<$BlogRSDUrl$>

Monday, January 28, 2008

Smelly Things that Rhyme with "Mitt" 

As a result of a few primary contests, a crowded Republican fields seems to be narrowing to a two-man race between Mitt Romney and John McCain. It would appear that the Republican candidates have sharpened their attacks on the former Massachusetts governor, even as more self-described "conservative" voters are throwing their support behind Mitt.

The ill-will towards Mitt that's been shown by the Republican contenders has been echoed in the pages of this blog before. In explaining myself, I should first elaborate on my feelings towards "the Mormon question" and how it applies to Mitt Romney. I will admit that I disagree with Mormonism, and I find many of its tenets to be downright absurd. Then again, I recognize that other observers might call my more mainstream-Christian (lapsed Catholicism, to be specific) beliefs to be absurd. I think that a candidate's personal religious beliefs should not be a major factor in how I vote (unless that candidate wants to legislate his or her personal beliefs on me, against my wishes.)

What's most important are a candidate's character and positions on the issues. And it is true that religious convictions do play a role in shaping both. But for Mitt Romney, I view "political expediency" as the only conviction that man has. I don't see any strength of character on his part, nor do I see consistency on many of the major issues. The only thing even remotely presidential about him is his acumen for business. In all other regards, he's just a Republican clone of his fellow Massachusetts politician, John Kerry.

I see a lot of conservatives flocking to Mitt not because they see him as a strong conservative, but because they view John McCain as a maverick who is not in line with conservative principles. The truth is that John McCain has a very strictly conservative voting record, and his "maverick" reputation comes from the few times he's broken ranks with conservative Republicans. If not for Rush Limbaugh and other detractors on the right, John McCain would be painted as an extremist by the left.

In democracy, the people pick who they want, and they often get the candidate they deserve. If Republicans nominate Mitt Romney, they will harm their party through either electoral defeat or a disastrous four years in the White House (but hopefully learn their lesson in the process.) And God save America if our general election should turn out to be a race between those "champions of character," Mitt Romney and Hillary Clinton.

Thursday, January 24, 2008

Sea Change 

President Bush and congressional leaders have come to a tentative agreement that would use tax rebates to create an economic stimulus. The fact that Congressional Democratic leaders have agreed to this plan is a tacit admission that they too believe that cutting taxes stimulates the economy.

Cutting taxes wasn't always part of the Democrat playbook. In 1993, President Clinton and congressional Dems raised taxes. Through a simple (albeit fallacious) cause-and-effect relationship, one could conclude that the economic recovery of the early 90's was caused by increasing taxes. But many economists will argue that recovery was underway before the tax increases, and the economy triumphed in spite of the taxes. Likewise, when President Bush urged his tax rebate plan in 2001, many congressional Democrats balked and rejected the idea of the economic stimulus.

It remains to be seen how the Democratic party will react to the idea of a tax-cut stimulus in the future. While the Democrats have long used populist rhetoric in selling their tax proposals, it's hard to see how "the evil rich" get screwed during this upcoming round of tax rebates. While the Dems are happy to talk about how they're helping the middle class, the tax rebates will help all segments of American society.

Tuesday, January 22, 2008

Music Review: "Don't Look Away" by Kate Voegele 

Imagine if an enterprising music producer decided to combine the strong voice of Leann Rimes with the chick-rock stylings of Michelle Branch, and throw in a healthy amount of Roots-Rock influences at the same time. The end result might sound like "Don't Look Away," the debut album from upcoming singer-songwriter Kate Voegele.

Originally given a limited release last May, "Don't Look Away" hits store shelves nationwide today. It's a showcase for the talents of Kate Voegele, who has followed the Colbie Caillat strategy of generating buzz by releasing songs over MySpace prior to the album's release.

Miss Voegele also follows in the Colbie Caillat mold of being a youthful and tech-savvy singer-songwriter, but the similarities largely end there. The songs on "Don't Look Away" are less mellow than any of Colbie Caillat's work, and reflect the experiences of a young woman who has seen much of life and much hurt in spite of her youth. At the same time, the upbeat melodies and rousting hooks are more than sufficient to keep this album from turning into a depressing chore to listen to. It's a melodic tribute to the trials and tribulations of life and love.

