"Intellectual" Alert - Brooks (Updated)

It's no shocker that David Brooks uses the most asinine word in the English vocabulary. Fun to ridicule him for it, though.

David Brooks in the NYT: "Intellectually serious efforts are made to pay for at least half of the cost of health care reform."

"Intellectually serious." As opposed to non-intellectually serious, or idiot serious, or dumber than a bag of hammers serious, or clowns climb out of my head like at the circus serious.

Thanks for informing us common fools that a group of dancing bears didn't write the budget, putz.

Update: Pegs and Putz go hand in hand, so I'll put her latest laughers here. I love this stuff. Better than the comics.

Peggy Noonan, WSJ: Third is an unspoken public sense that we cannot afford another failed presidency, that we just got through one and a second would be terrible. Americans know how much good a successful presidency does for us in the world, in the public mind. The last unalloyed, inarguable success was Reagan. We need another. Liberal? Conservative? That, to the great middle of America, would, at the moment, be secondary. They want successful. They want "That worked." They want the foreign visitor to say, "I like your president." They want to respond, "So do I."

Yes, perhaps it, would, at least, make people, happy, to use, commas, to make their, point, about wanting, something, anything, to work, no matter what it cost, them. ("Intellectuals" often pay homage to the Comma Fairy).

"Americans know how much good a successful presidency does for us in the world..." Yeah, the world's heart was really boom-boom-booming over your hero Reagan, Pegs. I know you wrote a fawning book about him, but peddle the bull somewhere else.

I love Peggy and her omniscient ability to read "unspoken public sense." She brings it up every time she talks about a shopping trip that took her past a wind swept Italian restaurant dappled with the sunlight of a thousand children's eyes. Or something.

This bit from the piece is good, too:

A mysterious thing happened in that speech Tuesday night. By the end of it Barack Obama had become president. Every president has a moment when suddenly he becomes what he meant to be, or knows what he is, and those moments aren't always public.

That's actually true. A buddy of mine told me a similar story: "You know how they say that love will find you when you least expect it? Well, there I was at 3 in the morning, taking a dump..."

Stop the Press

Another paper goes under:

AP: The Rocky Mountain News will publish its last edition Friday.

Owner E.W. Scripps Co. announced on the newspaper's Web site Thursday that its search for a buyer for the paper was unsuccessful.

"Today the Rocky Mountain News, long the leading voice in Denver, becomes a victim of changing times in our industry and huge economic challenges," Scripps CEO Rich Boehne said.

Sad in a sentimental way, I suppose, but that's the way it's going to go from here on out. For the time being, clicking is free while the newsstand isn't.

Ontario's Open Season On Small Business Owners

Mark Steyn has a good piece about the human rights commissions' impact on small business owners. He sounds mad as hell, and I don't blame him. He mentions Gator Ted's, an Ontario bar that's been put through hoops for the past few years for not letting a man smoke medicinal marijuana on their property.

I heard that the case was settled last year. The Gator Ted's story, however, is still not over. Far from it. If you want to hear the definition of a rock and hard place, here it is:

Hamilton Spectator: Gibson complained to the Ontario Human Rights Commission in 2005 he's been discriminated against because he is disabled after Kindos asked him not to smoke marijuana outside the restaurant's front door. Patrons complained about the smell, Kindos said.

Kindos was ready to settle with Gibson, pay him $2,000 for mental anguish, arrange sensitivity training for staff and post a sign saying the establishment accommodated medicinal smokers. But he changed his mind after the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario warned that use of a controlled substance in areas the restaurant controls, including parking, put his liquor licence in jeopardy.

So Kindos decided to fight rather than settle, despite the fact the upcoming hearing could cost as much as $60,000. As Kindos sees it, he either fights or Gator Ted's Tap & Grill loses its licence and closes.

When's the hearing? June 8, 2009. When did this all begin? 2005.

So there you have it. If Gator Ted's owner appeases one government institution (the OHRC), he gets nailed by another one (the gaming commission). He is literally damned if he does and damned if he doesn't.

This stuff has always made me angry, but now it's starting to scare me. And that sucks. I suppose it's the feeling these government institutions want me to have and I have to fight it.

We're being told that the economy's going to hell in a handbasket, and that small business owners are oh-so-important, yet two government institutions seem quite content to have a small business owner crushed between them. Who's next? This can't be the Canada I grew up in. But it is.

I don't know who to call on to stop this madness. Maybe it has to start at the grassroots. No-namers that can take an issue and run with it, making it an issue that can put them on the front page.

Here's MPP Joyce Savoline from Burlington, showing more sense and guts than any of the bigshot politicians. This appeared in the smalltime Burlington Post yesterday:

There is something morally reprehensible and very disturbing about a government that allows its citizens to pay the price for its inconsistent policies.

I encourage you to write to Minister Ted McMeekin — who has suggested that he will not let Ted Kindos flounder — and tell him what you think.

He can be reached at tmcmeekin.mpp@ liberal.ola.org.

Take her up on the offer.

"Dr. Livingstone, I --" Ka-Boom!

I read about the UK's troubles every week or so, and every week it just gets worse.

Last week they booted a Dutch MP out of the country for fear of protests. That's as cowardly and pathetic as it gets for a democracy. The Dutch and the English have long diplomatic ties. For the English to not let a Dutch MP through the airport turnstiles is an incredible insult. It's historic. It's also very telling: the UK government is completely cowed, virtual hostages in their own territory. Now this:

Mail Online: The Armed Forces are increasingly fighting British Muslims with Midlands and Yorkshire accents on the battlefields of Afghanistan.

Intelligence reports show that rising numbers of home-grown jihadists have joined the Taliban so they can kill British soldiers.

Senior military sources say UK troops are engaged in a 'surreal mini-civil war' in the dusty badlands of Helmand Province.

The revelations came as the Ministry of Defence announced another three British soldiers had been killed in a roadside bomb attack in southern Afghanistan today.

We live in strange times. Twenty-five years ago, this would have been scandalous. If the British had gone ashore in the Falklands and been shot at by Yorkshire lads fighting for Argentina, the cries of outrage would have echoed throughout London. Thatcher would have lost her PM seat in a flash. Now, it's just one of those ho-hum things you see mentioned in blogs.

The Knee's Fine, Thanks

Woods beat Brendan Jones 3 and 2 in the first round of the Accenture Match Play Championship. He looked strong right out of the gate, posting a birdie and eagle on the first two holes.

Fans are glad to have him back. Fellow golfers? Not so much.

AP Photo/Chris Carlson

Cartoon Critic

I can't help it. Reading her stuff is like watching a train wreck.

I'm always on the side of the comedians, and political cartoonists have carte blanche as far as I'm concerned.

Kathleen Parker: Cartoonists rely on readers' collective understanding of symbols and metaphor and on their unconscious connecting of images to ideas. Given that dependence, cartoonists have to be aware of the many ways those symbols might be linked within a given time and context.

The Delonas cartoon was offensive for reasons unrelated to race. No sane person enjoyed seeing or reading about police killing the chimpanzee. They may as well have killed Bonzo. Compounding the horror of this poor animal drawn dead and bleeding was the knowledge of its gruesome attack on a woman, who at the time was in critical condition.

Not funny.

1) She eventually got around to mentioning the woman mauled by the poor chimp. Kudos.

2) Who is Kathleen Parker to tell cartoonists what they have to be aware of? There's only two things cartoonists need to know: the paper in front of them, and the pen in their hand.

3) The hierarchy of writer over cartoonist is a joke. You write. They draw. Done deal. In fact, judging by how many "outrages" and debates there are over cartoons vs. written words, you could make a case that cartoons are the superior form of expression.

So I will. Keep drawing whatever you want, cartoonists. We need you.

You're In Good Hands

Last night, Obama made a big deal out of his decision to put VP Joe Biden in charge of the stimulus spending. He said he was doing it because, "You don't mess with Joe."

Congress had a good old laugh over that, and I thought the entire room had suddenly gone insane. Placing Joe Biden in charge of $787 billion should be an impeachable offence.

The other day, Obama described the decision like this: "The fact that I'm asking my vice president to personally lead this effort shows how important it is for our country and future to get this right."

Obama's lost his mind.

