The Undefeated

This past weekend, I went to the documentary of Sarah Palin’s public service experience.  My wife attended reluctantly.  She is a Democrat, and went with me as a pure act of love.

What were our impressions?  To say they were “mixed” would be an understatement.

The documentary is based on Sarah Palin’s book, “Going Rogue,” and faithfully represents the experience of Governor Palin in coming to prominence on the national political scene.  It tacks on a Tea Party connection at the end, fostering the notion that Sarah Palin is the de-facto leader of the movement.  The film ends with Andrew Breitbart generating enthusiasm for the Tea Party and its potential for changing the political climate in America.

The movie has some faults.  It is annoying in the way it intersperses staged scenes of dramatic action.  Actors who play to the camera in crowd scenes and in smoke-filled rooms break the sense of cinéma vérité.

The narrative is provided by conservative political pundits, and they are presented in an odd fashion. The camera frames them on one side of the picture and then jumps them to the other side in a technique that is irritating to view.  (Maybe I need to see more documentaries.)

How does the audience react?  The theater we attended in Denver featured an older audience.  The female members of the audience would occasionally let out a “whoop!” or a “Go Sarah!” when Governor Palin stood up to the various forces arrayed against her.

The film is inspirational, but my wife was completely put off by the whole experience.  She sees Governor Palin as opportunistic and calculating, and thinks the governor is using politics as a “get rich quick” scheme.  She believes Mrs. Palin is an inadequate mother to her children, and is a person who plays to a base of religious fundamentalists.  Her take is that Sarah Palin as an affront to sensible women everywhere.

My wife is a testament to the power of our American culture. In a few short months, our culture has fashioned an extreme caricature of a female political figure, and has made it believable.  Just three years ago, very few people outside of Alaska knew who Sarah Palin was.  Now, a large number of Americans have been taught to despise her.

This movie has an opportunity to strip that persona of its validity, but it falls short.  “The Undefeated” relies on its audience having an “Inside Baseball” knowledge of politics.  The problem is that if you are a normal American, you probably have no idea who Mark Levin is.  When he is featured in the movie, you lose the impact of his remarks because you may not understand why he is there.

The same is true of Andrew Breitbart.  His credentials are shown for a few seconds below his picture, but there is no character development.  We have no understanding of his journey.  His remarks end up lacking legitimacy because the film doesn’t tell the audience who he is.

Yes, “The Undefeated” may be ground-breaking, but it is unsatisfying.

There is a long way to go.

UPDATE 7/20/2011:
Linked by Chris Smith at The Other McCain!  Welcome back, Smitty.  Enjoy your R&R with the Mrs. and the coming "Blessed Event."

UPDATE 7/22/2011:
John Nolte at Andrew Breitbart's Big Hollywood directs our attention to The Scorecard.  Also note this page.  Scroll down to the letter grade rankings in the bottom right hand corner.  If you are interested in Governor Palin, you rank her either as an "A" or an "F."

It's fascinating that when Americans have an opinion on the Arctic Fox, there is no middle ground.  (I guess my wife and I exemplify that.)

UPDATE 7/25/2011:
We went to see the movie "Buck" this past weekend.  It is a documentary about Buck Brannaman from Cedar Creek Productions, and is quite a bit better than Stephen  Bannon's work at Victory Films.

"Buck" has an emotional sequence toward the end that shows the savaging of a handler by a stallion.  Contrast that with the savaging of Governor Palin that is shown in the first few minutes of "The Undefeated."

Note that in "Buck," the savaging is a problem.  In "The Undefeated" it is celebrated as entertainment.

UPDATE 7/27/2011:
Smitty at The Other McCain is a dad!  Let this be the first link for the World's Youngest Blogger.

Return to Top


Return to Bottom

The Good, the Bad and the Ugly

Over this past weekend, we were treated to details of a Royal visit in California, a Republican Congressman dining in Washington, DC and a “Saturday Night Live” re-run.  The events neatly fit the title of that old Clint Eastwood movie referenced above.

First, "The Good:”

 

Kate Middleton has us smitten.  The Duchess of Cambridge and her husband visited North America last week, and finished their trip in Hollywood.  Kate exhibits a sophisticated fashion sense, and has a radiant goodness about her.  We can’t get enough.