The opening number is "Chicago," an upbeat guitar-driven song that has everything to do with leaving an unfaithful lover and nothing to do with the city where I grew up. Next up is "I Get It," an electronic pop song with a catchy beat. Kate then switches gears to "Only Fooling Myself," a rollicking, defiant and upbeat song about being infatuated with a person who scarcely acknowledges the singer's existence.

After the high bar set by "Only Fooling Myself," Kate follows with more songs that showcase her depth as a musician and the diversity of songs on the album. "Top of the World" is very rootsy and has a slick, perfectly-produced sound to it in addition to the conviction behind the delivery of the lyrics. "One Way or Another" follows much of the style of "Top of the World" (along with a Taylor Dane-esque sound to it.) "It's Only Life" is a sweet and uplifting ballad that avoids the trap of sounding sugary-sweet. Changing gears, Kate Voegele then cranks out "Might Have Been," a fast-paced rock number. "Facing Up" is drum-heavy and gives Kate a chance to show off her vocal prowess in a song about finding the strength to confront a person who has hurt the singer.

The last portion of the album lives up to the high bar set initially, and finishes strong. "No Good" definitely sounds like an homage to Linda Ronstadt's "You're No Good," with some lyrical nods to Joan Jett sprinkled in. "Devil in Me" has a very electronic sound, but also has more melodic hooks than a pirate ship. "I Won't Disagree" follows in the style of "Facing Up." The best song on the album occurs next-to-last on the playlist; "Wish You Were" is a wistful and heartfelt ballad about falling in love with somebody who is very different from the person the singer imagined. The album finishes with "Kindly Unspoken," a stripped-bare piano ballad which reveals the depths of the subtlety and wisdom in Kate's lyrics.

"Don't Look Away" is a phenomenal debut album that showcases the diverse talents of Kate Voegele. It's a musical rollercoaster that grabs listeners by the shoulders at the get-go and tenderly lets them drift away by the end. I give it four and a half stars (out of five,) and I can confidently say that it's the best "chick rock" album in years (probably since Michelle Branch's "The Spirit Room" in 2001.) We're going to be hearing a lot from Miss Voegele for years to come.

Monday, January 21, 2008

Martin Luther King: Objectivist? 

As America observed Martin Luther King's birthday today, I'd like to pose the question of whether the civil rights leader incorporated Objectivist ideas into his thinking.

To be certain, the reverend was not an adherent of Ayn Rand's. In many ways, he exemplified the ideals of the "Religious Progressive," using his faith as justification for government action and viewing spending on social programs as an expression of our compassion as a society. He set the precedent followed by Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, and even Mike Huckabee.

At the same time, Dr. King understood the Objectivist concept of "The Sanction of the Victim." He understood that the city of Montgomery could not treat their black customers as second-class citizens if the black customers refused to ride the buses in the first place. Regardless of our thoughts on Dr. king's politics, his example of nonviolent resistance to authority sets the precedent for nonviolent revolution that we should all follow when we try to battle an unjust political system.

Imagine how much different this world would be if Iraq's insurgents decided that they would passively fight the Americans by boycotting the American-backed government. It would probably be more effective than the current insurgency, which has offended so many Iraqis that they are now cooperating with America. For that matter, how much better would we all be if the Iraqis refused to cooperate with Saddam Hussein in the first place?

We all have much to learn from Dr. King. The reverend learned his principles from studying Gandhi and Thoreau, and even the Master Himself. For it was Jesus who told his followers to "turn the other cheek" to the Romans. He meant this not as a means of submission, but of stoically keeping the faith while enduring persecution. Many generations of Christians were persecuted and martyred by the Romans, but the faith eventually spread to the emperor and to the people of Rome.

In thinking of all the ways we are victimized, we must remind ourselves that we can never allow our tormentors to control us. We are only justified in using the gun when the gun is used against us. And by choosing not to condone the corrupt system, we shall overcome.

Wednesday, January 16, 2008

It's Still the Economy, Stupid 

MSNBC is running a story which dares to challenge the "conventional wisdom" that the government has much power to fix the economy. While the Democratic Party has benefited in the court of public opinion from the strong economy of the Clinton years, that's due more towards the poor state of economic education in America than anything else. In a truly free market, the government has no power to affect the economy. Because America has one of the freest markets in the world, its government has less power than other governments to affect the economy.

The idea of the economic stimulus does work, but only if the people are overtaxed to begin with. The Bush tax cuts of 2001-2003 do deserve credit for the recovery and prosperity of 2003-2007. They were broad-based and put money back in the pocketbooks of the vast majority of Americans. The challenge behind any economic stimulus is to put money back in the hands of people who will actually spend it or invest it wisely.

