggests that the media has numerous bombshell stories to drop on Trump should he be the nominee.  That sounds like a reasonable suggestion.  But is it?  If there are bombshells out there, why hasn't every Republican opposition research team dug it up and used it?  Or what about the conservative media that is hugely opposed to Trump?  Ben Shapiro blasted Trump pretty hard in a recent video which seems to have done nothing.  Romney - the man who lost the most winnable election against a Democratic incumbent since Reagan beat Carter - launched a massive attack and Trump replied with little more than a shrug.  After all, Romney's a loser.  Trump is an admitted adulterer, has acknowledged bankruptcies, admitted influencing government officials because that is how the game is played, and more.  He is still in the lead.  I'm doubtful there are worse failings to be uncovered.  Sure, the media will press hard on all these issues but Trump isn't the typical Republican who will wilt.  Also, Hillary has an equally huge number of bombshells, many of them relating to her performance as a public servant.  Unlike Romney vs. Obama, where Romney didn't hammer on Obama's record of failure, I'm pretty sure Trump is going to tear into Hillary in exactly the way Cruz, Rubio, Kasich, JEB, or any other Republican wouldn't.  Trump fights and he doesn't give a crap what the media thinks.  Yes, his attacks are often unfair and inaccurate; Cruz of all people should know that.  However, they stick.  I've talked to people who distrust Cruz because of what Trump said about him.  Look what happened to JEB after Trump called him 'low energy.'  I don't begrudge Ted his effort to use potential media bombshells to turn the electorate toward him but I also don't think Trump is an easy mark for Hillary.  This is an anti-establishment year and Hillary is the most establishment candidate still in the race.

Primary Thoughts

Why are there open primaries?  Why would any party allow non-members to select their nominee?  When I was in high school, I had a poly sci teacher who would change his party affiliation in order to vote in a primary if he thought it would better benefit his view by throwing a wrench in the other party.  That was his prerogative.  At least he made the effort of joining the party (even if insincerely) to vote.  Most people won't go to that effort which means such cross-party sabotage is limited in closed primaries.  The situation can be particularly dire if one party picks a nominee before the other.  If party A has chosen Andrew Anderson only 3 primaries into the season, then party A voters in the rest of the states have a lot of incentive to cross-parties and pick the weakest candidate of Party B.  Even if that doesn't come to pass, an extended primary fight in party B is likely to benefit Andrew Anderson in the general election.  Again, this isn't likely to be a problem in closed primaries but will definitely be so in open primaries.

There is the flipside.  Perhaps there is benefit in an open primary in that it allows for testing the waters of the general electorate.  Candidates who do well among the party faithful might prove incapable of getting votes outside that group, a certain path to defeat.  Open primaries can sink a candidate who can't get broad support.

Then we have the order.  Why do Iowa and New Hampshire get first crack every 4 years?  Ethanol has survived as long as it has only because candidates from each party promise to protect it in order to show well in the first caucus.  Why not rotate among the states?  Granted, the primaries and caucuses should continue to sample each region before jumping into big events like Super Tuesday.  The current pattern is to start in the Midwest, go to New England, the South, and then the West.  Any rotation strategy should keep that in mind.  However, some states are too expensive to be first.  Try running a shoestring campaign in New York, California, or Texas.  Many candidates would be eliminated for having insufficient money.  Sticking with relatively small states is probably best though some rotation should occur.  That lack of rotation is why everything is so compressed today.  Too many states were tired of finding the race was over before they had a vote.

I have written on this before in previous primary seasons.  I suspect I will do so again 4 years hence.  It may never change.

Super Tuesday and Super Saturday

Two big election days have come in the last week and have mostly improved the standings of Trump and Hillary.

On the Republican side of things, Trump has now won a dozen states and has 382 delegates, 31% of the total needed for the nomination.  However, 35% of the delegates have been allocated.  Trump is behind where he needs to be to win the nomination outright.  He will need to win 53% of the remaining delegates to avoid a convention fight.  Cruz has won 6 states and 300 delegates, 24% of the delegates for the nomination.  He will need 58% of the remaining delegate.  Rubio only has 128 delegates and will need to run the table, winning 68% of the remaining delegates.  Kasich has won no states and has 35 delegates.  His presence can only make a convention fight more likely.  This may sound dire but part of the issue is that so many of these early states have offered proportional delegates (South Carolina being the only exception so far).  18 of the remaining states - constituting 901 delegates - are winner take all.  If the states to this point had been winner take all, Trump would have 526 delegates, Cruz 319, Rubio 38, and everyone else 0.  With that in mind, if Trump continues to win states by at his current rate, he will be the undisputed nominee.  There is a codicil: Cruz performs better in closed - Republican voters only - contests.  When Independents and Democrats don't vote, Cruz has won 5 of 8 contests.  Like the proportional contests, open contests are mostly front-loaded.  If he continues to win 63% of closed contests, he would get 640 additonal delegates.  That would still leave him 300 delegates short so he would need to perform quite well with the remaining contests that have 570 delegates.  As for Rubio, his only hope is to be chosen on a second ballot at a contested convention.  He can no longer accumulate enough delegates.  In short, Trump or Cruz are the likely nominee, Trump being more likely.

 

On the Democrat side, Hillary is leading.  She has won 11 states and 1121 delegates, giving her 47% of the delegates needed to win the nomination.  Bernie has won 8 states and 478 delegates, 20% of what he needs.  Unless he starts winning more often and by larger margins (or Hillary is indicted), he isn't going to win.  Much of the cause for Hillary's tremendous lead despite a relatively equal number of states won is super delegates.  Hillary has 458 to Bernie's 22, a huge margin.  However, even if the super delegates are factored out, she still leads in the delegate chase by 651 to 456.  If that pattern holds, Hillary will be the nominee.

 

The most likely result is still a Trump-Clinton contest in November though it is marginally possible that Cruz overcomes Trump's lead to become the nominee.

Generosity with Other People's Money

I found it very interesting how many people are so eager to have the government redistribute other people's money.  Most of those who are wild about Bernie Sanders KNOW they aren't going to be supplying the money for all the goodies he is promising; they don't have any money.

Image a group of 100 people.  Bob, who is a chronic smoker, has lung cancer.  Just about everyone feels that is unfortunate but fifty believe someone should do something to help.  Rather than fork out money from their pockets, they call a vote.  The fifty plus Bob vote to pay for Bob's cancer treatment while the other 49 vote against.  Majority rules so Bob's cancer treatment is paid.  Here's my question: If the 50 were so concerned about Bob's health, why didn't they raise the money among themselves?  Why force the other 49?  Well, because they had to pay a lot less that way.  They soothed their consciences by donating the money of others.

 

We now live in a country where nearly 50% of the population pays no income tax.  Sure, they pay Social Security and Medicare via payroll taxes but when looking at the cost of other government services (military, welfare, food stamps, foreign aid, bank bailouts, etc.), it has no impact on their taxation.  That is a recipe for the untaxed to vote for ever increasing benefits that will further burden those who do pay taxes.  It is easy to be generous with other people's money.  I'd like to see how these folks would vote if they had to foot the bill.