But now, there’s "The Bad:”

Congressman Paul Ryan was accosted in Washington, DC while dining at Bistro Bis.  A Rutgers University professor celebrating her birthday was overcome with outrage over the Congressman drinking a glass of Pinot (a 2004 Jayer-Gilles Echézeaux) with his meal.  Professor Feinberg was incensed that a Congressman promoting austere budgetary policies was drinking an expensive wine.

And finally, “The Ugly:”

Tina Fey appeared on television in a re-run of “Saturday Night Live” and performed in a sketch about hapless Republican contenders in the upcoming 2012 election.  The skit featured Ms. Fey in the role of Sarah Palin and Kristen Wiig as Michele Bachmann.  Both of the Republican women were portrayed as inappropriate and unqualified.

These three separate incidents reflect our culture: There is a duality in play.

We celebrate lavish events, and yet take certain individuals to task for “their excess.”  We celebrate style and female charm, but also enjoy mocking women of accomplishment and independence.

Our culture loves “The Discrepancy.”  We have an entertainment venue that features a pregnant lady for a host, targets the show for a Mother’s Day audience, and then objectifies women of a particular political group.

Does it seem “over the top?”

Maybe, but our American culture doesn’t even stop to take notice.

Return to Top

Return to Bottom

Can "Teasing" Go Too Far?

A James Taranto story in the Chicago Daily Observer reports that former Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich has been convicted on 17 of 20 counts of corruption.  Mr. Taranto also brings our attention to a NewsBusters.org report by Tom Blumer.  Mr. Blumer notes that AP wire services failed to specify that the former governor of Illinois was a member of the Democratic Party.

Mr. Taranto points out an interesting discrepancy.  He references stories on the conviction of former California congressman Randy “Duke” Cunningham that prominently featured Mr. Cunningham as a Republican.  There is a clear difference in the manner in which the two political figures have been portrayed in our culture, and that discrepancy is getting hard to ignore.

I mention that it is “getting hard to ignore” because many Americans still find it convenient to brush aside “the discrepancy.”

An anonymous commenter on my post about the movie “Julie & Julia” wrote that the differing treatment is nothing special: It is simply a case of “Republicans who don’t like being teased.”

Well, I suppose the significance of “the teasing” depends on whether you are the one being teased.  Do the constituents of Memphis Congressman Steve Cohen see his political speech as teasing?  Does the treatment of Sarah Palin make one think she is being teased?  Do our courts issue restraining orders for teasing?

Teasing can turn into bullying, and bullying can escalate into harassment.  When harassment turns to political violence, we take note.  It becomes “hard to ignore.”

Here’s hoping that 2011 is the year Americans stop ignoring “the discrepancy,” and start honing their cultural awareness.

UPDATE 7/13/2011:
Never mind about that political violence link...
A jury has ruled the SEIU members are not guilty.

Return to Top


Return to Bottom

Jose Antonio Vargas and Susan B. Anthony

Photo by Ryan Pfluger for The New York Times

The name Jose Antonio Vargas has been in the news lately.  Mr. Vargas is a journalist and has written a New York Times Sunday Magazine article titled “Outlaw.”

The story he writes is about himself.  Mr. Vargas is an illegal alien.

The article, and most of the accompanying analysis, considers Mr. Vargas’ situation a “plight.”  His story exemplifies what is wrong with our immigration policy in America: It harms good people.

Nowhere in the press coverage was any reporting on whether or not Mr. Vargas votes in our elections.  While our culture might not consider his illegal immigration status a problem, is it a problem if he votes?

Susan B. Anthony, a strong proponent of women’s suffrage, was put on trial for voting illegally.  Should Mr. Vargas make a similar stand for the “rights” of non-citizens to influence our elections?

UPDATE 6/28/2011:
This story about Thomas James Ball (h/t Dr. Helen Smith) contrasts our cultural sensitivities in a rather dramatic fashion.  It is significant to note the level of emotional pain that gives rise to a story in The New York Times versus the level of emotional (and physical) pain that does not make the cut.  Our anti-Republican culture in action...

UPDATE 6/29/2011:
More from Dr. Helen...


UPDATE 7/1/2011:
Senator Dick Durbin holds hearings on the DREAM Act and celebrates those individuals attending the meeting of the Senate Subcommittee on Immigration, Refugees and Border Security who are in the United States illegally.