In one specific instance, the tax credits for purchasing big-ticket vehicles like trucks and SUV's were a very wise move by the administration and Congress. While the move was scorned by environmentalists, the truth is that Detroit heavily relies on sales of large, gas-guzzling vehicles to turn a profit. Tax credits for buying trucks and SUV's, while not environmentally-friendly, help to keep automotive plants open and auto workers employed.

Fiscal responsibility and balanced budgets are key to a healthy economy, and in that regard President Clinton does deserve some credit for the strong economy during his tenure. But the congressional Republicans who submitted the balanced budgets to his desk deserve an equal share of the kudos. Likewise, the large deficits we're currently running are forcing the government to borrow money from abroad to keep the government running. Iraq is a 900-pound gorilla that is currently draining America's coffers; with luck and skill over the next few years, we can draw our forces down and reduce the amount we're spending on our mission there. Still, there is plenty of room for cuts in domestic spending to close the budget deficit. There's also the worrysome problem of Social Security, and our nation's unwillingness to even debate the looming solvency problem bodes poorly for our future.

The only upside to the falling American dollar is that other nations are more likely to buy American and reverse some of our record trade deficits. However, a weak dollar alone is not enough to bring manufacturing jobs back to the USA. There need to be tax incentives and reduced regulations in order to restore the engine of industry that propelled America to victory in World War II. American industry can also benefit from an overarching challenge that would stimulate the best efforts of American industry; human settlement of the Moon and Mars would be such a challenge, and so would an alternative-energy effort on the scale of the "Manhattan Project."

America will inevitably head for a recession within the current year, if she isn't there already. Americans shouldn't point fingers at the government, because the government has little power to intervene in normal economic cycles. The American people must always remember that they control their destiny, and they have the power to make America strong. The imminent recession will not be unbearable, and most Americans will weather it out. It will likely be brief, like the recession of 2000-2003 was. Recession will be brief and depression will be avoidable if the American people and American government are smart about it. We need to balance the budget, strengthen the American dollar, and prevent income taxes from becoming stifling on the people who are pumping money into the economy. Over the long term, we will need to seriously consider fixing the insolvency of Social Security and shifting back from a Service-Based economy to a Manufacturing-Based economy. But America must never give into the fear of Hoovervilles, and America must never forget its power as an engine of industry.

Tuesday, January 15, 2008

Still Hannitized After All These Years 

I recently finished reading Sean Hannity's Let Freedom Ring, the talk radio icon's 2002 tome that was clearly inspired by the immediate aftermath of the 9/11 attacks. I will preface my review by saying that I am not inclined to read another Hannity book, nor a partisan political polemic from any of the self-appointed pundits out there (on the right or the left.) The book was an artifact from the days when I was a dyed-in-the-wool Conservative Republican who wanted a piece of partisan red meat to chew on.

With that disclaimer out of the way, I want to say that the book was at times both entertaining and grating. Predictably, Sean Hannity paints all liberals and leftists with a broad brush. He uses the worst apples in the lot to paint a representative picture of an entire ideological movement. Sean does have plenty of redeeming virtues, though. In cases where Liberals have said outrageous and incendiary things, or pitched farcical policies, Sean calls them out and documents it. The results are often stunning.

Sean Hannity's redeeming qualities have always been his personality and background. He came from a working-class Irish-Catholic upbringing in New York City, and he's never forgotten that. It grounds him in his work, and it has helped him present himself as a kinder, gentler alternative to his partisan doppelganger, Rush Limbaugh. Within the world of conservatism, there are many talk radio listeners who have grown weary of Rush's sanctimonious hyperbole, but still tune into Hannity on a daily basis.

Let Freedom Ring stands as a valuable time capsule of where the conservative movement stood in the year following the 9/11 attacks: pro-America, pro-defense, pro-Pledge of Allegiance, pro-tax-cuts, and pro-Alaskan Drilling. Many of Sean Hannity's fears haven't materialized, especially his demonization of Dick Gephardt and Tom Daschle (who are no longer members of the US Congress.) In hindsight, our nation seems to have grown more cynical since that time, and conservative Republicans like Sean Hannity now scramble to make sense of it all and attempt to serve as a "party of ideas" for American voters.

