The Insanity of Ron Paul

Like other people on the internet, I like Ron Paul. I'm with the majority of my generation in supporting his opposition to our wars on Iraq, Afghanistan, Terror and Drugs. I like the idea of personal liberty, and his staunch support for what is a fundamental right forgotten all too often. I find the way he talks to be, quite frankly, goddamn adorable - like he's about to give me a chocolate bar and a copy of The Fountainhead and pinch me on the cheek. I want to have Thanksgiving dinner with him and get into a long discussion about the role of government in a modern society.

The down side to Ron Paul, though, is that he's fucking crazy.

Pictured: Mel Gibson

You might be thinking that's just a biased opinion - and you might be right, ahdunno. But I have evidence to support my assertion, so hear me out. Imagine, just for a moment, he's nothing more than a doddering old fool with a hardly a legislative achievement to his name who, much like Mel Gibson's character in Conspiracy Theory,  happened to stumble on an actual impending crisis and that happenstance unleashed everything that followed. With that frame of mind, don't a few things make a little more sense?

His racist newsletters, for example. There are two possible versions of events here. Either he knew about the hateful language and was okay with it, or he published multiple newsletters with his name on them without a single care as to their actual contents. I tend to believe Paul's just a racist old guy, like nearly every other old guy I've ever met, but either way that's some crazy stuff. Note also that for his official explanation he picked the crazier of the two already-crazy options; His name and reputation were on the line and he was making millions of dollars off these newsletters, but he never had the wherewithal to actually read the darn things? How quirky.

Jackson contemplating
unilateral invasion of Canada

It should be noted, also, that his first response to the newsletters as campaign fodder wasn't to disavow his bigoted statements, but rather to defend them, as a campaign official told the Houston Chronicle the statements, "mirror pronouncements by black leaders such as the Rev. Jesse Jackson." (This respect for Jackson coming despite Paul's apparent disdain for the Civil Rights movement.) Also, there's video of him acknowledging the newsletters in 1996, and again not so much as distancing himself from the hateful language in them. Curioser and curioser.

But that's not all! Some people are starting to actually talk about some of Paul's batshit economic ideas as he rises to prominence. Like, switching to the gold standard - a move the entire world has been moving away from for a variety of reasons. Or abolishing the Federal Reserve, something not done since our last lunatic President, Andrew Jackson.

I like the fact that even when he's saying something loopy, Paul says it with practiced conviction. I like that he stands up for what he believes in despite political headwinds. But that is not a good thing in the face of an impending general election - Paul will be forced at some point, inevitably, to either defend a crazy belief until its absurdity is clear, or hedge and lose credibility as the tough-talk candidate. Can't you just imagine Barack Obama nonchalantly devastating Paul by pressing him on his belief that the Civil War shouldn't have been waged? Or, similarly, that equality is a state's rights issue?

Of the entire GOP field, Paul is one of maybe two guys I genuinely like. I would love to see him win his party's nomination. But part of that conviction has nothing to do with our similar beliefs, or my fascination with his Furby-esque speaking presence, but rather my abiding conviction that he would lose handily to Democratic opposition in a national election.

Moneyball Fever

I really wanted to review the film Moneyball before it was too late, to the point that I got excited enough to order my tickets in advance. Had the whole day planned out, friends were invited, clothes were clean. Relatively. And then I got sick. While I should warn you I fear for your safety, as the Black Plague has apparently somehow combined with HIV, I feel somehow compelled to fight through my sudden illness and soldier on. If Muhammed cannot go to the mountain, or whatever. I don't have the energy for tropes.

What the hell do they use to flavor NyQuil? Fermented DayQuil?

Anyway. With full intention of buying a ticket at a later date, and eventually the DVD, I decided to simply torrent a copy of the film via a reputable pirating agency. On the downside, I had to wait forever for the movie to download (nearly an hour - seed, people!), and the copy I got was clearly a cam bootleg, but the upswing is that I finished nearly my entire bottle of NyQuil beforehand. I found my experience to be thoroughly enhanced.