Here's Biden talking this morning to a CBS news anchor. When she asks him what the website address of the recovery plan is (Obama made a point of it during his speech, and even I remember it: recovery.gov - you know, as in "Recovery Plan," get it?), Man In Charge of Stimulus Joe says, "You know, I'm embarrassed. [To staffer] Do you know the website number? [To host] I should have it in front of me, but I don't..."

The anchor tries to save him, saying she'll call his office later to find out. Joe stumbles on for a couple of seconds until finally coming up with what he calls the website number. When she asks him if it's up and running, he says, "It's up and running."

How the hell would he know?

What's This Video Thing All About? (II)

I wrote a few weeks ago about the Republican baby steps into the mysterious world of web video.

Tom Price is back, this time with a response to last night's speech from President Obama.

Tom obviously gets it. He knows that you have to respond quickly and get it out there fast. As far as content goes, it's isn't bad. He agrees with the president on some stuff, disagrees on others, etc. But I'm not really looking at the politics here, more the method of his webcast.

In my last post about his web video, I said they should find a tripod. They did. And now...sigh.

Tom: buy a boom microphone or a clip-on mic. On-camera mics produce horrible audio, and they also pick up the sound of your aide flipping pages beneath the lens.

Still, it's another good effort. The lack of pro lighting gives it an impromptu look that works, so they should stick with that. We'll see what he does next time.

Barkley Doing Time

Only five days, which is almost nothing, but I guess it sends some kind of message. Right?

It shouldn't surprise me anymore that these rich cats go drinking and driving. But when will they get it through their heads that they have more than enough cash to hire a fulltime driver?

Then again, Barkley said he had a major league good excuse. Let me see, how do I word this for the family crowd...Okay, Barkley gets stopped by the cops. They decide he's drunk, then ask him where he's going. Barkley says he's going to get oral sex from a girl. He says that just last week, the lady had given him the best oral sex of his life. Then he tells civilian police workers that he will, "Tattoo my name on your ass" if they let him off. Then he laughs, realizes his mistake, and says he will "Tattoo your name on my ass" if they let him off. And laughs again.

The cops described him as "cordial."

You can read the full police report here.

A couple of other Barkley mug shots can be found here and here. One is for the time in '97 when he was charged for throwing a guy through a bar's plate glass window. The other's for a time in '91 when he was charged for slugging a guy. He was acquitted of that charge.

Mug Shot: The Smoking Gun

Putz Drinks Kool-Aid, Gets Cramps

I took a potshot at Peggy Noonan the other day, former-conservative-turned-Obama-cheerleader-turned-disillusioned-Obama-cheerleader.

She is joined by Kathleen Parker, who I never really read in the first place, and David Brooks, token faux conservative at the New York Times. The little trio is doing a lot of worrying these days. Who stole the Hope and Change gusto? (Incidentally, Obama should copyright the word "hope." Lately I've heard people say the word on TV outside of an Obama context, and audiences applaud, seemingly for no reason. When they realize the speaker isn't talking about that kind of hope, the applause trickles to nothing. Amusing).

There's just something about J-school hacks who use flowery prose that turns me off. Here's Brooks, worrying:

NYT: If ever this kind of domestic revolution were possible, this is the time and these are the people to do it. The crisis demands a large response. The people around Obama are smart and sober. Their plans are bold but seem supple and chastened by a realistic sensibility.

Yet they set off my Burkean alarm bells. I fear that in trying to do everything at once, they will do nothing well. I fear that we have a group of people who haven’t even learned to use their new phone system trying to redesign half the U.S. economy. I fear they are going to try to undertake the biggest administrative challenge in American history while refusing to hire the people who can help the most: agency veterans who are registered lobbyists.

So much for all of those sober, smart people with supple plans chastened by realistic sensibility (previously known as "reality"). The guy writes a thesis in one paragraph, then obliterates it with the next. Cool trick.

Is it just me, or has modern politics created a whole new form of journalist as putz?

The Money Hole

In The Know: Should The Government Stop Dumping Money Into A Giant Hole?

He's Back

The Lender Made Me Do It

Stories like this make me see about a dozen shades of red:



First thoughts:

1) If you receive a notice of foreclosure, you are not, by definition, a home "owner."

2) If you are a bus driver and mother of 2, and your husband isn't loaded to the gills, then you have to be out of your mind to purchase a house worth $800,000.

3) Buying a house and using it as a credit card is stupid. You deserve to pay.

4) When someone buys a house worth 800 large, then cries to the president to "stop the foreclosures," I say, "Why?"

5) "If people are losing houses, losing jobs, what are we going to do?" Move. And get another job.

6) "Like countless other Americans, Garcia admits she and her husband bought more house than they could afford..." And now the taxpayers have to keep you in "your home" so you can relax? Get over yourself.

7) "The lender made it all too easy..." This one kills me. Kills me.

Today I had to buy two laptops for my business. Just two laptops. They wouldn't break me, but I didn't want to get taken by some high school geek, either. I studied all of the websites. I got the flyers from Staples, Future Shop, Best Buy, and Office Depot. I compared all of the computers. I considered saving by buying a couple of desktops, but no, I needed the portability of the laptops. I thought $700 was way too high for the work the laptops would be doing. I needed some cheapies, but not so cheap that they'd crap out in a couple of weeks. I decided to sacrifice some RAM to get more harddrive space. I made my decision, walked over to the store, and bought them. That's how I look at the purchase of laptops. Now, am I supposed to feel sympathy for people that buy a house worth $800,000, know they can't afford it, and turn around to blame the lender? And, to top it off, they're now calling for the president of the United States to "stop the foreclosures" and have the taxpayers bail them out? It stinks. These people were gambling that the house would increase in value. If they get bailed out, then the craps players in Vegas should be bailed out, too.

This recession stuff is tough. It makes me sound like a hard hearted jerk. To hell with it. From lollipops, to laptops, to houses, take responsibility for your life. If you take risks, fine, but the consequences should be yours to keep. Funny thing: so will the rewards, though I'm sure these innocent "home owners" would have poured millions into the charities of America if their house had doubled in value.

I See A Higher Premium In Your Future

Wondering why your insurance company hasn't paid your claim yet? They've been busy consulting their astrologist to find out which star sign indicates the better chance of a wreck.

Yahoo: David Neave, director of general insurance for The Co-Operative Insurance, said: 'The results show that certain star signs are unluckier than others.

'This survey may yield some surprising results, but consumers can rest assured that we will not be adding a 'star sign' to our list of rating factors.'

Yeah, right. Rest assured and insurance company aren't words that usually go together in the same sentence. I'll give Dave two seconds to ask his seer if I believe him or not.

The list:

SAGITTARIUS Top
SCORPIO 2nd
LIBRA 3rd
LEO 4th
VIRGO 5th
AQUARIUS 6th
CAPRICORN 7th
PISCES 8th
CANCER 9th
TAURUS 10th
GEMINI 11th
ARIES 12th

The Swift Justice of the Trash Can

The free speech crowd should like this result:

Canadian Press: A Saskatoon judge acquitted former aboriginal leader David Ahenakew Monday of wilfully promoting hatred against Jews.

The former head of the Assembly of First Nations was charged after a controversial speech and subsequent interview with a reporter more than six years ago. In the interview he called them a "disease" and appeared to justify the Holocaust.

Provincial court Judge Wilfred Tucker said the comments were disgusting but he didn't believe Ahenakew intended to promote hatred.

Fine by me, though this story's reporter is hedging: Ahenakew didn't "appear" to justify the Holocaust. He downright did, and in plain language, too. He said, "The Jews damn near owned all of Germany prior to the war. That's how Hitler came in. He was going to make damn sure that the Jews didn't take over Germany or Europe...That's why he fried six million of those guys, you know. Jews would have owned the God-damned world."

You know why I don't like hate speech laws? Because they send these clowns underground. I like to know what people are thinking, and the only way to know it is to hear them speak. Let them rant all the live long day. That lets me know who I should keep my eye on.

Actually, that last statement of mine is a little over the top. Do I know there's Holocaust denying bigots in Canada? Sure. Do I care? Not really. There's all kinds of goofballs walking around. Some hate Jews, some hate Christians, some hate Muslims, some wear tinfoil, some want to live on Andromeda 5 in the Doppleloopy Nebula.