Friday, January 11, 2008

I'm a McCainiac 

I've been reading through lots of Republican and Conservative blogs as of late, and I'm not sensing a lot of love for John McCain right now. I'm going to go out on a limb here, squandering whatever Republican/Conservative/Libertarian credentials I might have, and explain why I support John McCain for president.

Back in 2000, there was really only one man who stood between George W. Bush and an inevitable Republican nomination. His name was John McCain. The campaign was vicious and nasty, and in the end it was George W. Bush who got the nod. Nevertheless, it was John McCain who went on the campaign trail to stump for George W. Bush, in spite of undergoing cancer treatments and in spite of personal bitterness over the character assassination that went down during the primaries.

Over the past eight years, America has gone through turbulent and uncertain times. I have hung on, not based on faith in the Bush Administration, but in a faith that what we currently have (as flawed as it is) is still better than what Al Gore or John Kerry and their hordes of big-government Leftist cronies could have given us. I deeply regret supporting George W. Bush over John McCain during the winter and spring of 2000, and I feel gullible and naive about that.

During the eight years of the Bush Administration, America has required strong and experienced leadership in the field of foreign policy. While the Administration reacted strongly and effectively in the immediate aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, it has faltered since then. The president surrounded himself with naive idealists and sycophants as advisers who rushed into the nation-building ordeal that has become Iraq, while allowing Afghanistan to deteriorate.

Since the fall of Baghdad in May 2003, John McCain has been saying that we needed more boots on the ground in Iraq. Nobody listened to him then. When he repeated these calls in 2004, he was largely ignored as both parties took sides in the Bush-Kerry battle. As McCain continued calling for more troops on the ground in 2005, he was dismissed as an extremist agitator of escalation while the American people began to support a timeline for withdrawal.

By the end of 2006, it was George W. Bush who finally came around to John McCain's side and ordered the troop surge. At the time, Democrats threatened to cut off funding for the surge, while spineless Republicans scrambled to distance themselves from the president. John McCain held his ground and said that while he could not guarantee the surge's success, he could guarantee failure and disaster if we didn't attempt the surge in the first place.

As we approach the one year point in the overall surge strategy, Iraq is becoming less of an issue for the Democrats, and Republicans who expressed their reservations about the surge are now trying to claim credit. Perhaps we should all look towards John McCain and apologize for dismissing him when he's been correct this entire time.

Of all the Republicans out there, John McCain has what it takes to be a firm leader at home and abroad, and best expresses my belief in limited government at home. John McCain does not believe that we need to amend the constitution over same-sex marriage. John McCain does not believe that massive government spending is somehow an expression of our compassion as a nation.

If not McCain, who else will lead us? Barack and Hillary are not the kind of people we need as president. Whether it's Barack's inexperienced charisma or Hillary's shrewdly-polarizing cunning, neither of them represents the ideals of limited government or projecting America's strength abroad. Of the Republicans, we're not left with a great lot, either. We can take Mitt Romney, the fast-talking, waffling political animal who will say anything and whore himself out to any fundraiser to get a vote. We have Mike Huckabee, who will happily bankrupt the nation in pursuit of "compassionate conservatism." And then we have Fred Thompson, who seems to be banking more on his "Law and Order" fame than his actual government experience. If not John McCain, only Rudy Giuliani would make a respectable president.

In this time of uncertainty, America needs experienced and decisive leadership that will protect America from all enemies, foreign and domestic, whether they be international terrorists or government bureaucrats. John McCain has defended America in its armed forces and in its Congress. There is nobody I trust more to safeguard this great nation.

Sunday, January 06, 2008

We who are about to die salute you 

After over a decade off of TV, "American Gladiators" is back. Since its departure, the void once filled by "Gladiators" has been filled with shows like "Fear Factor" which put challengers through physically-demanding obstacles in an athletic competition. After so much time away from the airwaves, is the new "Gladiators" up to the challenge?

My initial response is an enthusiastic "yes." The new AG has much of what made the original series so successful, including the unique events (a mixture of familiar challenges and new ones) and flamboyant, arrogant gladiators who will talk trash as they take down the competitors.

One of the strongest aspects of the new AG is a bigger emphasis on human drama. Each of the challengers has a backstory and a reason to be in the competition. Emcees Hulk Hogan and Laila Ali give the contenders plenty of time on the microphone. The contenders themselves come from all walks of life, but all of them represent what a person of average size can achieve through a combination of focused fitness and diet.

