I thought they hated us because of Bush?

Nobel literature head: US too insular to compete

Interesting story from the AP today. Shucks, apparently us Americans is just too dumb to do any serious writin'.

It's funny, I wonder how academia is reacting to this. No doubt it's Bush's fault. All those poor creative writing professors, who have slogged through the salt mines of hungover student-filled classrooms, only to race home and pound out 1200 words a day, before heading off to whatever cocktail party happens to be that night so they can talk about the hope and change inspired by everyone's favorite centrist, tarred by association with the illegal invasion of Iraq.

Oh yeah - and wiring taping.

And waterboarding.

Hope and change, baby!

95 Democrats

So they're busy blaming Republicans on Capitol Hill for crushing this bailout bill, but 95 Democrats voted against it. How the hell can they expect the Republicans to go along if 40% of the Democrats are not going along with it?

Why the Left Screams

I've been around far more than my fair share of leftist loons (quite a few of whom I truly cherish as close friends) - what working in Hollywood and being the hard core "Burner" that I am and it's always bothered me that I have to maintain a secret identity (not unlike a super hero) among many of my friends or colleagues for fear of losing them as friends or colleagues. I used to like to talk about politics and argue and really go to town, but out here, on the "left" coast you kind of take your life in your hands. Not just because people might stop talking to you, but because they might start screaming at you. I've had a heck of a lot of conversations that degenerated into my just being shouted down. No debate, no dialogue, just yelling. I don't like to live that way. But I don't like to keep quiet.

I have to admit, I haven't fully watched Friday night's debate. I have kids and while we watched the first 20 minutes or so, someone had to make the Mac and Cheese and then we just got the second season of "Dexter" on TV and I had a "Feasting On Waves" and THREE "Ghost Hunters" all lined up on the DVR and... what the was the point?

And yes, I'm going to tie this in to my first paragraph.

Look, I'm going to admit it right here and now, there's no way I'm going to change my opinion of Barack Obama (or John McCain) because of a debate. Presidential debates are probably useful for people who live in caves and come out once every four years to decide who they're going to vote for, but the truth is that anyone who's been paying attention has made their decision long ago and if you're undecided and you do make up your mind based on the debate - yeesh. All it is, is a grudge match. It's about is who got who or who made a better point, who scored, who looked strong or peeved or interrupted or rambled or who couldn't remember the name on his bracelet, but what the hell is that supposed to tell me about which one's better for president? What do I take away from the debates that I hadn't already known before?

"Uh, Mr. Putin, uh... you know, about that invasion of, uh.... Georgia... uh, I have, right here, the bracelet of a United Nations Security Council member who lives on Main Street and not Wall Street and is solidly middle class and is...uh... going to, uh, you know... have 95% of his taxes cut...uh... who's name is... uh.... uh.... hard to read upside down..."

(oops - please don't read that if you're in Missouri)

The point is I've already made up my mind and I've done enough reading and paying attention and trust my convictions enough to understand why. Which - in a roundabout way - brings me to my ultimate point.

As is painfully obvious, most of the main stream media is fully on board the Obama bus (that is until they get tossed under it (apparently it's pretty crowded under there)). There are a million problems with that, but one of them is that if you aren't really paying attention (don't read the papers, don't watch the news, don't read the blogs and the alternative blogs and seek out opposing points of view) and simply - like a lot of people, I suspect - absorb presidential politics by some kind of strange osmosis from the world and entertainment at large, all you're going to know is gosh, Obama is well, you know, COOL. It's like a kind of mass hypnosis experiment. You're sitting on the subway listening to the "Black Eyed Peas" on your iPod and across from you some old guy is reading the (your-city-name-here) Times and you catch a headline about how someone 20 years ago said McCain never fully answered the question of whether or not he still eats Twinkies. Or you're watching Letterman, who has to be smart, because he's, you know, on TV and he talks about how McCain is old and that has to be bad because, you know, he's OLD. Or you're watching Law and Order and they run one of those deep and subtle episodes where they ever so delicately riff on the absolute HORRORS of (insert-politically-correct-sacred cow-being-gored-conservatives-of-the-moment-here). In other words the media, from top to bottom is overwhelmingly leftist, so if all you do is pay attention to what you happen to run into throughout your day, all you're going to get is one side of the argument (or diatribe as the case may be).

But if you want to know more than what the "gate keepers" (cough) feel like telling you (or feel you ought to know) then you have to seek out other forums and news and blogs and then you wind up reading and listening and hearing things explained and thought out far more completely than a Top Ten list or a Tina Fey skit.