I'm reminded of a story from PJ O'Rourke. He was visiting his old college campus and paid a visit to the student newspaper office. He was amused to see the editors going back and forth over whether or not to publish a piece written by a student denying the Holocaust.

Some of the editors were disturbed by the content and said it shouldn't run. It was racist and vile. Others said it had to be published because it was free speech and the student had a right to his opinion. The First Amendment was at stake. Earnest handwringing followed. They didn't know what to do with it. O'Rourke wondered why they just didn't throw it in the garbage because it was a "piece of shit."

Why I Like Sowell

Two paragraphs from one of Thomas Sowell's latest articles:

How can a President of the United States be re-elected in a landslide after four years when unemployment never fell below 15 percent for even one month during his first term? Franklin D. Roosevelt did it by blaming it all on the previous administration. Barack Obama may be able to achieve the same result the same way.

Can you name the only baseball player to bat .382 in his last year in the major leagues? The first five readers who can will receive a free copy of my new book, "Applied Economics."

Sowell's smart, and he knows what's important. (The answer, by the way, is Shoeless Joe Jackson; he was banned from baseball after the 1919 World Series).

Oscar Right and Wrong

"My pick" is who I thought the Academy would give it to, not necessarily who I thought deserved it. Tonight, I landed about 50-50. I caught some of the speeches tonight, too. They always make me feel weirdly uncomfortable, like eavesdropping on a bunch of people shamelessly kissing each other's butts. Sometimes you feel like interrupting.

Best Actor

My Pick: Sean Penn. Right. He got the award, made a few political statements, said he was glad Obama got elected, mentioned Mickey Rourke was his buddy. Everyone happy.

Best Actress

My Pick: Kate Winslet. Right. From her speech: "I'd be lying if I haven't made a version of this speech before." No kidding, Kate.

Best Supporting Actor

My Pick: Heath Ledger. Right. His mother, father, and sister accepted the award. A class act all the way, with a poignant speech that concentrated on the late Ledger's love of acting.

Best Supporting Actress

My Pick: Viola Davis. Wrong. Their Pick: Penelope Cruz. I thought she was good in Vicky Christina Barcelona, but it wasn't anything I hadn't seen before. Incidentally, I've found a new appreciation for Woody Allen's films in the past few years. I never liked his movies much before that. The secret: they're better when he's directing them, but not in them.

Best Picture

My Pick: Milk or Frost/Nixon. All wrong. Their pick: Slumdog Millionaire, which I thought deserved it. I was surprised it didn't go Milk's way, as screenplay and best actor both did.

Best Director

Another flip. I thought Van Sant would take it for Milk. Wrong. Instead, the deserving Danny Boyle got it for Slumdog Millionaire.

Best Original Screenplay

My Pick: Milk. Right. I figured the Academy would throw it to Milk. Like Penn, screenwriter Dustin Black used it as an opportunity to treat the podium as a political soap box.

Best Adapted Screenplay

My Pick: Slumdog Millionaire. Right.

Cinematography

My Pick: The Dark Knight. Wrong. It went to Slumdog Millionaire.

Best Documentary

I forgot to write this in my previous post (I guess like everyone else, I'm guilty of giving documentaries the shaft), but I had a good feeling this movie would take it. My Pick: Man on Wire. Right. One day documentaries might go head to head with features (who am I kidding? No they won't). If that had happened tonight, Man on Wire would have been my pick out of all the flicks mentioned. A great movie, fact or fiction.

Oscar Picks

Word's out that this is going to be the most boring Oscar night in living memory.

So what's new? The Oscars are always boring. But last year's crop of horribly depressing flicks which no one saw will probably send tonight's broadcast into the crapper.

I almost never watch the Oscars, except when flicking over when there's a commercial during the hockey game. This year will be no different. The Oscars are too long and boring, and it's easier just to read a webpage at 1AM to find out who won.

In any event, here's my picks:

Best Actor (Winner): Sean Penn. He did a good job in Milk, and the Academy should throw it to him on political grounds. Frank Langhella has received heaps of praise for his portrayal of Nixon, so he might sneak in the back door, but the political climate in California right now almost demands that the trophy go to Penn so he can make a lame speech about how important his movie is.

Who deserves it? Mickey Rourke for The Wrestler, though I'd love to see Richard Jenkins win for his part in The Visitor.

Best Supporting Actor (Winner): Heath Ledger in The Dark Night. If memory serves, there hasn't been a posthumous Oscar since director of photography Conrad Hall. I didn't think Ledger's performance as the Joker was memorable, but there's no way the Academy will skip him. Who will accept the award? The Academy isn't saying, but they have said that it will be bequeathed to Ledger's 3-year-old daughter. [I just heard that Ledger's dad is going to be at the Oscars and that he wrote a speech. If true, this will be a poignant moment].

Who deserves it? Robert Downey Jr. for Tropic Thunder. Comedies almost never produce Academy Awards, even though drama actors and directors constantly tell us us that comedy is the hardest art form. Whatever. That's simply a big brother making excuses for a little brother that embarrasses them. Downey Jr. wasn't stellar in Tropic Thunder, but he was very funny. I'm always on the side of the comedians.

Best Actress (Winner): This is a tough one, because there's four women the Academy would love to give it to. Anne Hathaway, because we've never seen someone play a drug addict before. Angelina Jolie, because she cried a lot. Meryl Streep, because she's Meryl Streep, played an evil nun, and (remember, she's Meryl Streep) she spoke with the 100th accent of her career. Kate Winslet, because she's Kate Winslet, comes from England, and she showed her breasts while starring in a Nazi movie. Oh, and she cried a lot, too. I'm guessing in will go to Winslet.

Who deserves it? Melissa Leo, in a small, tough movie called Frozen River. Tellingly, for all of Hollywood's "feeling the people's pain" BS, none of these actresses except Leo were in a movie about today's hard times. Frozen River is about a woman living in an upstate New York trailer who turns to smuggling illegal immigrants in the trunk of her jalopy. The rest of the actress nominees appear in films that take place long, long ago, or a spoiled rich kid who got hooked on smack and blames her mom.

Best Supporting Actress: I think the Academy might agree with me on this. Viola Davis for Doubt. The movie wasn't great, and Viola was only in it for five minutes, but they were a great five minutes. She literally turned the movie on its head. Loved her performance.

Who Doesn't Deserve It? Marissa Tomei. The movie was very good, but Tomei was just there. Any number of competent actresses could have played the role and maybe done better. I think she suffered because her age and beauty didn't match the constant "washed up" label given to her character.

Cinematography: The Dark Knight. I agree, though Benjamin Button would be fine, too. The Wrestler should have been nominated.

Best Director: Who knows? Gus Van Sant for the politics of Milk, or Ron Howard for the politics of Frost/Nixon.

Who Deserves It? Danny Boyle for Slumdog Millionaire, or David Fincher for Benjamin Button. Either one is fine by me, because they'd be a thumb in the eye to the artsy crowd. Both of them come out of the action/thriller scene, a genre that always pleases the crowds but never wins awards. Tonight, perhaps one of them can beat the snobs at their own game.

Best Picture: See "Best Director" above.

Writing (Adapted Screenplay): This should go to Slumdog Millionaire. If it goes to Frost/Nixon, it's a joke, because the interviews could have been transcribed from YouTube.

Writing (Original): I was stunned to see In Bruges nominated. It's got a taste of comedy in it, plus a lot of gunplay. The Academy must have been hurting for nominations to give In Bruges a nod. For all of that, I didn't think the movie was that good. The Academy will most likely give it to Milk, though I think Frozen River is the best script in the bunch.

Die, Evil Television, Die, Die, Die

This story on Drudge caught my eye:

The station reports that a 70-year-old Joplin man was arrested and charged with unlawful discharge of a firearm after shooting his TV set. Responding to a report of shots being fired, the station reported, the police found the man angry that he had both lost his cable and had been unable to get his new DTV converter box to work.

According to the man's wife, he had been drinking.

The rage against the promise of plug-and-play technology is as old as the first caveman to smash a piece of flint against the wall when his fire wouldn't start.

The 70-year-old TV assassin reminded me of this recent bit from The Onion. It's hilarious, and true. (Major league language advisory).