Everyone seems to rave about the script, and I can't disagree. Written by Steve Zaillan (also known as "Schindler," most famous for his listing prowess), Aaron "West Wing Social Network" Sorkin, and some other guy, the script is tight, adult, and has just the right mix of wit, humor, heartbreak and melancholy. Never pretentious, but always unique and enthralling, the script broods on impulse, analyzes instincts, and - most importantly - makes a king of the nerd in a land of jocks. Very satisfying.,

The cinematography is subdued but interesting, allowing the journey but never forcing it. The acting is impeccable - Brad Pitt turns out another chameleon performance, and co-star Jonah Hill reminds viewers how likable he was before he lost all that weight. I should have nothing but good things to say about this film. Sadly, though, that's not the case.

How the camera was pointed is fine - great cinematography, whatever - but the actual quality of the picture was awful. Blurry, often out of focus, I found it to be terribly distracting. Similarly, I noticed an incredible usage of what seemed to be a Cloverfield-esque motion blur, with the picture constantly shaking and occasionally disappearing from view entirely. It all had the feel of 90's-era TV footage.

Worse yet, several times during the film, a person can clearly be seen standing between the viewer and the scene - totally unrelated to the context of the film, appearing only as an indistinguishable humanoid shadow, seemign to do nothing more than stand up, shuffle slowly to one side of the screen, disappear for a few minutes, and then do the same things in reverse. I can't fathom what sort of creative desision making lead the filmmakers to okay an idea like that, but I found it utterly distracting.

The audio is muffled and often intelligible, as well. At one point, you can literally overhear a young couple arguing over the dialogue of a crucial scene. I assume it was noise from the set, but even that's disquieting as the disagreement seemed to be over whether an actor in the scene was or wasn't Philip Seymour Hoffman. (It totally was.)

Even that isn't the worst of it, though. At one pont - and I know this sounds strange but I recall it perfectly, as I'd just cracked open my second bottle of cough syrup - my grandmother appeared onscreen and recounted an embarrassing story from my youth. Why the director would include that, and how he got footage of the situation, is truly baffling.

From an artistic standpoint, I can find very few flaws with the film, but I'm afraid the technical problems, and the strange scene involving my grandmother, really limited the film and my immersion therein. 3/5

Healthcare 2010: From Death Panels to National Security

What do you do when you have no foreign policy credentials, and your aim is to take down a President who's won two wars and killed our most hated national enemy? Pull out the old standard bogeyman, of course!

Goes along quite well with a story in Politico about the complete lack of foreign policy in the debates -- due to the complete lack of experience among the current nominees. If they don't do something to neutralize this advantage for Obama, it could prove damaging down the line. Will they all stoop to such inane and pathetic tactics? Only time will tell.

But yeah, I mean, they probably will.

Prognostication

There are a few things I've been sort of mentioning in conversation with my friends, little predictions about what I foresaw the 2012 battle coming down to. They haven't all been right, but there are some big ones, some that were scoffed at, that I think look more and more plausible as things unfold.

Right now, Herman Cain still seems to be clinging to his role as the current GOP frontrunner, even now eliciting far more excitement than his chief rival, Mitt "I'm Running For President for Gosh Sakes" Romney. But sexual harrassment claims put a politician in a tough spot, and Herman the Hammer sees all problems as nails. 


Prediction: Herman Cain resorts to boosting plausible deniability, with he and his right-wing-talk supporters (ie, Limbaugh, Hannity, etc.) vilifying his accuser. Either she'll be an economic opportunist taking advantage of a powerful man, or she'll be a tawdry slut looking for attention.

Now, let's assume the Republican electorate at some point comes to its senses and decides Herman Cain being both an unelectable idiot and a philanderer is just a little too much for them. They still hate Romney, the only plausible candidate. And these Tea Party types have shown they care more for ideology and personality than substance or logic. I don't think I've ever seen an election begging so hard for third-party candidates.

Prediction: A viable Tea Party candidate, and possibly (though likely to negligible effect on the election) a far-left challenger to Obama.

On that note - WTF, Sarah Palin? I was completely convinced she was running for office, and I'm still not entirely sure she wasn't. The bus tour, the media frenzy, and the knowledge of reality without Palin injecting herself into the news cycle, makes me wonder if she just didn't declare her candidacy. It would make sense to view her actions as the beginnings of a campaign that ran out of oxygen after both Bachmann and Perry were officially in the running.