Which is why, I think, to finally get back around to my first paragraph, that lefties scream. Most conservatives I know tend to be far more informed and firm in their convictions because in order to have those convictions you have to get out there and read and research and that means seeking out conservative voices. So what happens is that you are already being exposed to the other side through whatever Sundance Channel (alright, that's not fair, no one actually watches Sundance Channel) happens to be showing, but you also go forth and seek out opposing viewpoints and after spending hours and hours in your car/shower/bathroom honing your arguments, you're ready to go. So when you do take the leap (or flirt with career suicide) and get into a political conversation with someone from the other team, you can easily parry, riposte and counter-riposte until a firm middle ground is reached at which point your opponent thinks you're a heartless tool of big industry who would not only prefer, but take pleasure in letting little kids go to bed hungry.

Blocking the Path to 9/11

I saw a documentary last night (and no, I was not the one there who actually had pink hair) called, Blocking the Path to 9/11 that was extremely pertinent to what's going on in the media today. It was about the docudrama, The Path to 9/11 that appeared on ABC and portrayed events leading up to the attacks of September 11 and the Clintons' attempts to have the film pulled/ censored. It was also about the Democrats (at large) apparent willingness/ eagerness to have the film stopped including, incredibly, Harry Reid and others (who admit on camera that they have not seen the film) threatening ABC with having their broadcast license revoked and the Main Stream Media's eagerness to buy into and accept unconditionally whatever it was that the Clintonistas were telling them.

It was a fascinating and blood boiling film and really should be seen by a wider audience, especially given the current climate.

What struck me as particularly relevant to what's going on right now was a section in the film that detailed a series of what were essentially fabrications on the part of Clinton "operatives" (a word with bad connotations which the LA Times (at least) loves to ascribe to anyone having to do with the Bush Administration or Republicans in general) who really made up an amazing series of lies to outline a perceived Right Wing Conspiracy ™ which 0they blamed for instigating the film. (There's a hilarious section of the doc (well, hilarious to any of us working in Hollywood) where the lunacy of that was explained.) It also details the amazing way those lies worked their way into the Main Stream Media as fact and it bore a striking resemblance to what's happening with Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin (read here for an amazing piece of work on this.) As with most of my conservative friends (who also remain hidden in underground bunkers of Laurel Canyon and wear paper bags over their heads when venturing out for their iced-chai, decaf lattes) I've been stunned and appalled at the lies strewn about by anyone with a keyboard and internet access that get taken up and just blathered out. What is more amazing, is there seems to be a concerted effort to do this. Eyeball this, for instance.

Maybe he wouldn't have anything to do.

Sure maybe McCain is trying to score some political points with this, but for him and his message it does make sense. Obama's reaction to it though really confused me, but the more I think about the more this makes a lot of sense. Obama has no juice in the Senate. John McCain has been there for years and is without doubt a mover and a shaker, but Obama's been there for maybe four and has spent at least half that time on the road shaking hands, kissing babies and tossing former supporters under whatever bus happens to come along. It's not at all clear to me that if he went back to Washington to help deal with this crisis he would actually have anything to do. He doesn't have relationships to call on and doesn't have favors or chips to call in. As I said earlier, he might not even remember where his office is.

Maybe he just doesn't remember where his office is?

Via Riehl World View

1) Say you can understand Obama's point of view as he has never been engaged in anything this serious on Capitol Hill, or anywhere else.

and 2) Volunteer to let his VP nominee sit in for him against Obama on Friday.

Awesome.

What if the Messenger Commits Suicide

I was a journalism major in college and although I never actually went into journalism as a profession, I've been a news junkie ever since. I had my first newspaper subscription when I was in 5th grade (it was a class project) and rode my bike to deliver the local fish wrapper from ages 9 to 14 and I think I have permanent nerve damage in my nose and ears from riding my bike in the freezing cold - not to mention being bitten by dogs 5 times. Still, given such adversity, I was undaunted in my eagerness to consume the "news." But I've become disillusioned over the years with the press's coverage of anything having to do with anything conservative. Now, while I have not been a particularly big fan of the Bush Administration, I've been - well - flabbergasted (full disclosure: I've never actually used that word before) by the treatment of the press. For instance, has anyone noticed that our economy - which has just taken a huge turn for the worse - has, according the meme running through the LA Times (my local rag), been in the crapper for years?