Sec. 212. [8 U.S.C. 1182] makes an individual inadmissible for immigration to the United States if that individual "falsely represents, or has falsely represented, himself or herself to be a citizens of the United States for any purpose or benefit under this Act or any other Federal or State law." [Sec. 212 (C)]

Similarly, "Any alien who has voted in violation of any Federal, State or local constitutional provision, statute, ordinance, or regulation is inadmissible."[Sec. 212(A)(10)(D)]

The idea is that if you wish to become a U. S. citizen, and don't play by the rule of law, you won't become a legal immigrant.

However, exceptions will be made, and the rule of law need not be followed.

Senator Durbin took an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States, but his "support" is contingent upon whether or not it will lead to the greater power and authority of the Democratic Party.

UPDATE 10/8/2012:
One federal law enforcement agency (ICE) continues to give favorable treatment to Mr. Vargas.

Return to Top

Return to Bottom

The Big Questions

NBC file photo courtesy of the San Francisco Chronicle

As a public service, here is a transcript of my most recent interview with Elizabeth Docent...

Libby: It's good to see you again.

Howard: Likewise!

Libby: I've got another appointment, so I'm going to have to narrow the scope of this interview to just three questions.

Howard: I can handle that.

Libby: Are you ready?

Howard: Yes.  What's the first "Big Question?"

Libby: Why do they hate us?

Howard: Because they are taught to hate us.

Libby: I'll need you to amplify on that.

Howard: Political/Religious Groups (PRGs) increase their power and authority by selecting an adversary group and marginalizing it.  The adversary group becomes the cause of all that ails the members of the PRG.

The technique has been seen throughout history (even on the elementary school playground), but has been used with particular success in the Middle East.  Hatred of western culture is taught in the Madrasas and the Mosques.  When a PRG instills the intensity of emotion that incites a member of the group to strap on explosives and kill, that is a spectacular accomplishment.  We see it in the Palestinian territories, Egypt, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan...

Libby:  Bring this back to America, if you would.

Howard: The widespread teaching of hatred is foreign to most Americans, and we don’t understand the political power of the technique.  However, we are becoming acquainted with its use.  Our soldiers in Iraq have noted how children act “like children” until they are teenagers, and then they succumb to the teachings of the Madrasas.  The older youngsters exhibit strong suspicion of Americans.

We also see elements of it in America.  Our political parties represent different policy viewpoints, but a powerful political tactic is to marginalize the opposing point of view by teaching that the person holding that view is a bad person: “a risky extremist.”  It may seem innocuous, but the application of the technique is devastating.

Cultures can teach a society to hate.

Libby: I'll have to think about that.

Howard:  That's fine.   What's the second "Big Question?"

Libby: Will President Obama be re-elected?

Howard: No.

Libby: Explain that.

Howard: Consider it the “Do as I say, not as I do” effect.  Many Americans are attracted to people who are steadfast in their principles.  We may not like that another individual thinks of taxpayer-funded healthcare as a “right,” but if the individual maintains that principle in resolute fashion, he or she earns our respect.

On the other hand, when principles are used as political props, it strikes us as a type of insincerity.  If our President declares a standard for transparency in government action, and then doesn’t follow it, we are disappointed.  We accept one or two such indiscretions, perhaps as a “political promise” that was used simply for campaign advantage, but these indiscretions have an additive effect.

When there are real problems in the country, the electorate begins to compare expectations (based on political promises) against actions taken.  President Obama has shortcomings in this area that will not be overlooked.

Libby: OK, last question: Who will win the Republican nomination for President in 2012?

Howard:  I don’t have a clue.

Libby: But you seemed so certain on the other questions…

Howard: I can tell you that I’m still a big fan of Sarah Palin, but a lot will happen in the next few months.

Libby: There's that "Palin thing" again.  Why do you support Governor Palin?

Howard: She puts our country first.  She understands what makes America a great place to live, and doesn’t want to see it squandered to advance the power and authority of a political party.  That philosophical stance, plus the cultural persecution that she has gamely endured, make her an attractive political figure to me.  The Arctic Fox is our modern day “Davy Crockett.”

Libby: Pretty strong words for an obscure blogger…

Howard: Someone’s got to say it.

UPDATE 6/24/2011:
Mark Tapscott, writing in The Examiner, gives an example of the "Do as I say, not as I do" effect.  He shows how the Jones Act is used as a political tool, and how the representation of a "national emergency" is politically pliable.