One weak aspect of the new AG is the shifting from color commentary to extensive use of emcees to tell the story of the competition. In the days of old, retired athletes like Mike Adamle and Larry Czonka provided play-by-play commentary. Now there's a single, nondescript announcer who often defers to the emcees to make things interesting and add to the dramatic narrative of the competition.

Overall, the new AG shows imprints of the reality TV trend of the last eight years. The show is far more heavily produced with flashier graphics, and has much more emphasis on characters over competition.

Overall, the new AG lives up to the hype. If the writers' strike persists, it could spell huge ratings for NBC in the Sunday-night timeslot against tired episodes of "The Simpsons" and "Family Guy."

Friday, January 04, 2008

The Longest Laugh 

After watching Superbad during New Years Day (when I was supposed to be organizing my cluttered apartment,) I began to realize something: a lot of comedies are running way too long.

Brevity is truly the soul of wit. I'm coming around to the belief that most comedies should be about 90 minutes in length. Spaceballs certainly falls into that category. But some recent hits, like Wedding Crashers, 40-Year-Old Virgin, and Superbad push close to two hours in length. While I thought all of those movies were funny, I had to admit that all of them seemed to drag on about halfway through the movie. With a comedy, the premise often wears thin, and the people making the movie try to stretch it way past the point where it's still funny (just like many of the jokes in Family Guy.) While many of these movies can recover some of the originality that made them funny by the conclusion, it's hard to say that comic excellence was achieved.

Some of my favorite comedies (Team America, Ghostbusters and Stripes) have done well by running around 1:45 in length. With that being said, Team America drags in the scene where the team is captured by Kim Jong Il, and Stripes falters in the escape from Czechoslovakia. It's like the writers simply ran out of funny material to add to these scenes that advance the story.

I shouldn't be too hard on the two-hour comedies. After all, There's Something About Mary clocks in at that length, and it used to be my favorite comedy (until Team America was released.) Then again, the Farrelly Brothers got just about everything right with that movie, by truly pushing the bounds of good taste while adding plenty of unique and inspired gags.

The moral of the story here is that comedy directors and writers need to take stock of how many jokes they can put on the screen while still advancing the story. Plot elements should serve as vehicles for jokes. When those sequences aren't very funny, they should be revised. Certain high concepts lend themselves very easily towards humorous writing, while others don't (and thus should be kept brief.) Audiences should not be allowed to catch their breath for very long. They want to be kept laughing.

Tuesday, January 01, 2008

A Bold Prediction for 2008 

The New England Patriots will be defeated by the Indianapolis Colts in the AFC Championship Game. The only football team to go 16-0 in the regular season will not be able to continue the winning streak into the Super Bowl.

Why do I believe this? Perhaps it's because of recent AFC history. The team that finishes the regular season with the best record in the AFC has not made it to the Super Bowl during the last three seasons. Consider the following:
--In 2004, Ben Roethlisberger and the Steelers finished 15-1, but would end up losing to the Patriots in the NFC Championship.
--In 2005, the Colts threatened to finish unbeaten. Instead, they were beaten by the Steelers in the second round of the playoffs.
--In 2006, the Chargers finished 14-2 behind a phenomenal season for running back LaDanian Tomlinson. But the Chargers would not survive the second round of the playoffs, dropping a tight game to the Patriots.

The Patriots have faced some tight challenges this season from the Colts, Eagles, Ravens and Giants. It would appear that the team is ripe for a loss in a close game. Of the teams currently in the playoffs, only the Colts appear to have the offensive and defensive weapons that are needed to defeat the Patriots.

In a larger sense, why is it necessary that the New England Patriots taste the bitterness of defeat this season? It's because America needs to see punishment for public figures who break the rules. Much like Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens in baseball, this Patriots team will go down in the history books with an asterisk, forever tainted with allegations of cheating and unsportsmanlike conduct. A team unbeaten, and a team whose coach was dealt the stiffest fine in NFL history for videotaping the signals of his opponents. Such cheating is probably widespread in the NFL, but that's hardly an excuse to let the Pats off the hook. America needs visible evidence that cheaters will be punished. In spite of Coach Bill Belichick's punishment, there appears to have been no ill effects on the team as a result of the scandal. While legal punishments should not decide the outcome of games, a thrashing on the field of play delivers the message that no team is invulnerable, even if they are breaking the rules.

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?