Trouble in Hab Land

Like Montreal Canadians GM Bob Gainey doesn't have enough to worry about. His team sucks. They've won three games in regulation out of the past 15. Their goaltending situation is a mess. Now this:

CBC: NHL deputy commissioner Bill Daly confirmed to Hockey Night in Canada's Jeff Marek that the league is investigating a report in Friday's edition of La Presse that links two Montreal Canadiens players to a man arrested in a recent sting operation.

"I can confirm we are investigating the facts," Daly wrote in an email exchange with Marek.

According to the Montreal newspaper, Canadiens forwards Andrei and Sergei Kostitsyn allegedly made calls to 38-year-old Pasquale Mangiola requesting vodka, women and luxury cars while the players were at local restaurants and bars.

For an old school guy like Gainey, this has to grate. Even if the players did nothing illegal, he may have found the answer as to why his hockey team is in the dirt: they're not as interested in hockey as they are in partying.

Nothing new, but he needs to address it fast. The Montreal press are going to have a field day.

The Chicago Tea Party...Becomes A Washington Coffee Chat?

Here is White House press secretary Robert Gibbs, fielding a question about Rick Santelli's rant.



Translation: "Santelli got to us. He made us mad. He got under our skin. We don't like him. Does someone have a tissue?"

I wonder why the White House bothers with this stuff. So a reporter mocked you. So what? Move on. Nothing can be gained by scrapping with someone that isn't running for anything.

Three weeks ago, Obama made a point of singling out Rush Limbaugh. All it did was increase Limbaugh's stature in the eyes of the Right. For Limbaugh, it was great publicity. He's still on the air, feeling pretty cocky that the President of the United States took time to point him out. For the White House, it was a stupid move. No political gain was made from it. After a week or so it died down to nothing. Why? Newsflash: Limbaugh isn't going anywhere. He can't be defeated in an election. He's a disk jockey.

Today, Gibbs said that Santelli was more or less a doofus that hadn't read the spending bill and added, "I’d be more than happy to have [Santelli] come here to read it. I’d be happy to buy him a cup of coffee — decaf."

Who trained this guy? Now he's turned the ravings of a cable news reporter into an actual issue.

Picking a fight with a reporter has absolutely no upside. It only makes people go to the reporter's webpage to see who he is and what he's saying. Gibbs has opened the door to Santelli using his CNBC microphone to mock him and the president at every turn, rightly thinking that picking a fight with a willing White House makes for great exposure.

Gibbs has been pretty unimpressive so far. Obama should take a long look at him and let him go at the earliest convenience.

Bill Passed, Time To Party

The American people are feeling a great deal of pain, they have uncertainty about their jobs, about health care, about the ability to pay for the education of their children, and sad to say — in our great country — even the ability to put food on the table. - Nancy Pelosi, February 13, 2009, hours before leaving on a trip to Italy.

You have to hand it to politicians for chutzpah. When the auto chiefs showed up in Congress last year and asked for cash, the lawmakers raked them over the coals, berating them for lousy business practices and flying around in private jets. The auto chiefs went home with their tails between their legs, then came back in cars, hoping to make a more humble impression.

Now the shoe's on the other foot. CNN's Drew Griffin is digging into congressional travel expenses. Among others, he's keeping an eye on Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House, who immediately took off to Italy after voting to spend $787 billion of taxpayer money. She met the Pope, had a visit with the Italian PM, and is generally having a fine old time. And why wouldn't she? The American public is footing the bill.

She's not alone on the jet set. Democrat John Tanner is touring Europe, John Kerry is all over the Middle East, and Democratic Representative John Lewis is touring India with Martin Luther King III. As Drew Griffin pointed out, MLK III sold his father's papers two years ago for millions, but the trip to India is being paid for by you guessed it.

Griffin reports that when he told Lewis' chief of staff that he would come back in a couple of months to examine the trip's expense reports, the chief of staff said, "Is that a threat?"

No, you arrogant hypocrite, it's his job.

Add Drew Griffin to my short list of reporters that haven't been completely engulfed by the J-school Kool-Aid.

The Chicago Tea Party

CNBC is having some fun with Rick Santelli's declaration that he'll hold a Chicago Tea Party come summer. Here's the video. You can go here to vote on whether or not you'll join in.

Dirty RAT

News about the US spending bill just gets better and better. Bold mine:

DC Examiner: The provision, which attracted virtually no attention in the debate over the 1,073-page stimulus bill, creates something called the Recovery Accountability and Transparency Board — the RAT Board, as it’s known by the few insiders who are aware of it. The board would oversee the in-house watchdogs, known as inspectors general, whose job is to independently investigate allegations of wrongdoing at various federal agencies, without fear of interference by political appointees or the White House.

In the name of accountability and transparency, Congress has given the RAT Board the authority to ask “that an inspector general conduct or refrain from conducting an audit or investigation.” If the inspector general doesn’t want to follow the wishes of the RAT Board, he’ll have to write a report explaining his decision to the board, as well as to the head of his agency (from whom he is supposedly independent) and to Congress. In the end, a determined inspector general can probably get his way, but only after jumping through bureaucratic hoops that will inevitably make him hesitate to go forward.

As the guys at Hot Air note, what is this doing in an "economic recovery" bill? Seeing as how so many Dems are in hot water over their finances and shady deals, and that the Dems drafted this provision, it reeks.

Steyn Wars: Good Luck (II) - The Numbers Game

(Scroll down or go here for a warmer on this post).

I spent some time on the phone with a guy from Statistics Canada. I asked him to look up some numbers for me, vis a vis the rate of violence against women in Canada generally, and Ontario specifically. I told him that a politician (Cheri DiNovo, MPP) said in a speech that 51% of women in Ontario are abused or assaulted. When he got back on the phone he said, "I found numbers quite a bit different from yours."

I figured. Yet he ran into the same problem I did. That is, define abuse or assault, and define whether she meant spousal abuse, or assault by a stranger.

I have to believe she's talking about spousal abuse, because her speech concentrates on women escaping violence in the home. She also states that the houses of Ontario act as a staging ground for "guerrilla warfare." This statement in the speech is also very clear (bold mine): "...here it’s one man against one woman in the quiet of their own home where no one else can see it, away from prying eyes."

The problem with statistics is that they're easy to play with. The guy on the phone directed me to a few tables in a report, and told me to be careful: most stats come from surveys with a limited time frame, in this case five years. He said it's possible someone could have morphed a couple of different surveys, or projected the numbers from all of the surveys to make up a "lifetime" number.

Still, he told me that the report was the most detailed the government had and that it was the go-to paper on the subject. His warning to be careful was exactly what I was thinking: if you say someone's wrong, they could use a calculator for five minutes, bend the figures, and call you a liar.

With that in mind, I took a look at what a Statistics Canada official calls the most detailed report on violence against women. Note that they're careful to advise "caution" on virtually all of their graphs and tables.

National surveys for violence against women have only been conducted since 1993. Before that, the government relied on police reports. What the three five-year studies show is that since 1993, violence against women nationwide has been declining (as has violence against men, a subject I can't remember being mentioned by any politician in my lifetime). In the three studies, at no time do 50% of women declare that they have been assaulted in the past five years:


The report struggles to figure out why the numbers are dropping and gives a list, such as increased use of women's services, increased public awareness, increased treatment for violent men, so forth. Never mentioned is this: maybe less men are hitting women.

Now let's look at DiNovo's main theme: violence against women in Ontario. DiNovo: "51% of our population are abused or assaulted; one in every two women in Ontario experiences abuse or assault. What does that mean?"

That means someone like me is going to pick up the phone to see if that's correct. Note she's talking in the present tense: 51% of the population are abused and assaulted.

The facts don't back her up:



According to Statistics Canada in the 1999 and 2004 reports, 7% of women reported being assaulted by their spouse. [I misread this graph earlier as representing 1999 through 2004. Note that it's two different reports covering ten years, but neither goes anywhere near 50%]. More numbers from the same period (click to enlarge):


The estimated number of violent incidents against women in Ontario from 1999 to 2004 was 227,000. For men, it was 215,000. Of those, the most prevalent form of violence against women is that their spouse pushed, grabbed, or shoved them. Men were more likely to be slapped or have something thrown at them. Both sexes reported an equal amount of being hit with something (23%).