As noted above, many voters are attracted to leaders with steadfast principles.  If President Obama's only steadfast principle is to increase the power and authority of the Democratic Party, he alienates a large group of American voters.

UPDATE 6/24/2011:
This BlackFive post demonstrates "Do as I say, not as I do" in an emotionally charged atmosphere.  President Obama represents that he is a capable Commander-in-Chief, but shows insensitivity for the sacrifices made by our armed forces.

UPDATE 6/30/2011:
Operation "Fast and Furious" at the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) has a whistleblower who is being terminated by the agency after 24 years of service.  Linda Greene has a story titled "Obama's War on Whistleblowers" at CounterPunch. It contrasts how President Obama pledged to protect whistleblowers in 2008 and is now doing the opposite:

Since he became president, Obama, acting under the Espionage Act, has indicted five whistleblowers who allegedly leaked sensitive government information, the New York Times reported on June 11. "In 17 months in office, President Obama has already outdone every previous president in pursuing leak prosecutions."

UPDATE 9/16/2011:
Stephen Moore in The Wall Street Journal provides a pretty good list of some of the "Do as I say, not as I do" proclamations of President Obama.

UPDATE 9/19/2011:
David Brooks in The New York Times gives voice to the emotional feel of "Do as I say, not as I do."

UPDATE 3/29/2012:
Peggy Noonan has a devastating take on the difficulty of President Obama's re-election.

UPDATE 10/10/2012:
Thomas Sowell gives a clear example of President Obama employing the "Do as I say, not as I do" effect.

UPDATE 10/27/2012:
Kimberley Strassel has a nice list of presidential "flip-flops."

UPDATE 11/7/2012:
President Obama wins re-election!  So much for my prediction...

Return to Top

Return to Bottom

That's Not Me!

Markos Moulitsas Zúniga, Founder and Publisher of Daily Kos

It seems that the word "principle" is becoming a bit squishy.  There are principles, and then there are PRINCIPLES!

While philosophical principles are important, emotional principles are the ones that receive most of our attention.  These are the principles that are "personal."  We are invested in them.

Human beings are capable of compartmentalizing principles.  We keep "two sets of books."  We might say we are passionate about a particular cause, but our behavior often tells a different story.  Our passion is actually directed at personal gratification, not the higher principle.

We work at maintaining the charade.  And then … we are caught.

Our media finds this subject newsworthy: What do people do when they are caught?

Senator John Edwards has been involved in redirecting political gifts for secondary purposes.  Representative Anthony Weiner has indulged in a cyber life of intrigue that distracts from his congressional duties.  Both of them misrepresented their activities, and then they were caught.

Principles were violated.  Public trust and familial obligations were misrepresented.  The personal integrity of both individuals was severely compromised.

Our culture does not see the individuals as being at fault.  It is a problem associated with the larger grouping: men, public officials, etc.  Society must be held to account.

While that is for the convenience of public discourse, there appears to be a serious epidemic of introspection visiting our political pundits.  Janeane Garofalo is maintaining a tenuous hold on an increasingly untenable position.  Debbie Wasserman Schultz (always working the political calculus) is rethinking her pronouncements.  Markos Moulitsas is checking in to political rehab.

(OK, that last one is a spoof, but it’s fun to contemplate.)

Maybe it’s time for introspection from us all.  When we see political behavior that strikes us as hypocritical, should we see it as a time to “double down” in our support?

Or should we put it aside and simply say, “That’s not me.”

Return to Top

Return to Bottom

Phantom Comparisons

Do you understand phantom comparisons? Maybe you have seen the classic example where a product is offered at “50% off.”

The problem is in determining the product’s original price. If that price is a “phantom” and the product never actually sells in the store at that price, then the business could be involved in deceptive practices and subject to sanctions.

That seems pretty straightforward.

Unfortunately, we don’t see the same standard applied to the operation of our federal government. Here are some examples:

--A spending program is advertised as “saving jobs” when there is no measure of the potentially “lost jobs” and no recognition of the cost of displaced resources.

--A spending increase is characterized as a “budget cut” when it only reduces the rate of cost increases.

--A government program is considered a success because any negative outcomes are “unexpected.”

Michael Bloomberg, the Mayor of New York City, has a document on “False Advertising” that gives New Yorkers advice on what to look for in deceptive practices.

It’s too bad our federal legislators don’t have such a document to help them manage our government.

But then, maybe some of them are actually the problem.

Return to Top

Return to Bottom