But, given the current onslaught of press coverage detailing, among other things, the dubious character of Sarah Palin (who I happen to be a big fan of) what concerns me is that if McCain is elected we'll have at least four years of doom and gloom (and possibly 8). I can't see anything but despair in the press if there is another Republican president and such an overwhelming onslaught of negative reporting (in spite of whatever the reality might be) is only going to make the divisions in this country deeper and stronger. The Democrats blame the Republicans for partisan turmoil and vice-versa. But the problem is clearly (at least to me and a growing cohort of others) the press and the further problem is that more and more people are starting to distrust the press and the press (I'm really talking about the newspapers), is dying a slow death as they become less and less believable and less and less relevant in the lives of at least 50% of this country. But that's a big problem for this country. What happens if the press becomes a big red nosed clown with the only people paying attention to it are the people who are willing to believe whatever it is they're told as long as they already agree with it?

Of course there is a rapidly growing alternative in the blogosphere, but the blogosphere consistently relies on the main stream press, at least for inspiration. Also, television news relies heavily on the reporting of newspapers and news agencies, which by and large can devote more time, resources and space to a story (however dubious that story may be). What's going to happen to television news if the newspapers and news gathering services go down?

Clearly, given the polls regarding how the country views the press and their sliding (dare I say, plummeting) circulation rates, the press is in trouble but what astounds me is they don't seem to care in the least.

The press has been our messenger for years. They have rightly had an adversarial relationship with power but now they've become an ally of power and have moved from reporting to propaganda. Sure the country has problems, it's always had problems from the very founding of the republic and for the relatively recent past we've relied on the press to warn us when those problems have gotten out of hand. There is an old expression that says don't kill the messenger. I think the press has gotten by on this for a very long time. But what happens if the messenger commits suicide?

Replacing Biden

I disagree strongly with this piece on Hillary replacing Biden. For one, I think that ship has sailed. I really doubt Obama lost that many of Hillary's supporters to begin with, plus the only actual executive decision the man has made in his political career is picking Joe Biden. How's it going to look to the undecideds that he didn't even get that right?

Gotta love the Nuge

Via JammieWearingFool
“With all due respect, many in the entertainment industry are deep into mind-altering substance abuse, and when one’s logic and intellectual calculating powers are replaced with dopey feel-good, fantasy-driven denial, the democratic party serves them well,” Nugent blasted.

Wow

I have a degree in journalism and I have to admit, this is not something I ever learned:

ABC News Edited Out Key Parts of Sarah Palin Interview

This tells you all you need to know.

For those of us (you) out there who are staying up nights worried about what the intellectuals in Europe thinks of the United States, there's this:

World wants Obama as president: poll

On the other hand, there's also this:

No consensus on who was behind Sept 11 - global poll

I was thinking, when I first sat down to blog this that perhaps the two were contradictory, but the more I think about it - they're really not.

They're not getting it

The amazing thing that I've noticed about the left's reaction to Sarah Palin is that they just don't get it.

Evidence here.

S.C. Dem chair: Palin primary qualification is she hasn't had an abortion

Picture # 42

This is the blog of John McCain's daughter Meghan and I've been reading it for a while because I think it's a cool view of behind-the-scenes of a political campaign.

Here

Anyway, picture #42 down on the list just tugged at my heart - the Vice Presidental Nominee of the Republican party holding - not just a package of baby wipes - but COSTCO baby wipes. If there's a way to place her more squarely in my world (I've got two kids - one in diapers) I don't know what it is.

Why Pink Hair?

Except for one or two people who know me very well, almost no one I know would identify me as a conservative. There are two reasons for this. One, is because I work and have worked in the entertainment business for the last 18 years I have largely, when it comes to matters political, kept my damn mouth shut (though, come to think of it that goes largely for living and having friends in Los Angeles). The second reason is because my life doesn't typically appear to be conservative. I'm a filmmaker, a burner (which means I attend Burning Man regularly and do weird things there like wear pink (again pink) mini skirts) and a writer. My work ranges from advertising to erotica (though it my trip into the realm of the erotic was VERY short, it serves as illustrative for this example (and would no doubt be career defining if I were ever to run for office)). I am, in short, someone who would be likely to live his life with pink hair (if I actually had any hair left to dye).

Right but why pink? A few weeks ago I was at a John McCain fundraiser in Beverly Hills (thanks to a few wonderful FOA leaders) and there was a girl there who had pink hair. Of course everyone (everyone being the three other people I was with), including my wife, was shocked to see this girl at an obviously Republican event - but my comment to that was, "you know, if I had hair, it might very well be pink." To which my wife replied, "Well, yeah, but you don't have hair."

The whole and entire point of this is just as there are gay republicans who kind of surprise people by being gay, so too are there republicans like me - artists, creatives, weirdos - and it is from this standpoint that I undertake this blog (anonymously so as to keep the toenail hold I have in the business) and it is from that standpoint that I seek to comment on the world and politics at large.