These aren't happy number. Even though spousal violence is in decline, it's not good that 400,000 people reported being assaulted by their spouse. But there is no way that a politician can take these numbers and declare that half of the households in Ontario are battlefields. Further to that, it's insulting to men to imply that violence in the home only occurs against women, and that men are responsible for making Ontario resemble Darfur.

It's impossible to go through the entire report and write a blog about every detail. No point. The numbers are there. I can also see how the numbers and graphs in this report could be shaped and massaged to say anything someone wants. But guerrilla warfare? Not in Ontario. DiNovo seems to be going with the old gossip-rag saw: "Don't let the facts get in the way of a good story."

You can find the Statistics Canada report here. PDF format.

Steyn Wars: Good Luck - Updated

I stopped by Mark Steyn's site for my weekly roll through the Canadian political BS. I'm amazed he's still interested in the Canadian human rights stuff. Maybe it's his therapy to get away from US politics and demography rants.

Steyn linked to a paper that had a note from Cheri DiNovo. She's an Ontario MPP and was one of the people tossing questions at him last week. Here's her statement to Eye Weekly: "You see I am absolutely in favour of right-wing bigots having freedom of speech. Their opponents deserve the same rights."

No mention of left-wing bigots. They don't exist. There's only right-wing bigots and the people protecting us from their evil ways.

I decided to look up her webpage and found a blog. On it, there's a transcript from a speech she gave on the International Day for the Elimination of Violence Against Women.

I think it's fair to say that Ms. DiNovo has a fairly heavy political agenda, and a massive axe to grind against anyone and anything that isn't far left. Here's the first part of the speech. Sorry it goes on for a bit, but I want you to see the logic at work here:

The statistics are awe-inspiring. They’re horrendous. They’re absolutely an assault on the senses. These are the statistics: 51% of our population are abused or assaulted; one in every two women in Ontario experiences abuse or assault. What does that mean? That means, for those viewing at home and watching this discussion, when they look at their daughters, if they have two daughters, that one of those little girls is going to be abused or assaulted in her lifetime. That means that, if you look at your mother and your grandmother, one of those women is going to be abused or assaulted in her lifetime. That means, as you look around this assembly, that 50% of the members of provincial Parliament who are women have been abused or assaulted at some point in their lifetime. So the question is, are we doing enough? The answer is always, absolutely not.How are we failing women in this province? That is the question before us, because we are failing women in this province. How are we failing them? Let me list the ways. First and foremost, there isn’t any daycare. Only one in 10 families can find daycare. Now you ask, how does that contribute to violence against women? Well, it’s very simple: If a woman can’t find adequate daycare, she can’t escape an abusive relationship. If she can’t find an adequate place to stay-transition housing, a shelter; and there are not enough beds in shelters and there’s not enough transition housing for women escaping abuse-then she can’t escape abuse. Then this province condemns her to that abuse.

We can look at the Congo, we can look at Darfur, we can look at the horrors of the world; here, it’s more guerrilla warfare; here it’s one man against one woman in the quiet of their own home where no one else can see it, away from prying eyes...

It goes on in the same vein for the rest of the speech, wrapping up with a statement about how there's nothing to celebrate in Ontario because "51% of the population [I'm guessing she means the population of women] will be abused or assaulted."

I could never be in politics. How do you keep your mouth shut while someone declares that half of the households in Ontario are as bad as Darfur?

Besides, do those numbers sound right? I'm up late and don't feel like looking them up, but those numbers seem pretty steep. If your mother isn't beaten, your grandma surely was? Can she be right that half of the women in the province have been abused? Damn. I just opened the door, didn't I? "It depends what you mean by abuse. Lack of daycare is abuse. Unequal pay is abuse. Sexist language is abuse..." I can hear it already.

I've got a funny feeling that no matter what Steyn said at that hearing, he wasn't going to change this politician's mind about anything. As for his sweating about the logic of the "fire in a crowded theatre" stuff, he needn't bother. It's pretty plain that logic has nothing to do with it.

If DiNovo is an example of the politicians that the free speech crowd will have to go through to get the human rights commission brought to heel, I wish them luck. They're gonna need it.

Update: I had a cup of coffee and called Statistics Canada this morning. For a closer look at the numbers, go here.

The "Intellectual" Lie

Maybe I'm getting better at reading the tea leaves of politics and language. It's been a hobby of mine for a long time, watching how they influence each other.

Yesterday I wrote a quick The Bus Arrives blog, and said I was throwing the word "intellectual" into the path of the next Greyhound. It's a silly word, conjured up by people who think they've cornered the market on human "intellect." They are the elite. The bright. The smart. The thoughtful. They dress their ideals up in prom dresses of language, then dazzle us with their beauty.

Today I saw an article called Conservatism and the Intellectual. It's a two-page piece that worries itself to death over what an intellectual is, and why the Left is more comfortable in the role of intellectual.

Waste of time. For the record: there are no intellectuals. Absolutely none. Zero. There has never been an intellectual on this planet, and there never will be. "Intellectual" is not a role you can achieve for yourself, nor is it a title you can apply to others.

There are only people. If they say things you agree with, throw in the odd bit of Latin, quote Montaigne, have only been wounded by household appliances, and cross their legs knee-over-knee, you call them intellectuals. If they say things you don't agree with, you call them an idiots. End of story.

"A great man you say? I always see only the actor of his own ideal."

That's me quoting Nietzsche. I even think I understand it. In fact, I think it sums up every "intellectual" on the block. It's no Montaigne, but can I play, too?

The Bus Arrives - Michel Therrien

What was the line from Goodfellas? "See, your murderers come with smiles...And they always seem to come at a time that you're at your weakest and most in need of their help."

Or, as Pittsburgh Penguins head coach Michel Therrien put it: "I never saw it coming."

I'll bet. Last June he was two wins away from a Stanley Cup. Eight months later, he's unemployed.

After Saturday's 6-2 loss to the Maple Leafs, Therrien had this to say: "It’s up to the players...There’s a price to pay to win games on the road and right now we’re having a hard time staying focused and executing.”

The price ended up being his own execution as head coach. For a team struggling to make the playoffs it was the same old-same old: somebody had to go under the bus, and it wasn't going to be a high priced player.

Sports is as unforgiving as it gets, and job security is zero. We'll see if the Penguins take anything away from this, though they lost their first game without Therrien on Monday.

A Barack Obama Film

After looking at Friday the 13's box office haul of $43 million (THR has it as $45.2 million) I checked out how the rest of the weekend movies fared. Pretty well:

THR: Collectively, the Presidents Day weekend registered a whopping $224 million in a record performance that surpassed last year's holiday haul by 34% and 2007's then-record tally by 19%, according to Nielsen EDI.

Yes, that economy. Quite a catastrophe. It's so bad that the American people dropped a quarter of a billion dollars on movies in 4 days. Note to Obama: need a stimulus plan? Do something useful and produce a Nightmare on Elm Street remake.

Think I'm crazy? Think about it: the president has a ton of Hollywood friends. Remember that dumb pledge video where all of the stars said they'd do his bidding? Time for those sanctimonious goofballs to put up. They'll work cheap. Imagine the screenwriters and directors who will be begging for a pitch meeting in the Oval Office. He'll have the pick of the best talent around. He can put "Produced by Barack Obama" on the movie posters. People will flip out. The lines will be huge. Every Obama zealot will go to see the thing, and the press will give it a load of free advertising. He is virtually guaranteed a nice profit, if not an outright blockbuster, and an Oscar is in the bag. He'll even be able to smoke in public, using one of those long cigarette holders like the old-time directors used to sport.

"A Barack Obama Film." That has a nice ring to it. It sounds like a cash register. The Chrysler bailout will be chump change, and anytime there's a scandal his press secretary can say, "The president's in his trailer," until it blows over.

If he puts his mind to it, he can do it. Yes, he can.

Friday the 13th - Do I Have To?

I wrote in the Dark Knight review that weekend grosses don't mean anything as far as how good a movie really is. Take Friday the 13th: the critics flushed it down the toilet, but it grossed over $43,000,000 last weekend, proving once again that audiences couldn't care less what critics think. $43 million? Those are "it's a hit" numbers by any stretch, especially for a run-of-the-mill slasher flick.

In one weekend Friday the 13th has outgrossed The Reader and Milk combined, both of which have been in theaters for months are up for Best Picture. That has to be absolutely demoralizing for artsy film producers, doesn't it? Yet they should learn their lesson: if times truly are tough, don't give people heavy handed films that leave them feeling like hell. Who wants to see that when they can get bad news for free on CNN? Give audiences mindless entertainment and they'll be happy to hand you their money.

You know Friday the 13th has to be awful. You just know it. But then, people are seeing it, and you get that itch to see it for yourself to find out just how awful it is. You start talking to yourself: "Well, it's a slasher flick set on a lake. So maybe there's a few bikini babes. That wouldn't be so bad. And hey, maybe the special effects are cool. The budget sure didn't go on actors, so it had to go somewhere, right?"

So...it's February. There's nothing else to see. Won't be for at least another two months.

Do I have to?

Photo: Rotten Tomatoes

The Bus Arrives - "Intellectual"

I just read a blog where someone described someone else as "intellectually honest."

I have decided that the word "intellectual" is probably my least favorite word in the language, and I will do my best never to use it again.

The word sounds bogus, and drips with condescension. What is an "intellectual," anyway? Someone who reads books all day? Picks their toenails while pondering life? Some jackass university professor? And where do they get their "intellectual" certificate?

I'm reminded of the time I was on the phone with an actress. She wanted to delve deep into some script treatment I'd written. She said, "I need to really examine this because I am an intellectual." It took all of me not to scream with laughter and hang up the phone.

"Intellectual" is going under the bus.

All The Leaves Are Brown...

...in California? Figuratively, at least:

Bloomberg: Senate President Darrell Steinberg, a Democrat, plans to lock lawmakers in the capitol unless they pass a $40 billion package of tax increases, spending cuts and bond sales today. The bills, backed by the Republican governor and by Democrats, remain one Republican vote short.

“We are dealing with a catastrophe of unbelievable proportions,” said Senator Alan Lowenthal, a Democrat from Long Beach. “We cannot deny it any longer.”

California, a state that would rank as the world’s eighth largest economy, is close to running out of cash because its tax collections have fallen amid the U.S. recession. It has already stopped paying income tax refunds and next month may be forced to pay bills with IOUs for the second time since the Great Depression unless a new budget is agreed.

The budget proposal would raise the state sales-tax rate to 8.25 percent from 7.25 percent; boost vehicle license fees to 1.15 percent from 0.65 percent of the value of an automobile; add 12 cents to the per-gallon gasoline tax; reduce the dependant-care tax credit to $100 from $300 and impose a surcharge on income taxes of up to 5 percent.

Democrats screaming to raise taxes? Nothing new. But screaming to cut spending, too? Things must be pretty serious. Still, it's the tax hike that the Democrats are really after. Only they could be sage enough to say, "Consumer spending is down? Damnit! We'd better make things more expensive."

I don't know about you, but short of winning the lottery, spending cuts seems to be the only way to get your financial life back on track fast.

This morning I looked at my phone bill and was stunned. My old phone plan just wasn't cutting it. In the space of two months, my bill doubled because business was better and I was receiving more phone calls and emails. My phone bill was now higher than my car insurance. Something about that didn't sound right, so I called the phone company. The guy on the other end said, "Yeah, you're spending a lot more money. More phone calls, more emails. You're exceeding your plan."

There's two ways I could have looked at that. I could have said, "No big deal. I'll charge my clients a bit more, say, an extra five dollars an hour. Shouldn't hurt them too badly." Or I could have said, "I need to get this spending down."

I went with the latter and the guy gave me a new plan. Win some, lose some: I get unlimited email and incoming calls, but it shortens me up on my outgoing minutes. Problem? Perhaps, unless I remind myself to reach across the desk and use the land line for every outgoing call while I'm in the house, and don't make any calls outside the house when a text will do the trick.

I don't think the economy is so difficult. Hand the budget to three single working moms, a bait shop owner, a trucker, plus an accountant to help with the software, and I bet they'll have the budget balanced in no time. You may not like their results, but they'll get you off the schneid. They couldn't possibly do a worse job than the politicians and economists are doing now.

William F. Buckley had some kind of line that said, "I'd rather be governed by the first 100 names in the Boston telephone directory than by the faculty of Harvard."

Quite, though I wouldn't pick Boston. Never liked the Red Sox.

Congrats, Mr. President-For-Life

Depressing:

The United States Tuesday welcomed Venezuela's "civic" referendum lifting term limits for the president and all politicians, but urged support for democracy and tolerance in the country.

"We congratulate the civic and participatory spirit of the millions of Venezuelans who exercized their democratic right to vote," State Department spokesman Noel Clay told AFP.

Venezuelans on Sunday voted 54 percent in favor of constitutional reform sought by President Hugo Chavez to run for unlimited reelection, in his bid to consolidate his brand of socialism critics compare to Cuba's communism.

This is the same guy that said the US is a terrorist state and called Bush the devil. Now the State Department gives a hat tip to his lifetime power grab.

Maybe I'm alone, but I don't always think it's only important that someone voted, but sometimes what and whom they voted for.

Inglourious Basterds - Preview

Quentin Tarantino and a war movie? Sounds like fun to me. Whether or not you agree with his Peckinpah point-of-view, at least the man says something and stirs the pot (I'll save my other argument until later, but leave you with a question for now: When, exactly, do you think a 'gutsy' filmmaker will make a movie about relentlessly punishing Islamic jihadists and Al Queda terrorists? Just wondering...)

Anyway, it's good to see him get back to his roots, leaving the cheese of Death Proof behind.

If the Germans had a problem with Valkyrie, wait until they get a load of this.

Let the debates begin...

Oh, The Humanity

Ever since Peggy Noonan's on-air goof up about Sarah Palin's VP candidacy, I haven't been able to take her seriously (you may remember that she supported McCain's pick while the cameras were rolling, then, when she thought the mics were off, she declared Palin's appointment "bullshit.")

I used to like reading Noonan, even though her flowery prose was often hard to stomach. After the Palin lie, however, I just see her as a hack that tries too hard.

This piece of Peggy's from the Wall Street Journal should prove my point:

This is New York five months into hard times.

One senses it, for the first time: a shift in energy. Something new has taken hold, a new air of peace, perhaps, or tentativeness. The old hustle and bustle, the wild and daily assertion of dynamism, is calmed.

And now Washington becomes the financial capital of the country, of the world. Oh, what a status shift. Oh, what a fact.

Oh, what bullshit.

Coughlin Retiring From Family

The Onion's been on a pretty good roll lately, and this one deserves a link. It's the best sports satire I've seen in years.

Best line:

"Do you think he's making the right call by stepping down from his family at this point?"
"Look, Coughlin has spent 41 years with his family."
"That's a pretty good run."

Despondex to the Rescue

I could probably line up fifty people that need this drug.

Best line: "Doctors estimate the new drug could cut down on the number of costume or theme parties in the US by up to 40 percent."

Best lower-third: "Drug was tested on hundreds of realtors, kindergarten teachers."

Hey, Friend, Spare A Billion?

For the US, one troubling aspect of the $787 billion spending bill is that it sets a very high bar. Any number below that suddenly becomes peanuts.

Hot on the heels of Congress passing a 1000+ page bill without even reading it comes this news:

Mr. Obama plans to unveil his housing plan during a visit to Phoenix. As part of his swing through western states, he is set to stop in Denver Tuesday, when he will sign the $787 billion economic-stimulus plan just passed by Congress.

Mr. Axelrod provided few details of the housing plan, but said a government investment of $50 billion to $100 billion to fund foreclosure prevention "is obviously a necessary part." He promised that the plan would contain "a lot of aspects."

You know money has become confetti when people can demand $787 billion one week, then say they'll need $50 to $100 billion the week after, all while keeping a straight face.

Let's use Berry's Common Sense Economics for a second. Say a friend comes up and says, "Hey, can you lend me some money?" And you ask, "Sure, what do you need?" And he says, "$50 to $100."

At that moment, you might reach for your wallet. Then again, you might say, "Well, which is it? Fifty or a hundred?" If he says he isn't sure, you might just hand him the hundred and call it quits.

Now let's say he says this instead: "Hey, man. Can you lend me $500 or $1000?"

Whoa. Now you must be thinking that an answer to "Which is it?" is pretty important. When he says he isn't sure, you hem and haw, and finally give him $750 to split the difference. You're not happy about it, but he's your buddy, so what the hell.

But what if he'd said, "Hey, man. Can you lend me $5000 to $10,000?" Suddenly the difference between those two numbers is very important. When you ask him what it's for and he says a new car, you might say something like, "Well, it's a lot of money, dude. I'll give you five and you'll have to make it work out with a used Honda."

Now let's say your friend had said, "Hey, man. Can you lend me $50,000 to $100,000?"

The first thing you'd say is no, and ask him if he's been using crack. But let's say you want to find out what it's for and he says, "I need to buy a house." Even if you were rich, I'm willing to bet you'd say, "Well, buy the cheaper house. I'll give you fifty, but no way am I giving you the hundred. I want a contract, with a deadline. I'm going to have to put interest on it and, if you can't pay it back, I'm going to take your car and maybe your kids, too." If you aren't rich, you'd simply tell your friend to take a hike.

Now let's say your government asks, "Listen, I need $50 billion to $100 billion."

And you say...what?

As far as I can tell, nobody in the US would say anything. Last week's "stimulus" mess proved that the government can ask for whatever it wants, and nobody's going to do squat. Hell, the government's not even asking: they're taking. And nobody's marching on Washington to say, "What a second. I wouldn't give my best friend a thousand bucks without asking when I'll get it back. And you want how much?"

Though I'm just a regular dummy, I crunched a few numbers for the heck of it: using 2005 numbers, roughly 134 million people filed returns in the US. Of those, roughly 100 million paid taxes. Now let's take the $50 to $100 billion. We'll throw out the fifty because it's the government, and there's no way they'll go lowball. So:

$100 billion (which is a thousand million for each billion, in case you forgot) divided by 100 million taxpayers = $1000. Poof.

And the $787 billion from the Obama spending bill, divided by 100 million = $7870. Poof.

Then there's the $700 billion bailout plan from last year, divided by 100 million, which equals another $7000. Poof.

These figures are wonky because high earners pay way more in taxes than low earners, but that doesn't diminish the total costs. If we pretend that every taxpayer is "all in this together" to spend their way out of the economic doldrums, then their government has so far spent $14,870 for each of them in the past five months. If Axelrod is right, they will be charged another $1000 on Wednesday when Obama unveils his housing plan. Seeing as Mr. Obama has said that this is merely the beginning, that figure is sure to grow.

It's funny that no one finds this as creepy as having a friend show up asking to pick your pocket. It really is a study in psychology: a friend asks for a thousand bucks and you don't trust him anymore; a stranger blows 15 grand of your cash without asking and you don't say a word.

Perhaps a return to the Middle Ages is in order, where a tax collector can show up at the door and say, "I need $1000." And when you ask what it's for, he says, "Well, among other important things, the National Endowment for the Arts is receiving $50 million to help the economy recover."

"But I don't like independent movies," you say.
"Well, they do sculptures and stuff, too. Great paintings for the kids. Very important."
"No, thanks."
"It's not a request."
"But I don't want to pay for sculptures. Who decided this, anyway?"
"Your representatives. Your friends. You picked them."
"Who?"
"The guy in the big house, and the bunch of people in the other big house."
"Maybe, but I didn't know--"
"You're under arrest."

Maybe it will start to sink in. Eventually.

Billy Mays Here...

I watch a lot a late night TV and usually run into Billy Mays somewhere after the sports highlights and before Conan. He also haunts the airwaves during the football season when the other networks have nothing to show but informericials.

He dresses in a blue shirt, and his pitch always starts out the same way: "Hi, Billy Mays here for [name a household product]." Then he spends the next twenty minutes YELLING AT YOU ABOUT HOW WONDERFUL THE PRODUCT IS.

The pitches are a crack up in the first place, but this parody is a beauty (language advisory):


Alternate Mighty Putty Commercial - Watch more Funny Videos

Valentine's Day

Here's a re-run of what I had to say about Valentine's Day a while back.

I've never been a fan of people that sit around and trash holidays. There's always some guy sitting in the corner of a Christmas party that says, "Christmas is materialistic crap." These types are looking to have an impact, which they do. They make everyone looking for the rum punch tell their friends to avoid the loser in the corner.

Valentine's Day is no different. People that don't have a hope in hell of getting laid hate Valentine's Day. But hatred isn't enough. You need a reason to hate something. It's simply less humiliating to say that you hate Valentine's Day because it's too commercial, as opposed to saying that you dislike it because you can't score at the office bender.

More...

What's This Button Do?

I wrote this morning about the baby steps the Republicans are taking with regards to web media.

Slate has noticed it, too. Tonight's article makes the Republicans sound like goofs in the tech department, which is fine because it's true.

It's an interesting article. People forget that losing an election and becoming a minority opposition group can do wonders for reinvigorating a base.

"To our friends on the 'Net, what's up!" Michael Steele is waving at a tiny video camera at the National Republican Club on Capitol Hill. It's the Republican Party's first-ever Tech Summit—a gathering of party leaders, wonks, and tech gurus—and the idea of a simulcast must feel rather exciting.

When the mugging is over, the RNC chairman outlines the Steele Doctrine: "If we haven't done it, let's do it. If we haven't thought of it, think about it. … Don't just think outside the box—I hate that phrase anyway—take it someplace the box hasn't even reached yet."

All of which might sound like hollow rhetoric, if it weren't for the box-busting nature of the event itself: The summit might be the most un-Republican thing the Republican Party has ever done. More...

They Might Exist

I have to be careful, or Jake Tapper is going to get me thinking that there's some real reporters still walking the Earth. You know, guys that think everyone is full of crap and believe in the maxim, "If your mother says she loves you, have it checked out."

Tapper's been on the ball since Obama took office, and he's relentless in asking questions that make press secretary Robert Gibbs reach for his "Um...Ah...Mmm..." crutch. I've been watching the press conferences over the past couple of weeks, and Tapper's always in the mood to make things uncomfortable.

Here's Tapper today, in response to an obvious dodge from Gibbs regarding Obama's bogus Caterpillar claim: "I don't even know how to respond to that." In other words, "Sell me another one." Tapper goes on to rephrase the question, keeping Gibbs on the spot. It was a great moment.

Then there was this, after Tapper quoted a congressman.

GIBBS: Well, I haven't -- I haven't seen what the congressman said. I think...

TAPPER: Exactly what I just said.

In other words, "You heard me. Now answer the damn question."

The guy works for ABC, too. Unreal. According to his bio, ABC made him their senior White House correspondent the day after the November election. Interesting. I'm glad to see he's a reporter that all politicians can hate, because that makes him a reporter that I like.

More from Tapper here.

What's This Video Thing All About?

I'm always curious to see how web media and video evolves. Down in the US, the Democrats have done a superb job using the web to their advantage, and Obama's team knows the value of YouTube: "Radio address? Forget it. The chief's going on the air to look people in the eye."

Republicans have been very slow to catch up. Almost stupid-slow. I don't know if they recognized the power of web video until Obama used it to his advantage, and by then it was too late.

A couple of weeks ago, Minority Leader John Boehner reportedly told his fellow Republicans that if they had 48 seconds for YouTube, get it up there. It looks like Republican Study Committee Chairman Tom Price heeded the advice.

It's funny to watch the baby steps being taken in the clip below. Almost everything in the clip is perfect. Timely. Good white balance so the exterior light from the windows doesn't make Price look blue. Decent background. Host sitting down so he doesn't shuffle and look nervous. Good eye contact with the lens. Unscripted so it seems more real. Simple and effective subject: handwritten notes in a bill designed to spend hundreds of billions. Call to action at the end: "Call your representative."

What they did wrong: no tripod. The cameraman (probably one of his staffers) is shaking like a leaf.

Handheld work is fine as long as the cameraman is steady and the situation warrants it. In this clip, they could easily have thrown five books (or one copy of the stimulus bill) under the camera and it would have worked fine.

But it's a start.

Update: A video friend of mine responds, "I thought it was fine, they were going for the impromptu look because the bill just landed on their desk." Damn. Now I'm rethinking it. But I still think the camerman could have been steadier.

I, Me, Mine

Regarding the "intense discussions" at Boston College, which recently hung some Christian artwork:

Kirschner, a professor of biology and the faculty adviser for Boston College’s chapter of Hillel: The Foundation for Jewish Campus Life, said he can see it both ways. “On the one hand, BC wants to be all-inclusive. On the other hand, they do things like this to make people feel not included. On the other hand, it is a Catholic university.” He added that in the lecture hall where he teaches, there’s a small sculpture of a mother and child (Mary and Jesus? – “I suppose,” he replied. “Who else would it be?”) – as opposed to a crucifix. “Probably if a crucifix had been placed in my lecture hall, I might have felt more strongly about it not being in my lecture hall.”

What's all this "my" stuff? It reminds me of the line in Saving Private Ryan:

"They took away your company?"

"It was the army's company, last time they told me."

Incidentally, how many hands does Dr. Kirschner have? A professor of biology shouldn't flunk anatomy this badly.

Chanelling Howard Hughes

If it's an act, a la Andy Kaufman, then it's a beauty. If it's for real, then it's sad and creepy.

Joaquin Phoenix has been sporting a Jeremiah Johnson beard for a while now, declaring that he's quit acting to pursue a hip hop career (scroll down to see how that's coming along).

As far as I can tell, people on the net are split 50-50 as to whether Joaquin Phoenix has gone off the deep end or if it's a hoax. Letterman looks to be going with the latter and doesn't want to be the sucker. Then again, Letterman's always a jerk, so who knows? Maybe he thinks Phoenix has lost it and doesn't care one way or the other.



vs. 3 years ago:



Phoenix the hip hop "artist." Most of the comments are split as to whether he's nuts or kidding around. Your call:

Flagging Sales Make Strange Bedfellows

Here's a bit from the Ontario Human Rights Commission. It's under the title "Submission to the Canadian Human Rights Commission."

The report is either a) a way to show solidarity to the folks living in the mother ship; b) a signal fire to fellow human rights commissions that it's time to circle the wagons; c) a sign that the Ontario Human Rights Commission will never be able to pass its own legislation and therefore needs the CHRC to get its act in gear and have legislation passed all across Canada, thereby letting the OHRC off the leash. Call it Trickle Down Tyranny.

But tyranny over whom? Read on. My comments follow.

The OHRC agrees with the Report’s recommendation that: Non-state actors including the media also have responsibility to address issues of hate expression, and should do so either voluntarily through provincial press councils, or through statutory creation of a national press council with compulsory membership and powers to determine breach of professional standards and order publication of press council decisions.

The OHRC would particularly support a national press council given that, increasingly, media services publish online editions. This would help bring about more consistency across all jurisdictions in Canada.

At the same time, the OHRC recognizes the media must have full freedom and control over what they publish. Ensuring mechanisms are in place to provide opportunity for public scrutiny and the receipt of complaints, particularly from vulnerable groups is important, but it must not cross the line into censorship.

This is hardly a surprise. Two years ago, I had no idea that Canada had a human rights commission in Ottawa, plus separate human rights commissions in every province. No clue. Two years later and they're all over the papers, and not in a good way.

Bloggers and - to a much smaller extent - the press have been hammering the human rights commissions over the past six months. They've upturned the rock and exposed the commissions for what they are: bureaucracies that rule outside and above the law, imposing fines, holding hearings, and punishing people for the crime of being "offensive."

Their tribunal hearings have no set rules of discovery or evidence. Anyone accused of being a bigot does not have the right to face his accuser, nor is the accused presumed innocent. He or she must prove that they're not a meanie. The latest most egregious example of their outside-the-law rule came from Saskatchewan, where it was decided that a restaurant owner should have made it clear that he was not a bigot before throwing a man out of his restaurant. The price tag for the accused? $7000. The crime? He offended the accuser's "dignity."

Bloggers and - again, to a much smaller degree - the media have kept the heat on since the Maclean's fiasco in British Columbia. It is no wonder then that the OHRC and others want to shut them down.

Let's take a closer look:

The OHRC agrees with the Report’s recommendation that: Non-state actors including the media also have responsibility to address issues of hate expression, and should do so either voluntarily through provincial press councils, or through statutory creation of a national press council with compulsory membership and powers to determine breach of professional standards and order publication of press council decisions.

Believe it or not, that's one sentence. Tough to break into, and it literally rolls over you, wave after wave. It seems harmless and friendly enough, until you realize that if it had been written in bullet points, it would be a frightening look into the minds of people that want to do serious harm to your country.

a) "Non-state actors including the media..." All right, so what is a "non-state actor?" That would be you. The lowly citizen. It should hit you again that people who work for the "state" no longer see themselves as "citizens." You are a non-state actor. They are the state. Separate. In charge. (It may be handy to remember that not one person in any human rights commission in the country is an elected official).

b) "...have the responsibility to address issues of hate expression..." This is a tough one because we don't know who they're talking about. If "non-state actors" includes the media, then who are the other non-state actors? Your plumber? The guy handing out fliers on the street corner? Your mom? If they're saying that the media has a responsibility to address issues of hate expression, the answer is simple: "No they do not." They have a responsibility to sell newspapers and beer commercials. Period. If the OHRC is saying that your mom has the responsibility to address issues of hate expression, get ready for some long Thanksgiving dinners.

c) "...should do so either voluntarily through provincial press councils, or through statutory creation of a national press council with compulsory membership..." Whoa, whoa, whoa. Hang on a minute. Did I just hear a provincial body tell a Federal body that it was time to write a new national law? Funny. And here I thought it was elected Federal representatives that did that. Not so. And notice the trick: the provincial press councils would be voluntary, but if that doesn't fly, a national one would be compulsory. Now, why wouldn't they say that the national one should be voluntary too? That is a huge leap: voluntary at the provincial level, but compulsory at the Federal level.

d) "...powers to determine breach of professional standards and order publication of press council decisions." Go fly a kite. Where's the 'professional standards' handbook, and who's going to write it?

e) "The OHRC would particularly support a national press council given that, increasingly, media services publish online editions. This would help bring about more consistency across all jurisdictions in Canada." Bingo. See (c) above. So much for all of that "voluntary" hogwash. They were just kidding around. What they particularly support is national, compulsory media oversight. And, because they're on the low end of the totem pole, they need to call for help from their big brothers at the national level to make it happen. (Two random thoughts: one is the envy they seem to have for their CHRC brethren; the other is that leftists always think about the collective).

The last paragraph in their release is a beauty. You can't make this stuff up. Here comes the doublethink, right to the side of your head: "At the same time, the OHRC recognizes the media must have full freedom and control over what they publish. Ensuring mechanisms are in place to provide opportunity for public scrutiny and the receipt of complaints, particularly from vulnerable groups is important, but it must not cross the line into censorship."

This is hilarious. But not amusing. In order: a new law should be written to force publications - including those online - to join a press council that will oversee their content, using standards written by...somebody, and if the content is deemed irresponsible or unprofessional, then the publication will have to publish the findings of the council saying their own publication is a joke, but don't worry because the media still has full freedom and control over what they publish.

Huh?

But I'm not concerned. I can't believe the big boys in the media would ever go along with this. Sure, it might help shut down bloggers and other non-professionals, but the big boys would never agree to it on moral grounds. All right, and yes, it would silence the small publications that rely on edgy stuff to draw an audience, but no, the big boys wouldn't want censorship in Canada because there's room for everybody. And yeah, okay, the handful of big papers in Canada are hurting for cash, but surely they would never want to sit on a press council just to kill the competition. Never happen.

Yesterday I was watching the radio show (that still sounds funny) on Sportsnet and Mark Spector was a guest. According to the lower-third, Spector's their lead columnist. Fancy. He was telling a story about how a blogger released a rumour about so-and-so, and it took Spector and other reporters 3 whole hours to chase it down and find out it was false. The three-hour deal really bothered him. He repeated it a few times and said it was a huge waste of his time. At one point co-host Nick Kypreos said, "Easy." Spector said, "This is why reporters hate bloggers." He went on to say that blogging should be outlawed and all bloggers should be banned. The hosts laughed, Spector didn't, and they moved on with the show.

I'm sure he wasn't serious.