Prediction: She's too unpredictable, too assured in her nonexistent skills, for me to even guess what she does next, but you can rest assured it will only benefit her. And you can bet she won't fade quietly from the national stage - I'm sure, at the very least, she has kingmaker ambitions.

Finally, another thing that's been on my mind: Healthcare. I predicted nigh two years ago, when my fellow Democrats were convinced the victory was total and we needed to move on, that this would remain a major issue all the way until the election, and very probably beyond. Now the Supreme Court is readying to take the case. My bet is that the law will remain largely unchanged, but either way the impending decision will probably work in President Obama's favor. If they rule against, he can use that to boost his base, framing the election, and its impact on the Judiciary and the Court, as a needed turning-point. If it's decided that the provision in in fact constitutional, then Obama has a clear and solid victory going into the election.

Prediction: Nothing will change except Obama's poll numbers, which should see a bump. Nowhere to go but up, at least, right?

It'll be fun looking back at this after the election. Unless these are all wrong, in which event I'll be rewriting this entirely and still claiming victory. Mutable media!

Cain Pain II: First Blood

Seems Herman Cain's continued frontrunner status has earned him the ire of Rick Perry, and garnered the first sex scandal of the campaign! Normally sex scandals are bad, but this one's far worse than it should be, thanks to Cain's inept handling of the controversy. Things are so bad, some are actively predicting the fall of the Cain campaign entirely -- though those people tend to be the selfsame ones who called him the flavor of the week a couple weeks ago. 

(Full disclosure: I'm one of those people.)

That isn't a hope, by the way. I don't hope Cain fails to get his party's nomination -- quite the opposite. From his complete lack of foreign policy gravitas, his government inexperience, his claim to fame being as Boss of a pizza family (that's mobster talk), and now this values-voter-shunning sex scandal, I could foresee another '08 happening if he were the Republican opponent. But I can't believe Obama could possibly be that lucky.

I mean, at the same time, his "leading from behind" strategy wins the war in Libya (I'd rather lead from behind and win than shock-and-awe and lose), he can claim victory in Iraq, and we've seen a few positive indicators for the economy; his numbers seem to be flirting with the idea of creeping upward. Could we possibly see the return of the political wunderkind who defeated both the Clinton and Republican political machines those many long years ago?

Chris Matthews feels differently about my hesitance to chalk this up to luck, and has even said so on his show a few times. Is Obama one of the luckiest politicians in recent history? It's certainly thought-provoking.

Not to be all about MSNBC or anything, but their token Republican has been spreading rumors of right-wing voters who say they'd rather run an imperfect but ideologically pure candidate (ie Cain or Paul) and lose than run Romney, who's already being cast as the consumate flip-flopper. I have no idea how the average GOP primary voter thinks, but I do know Kerry was beaten in 2004 on the flip-flop charge and some swiftboating. Could the same work against Romney? Could healthcare be his swiftboat?

And the scandal says something very interesting about Perry, the candidate suspected of leaking the story to Politico in the first place. I've hoped from the start that Michelle Bachmann would be the attack dog of the campaign -- and in some ways she has been -- but Perry seems to be landing the only resounding blows against the current frontrunners. Could his ambitions sufficiently soften his opponents before the general election?

So many questions! But that's why we love politics, right?

The Subtle Differences Between #Occupy and the Tea Party

Let's discuss the difference between Occupy Wall Street and the Tea Party. This first image, for examle, indicates the general reception of the Tea Party by the powers that be, vis-à-vis their initial demonstrations:

Here we see the line-up for the official FoxNews sponsored Tea Parties.

And here's an image indicative the of the general reception of Occupy protestors:

Here we see an Iraq War veteran who's been shot in the head, reportedly with a
tear gas canister, in the streets of Oakland

The differences are subtle, I know. Maybe video might clarify. Here's a government official lashing out  and attacking the Tea Party:

Contrast that with government officials responding to OWS:

Can you see it? No? Jeez. Look -- the Occupy guys are total hippies! In the first picture, check out that stoner on the left with the giant earrings. What are those made of, tusks? Hey, jackass, go get a job! Tea Party supporters, on the other hand, are more like Glenn Beck. Family men. With jobs.

And those Oakland protesters, what dicks. They were saying some very mean-spirited things, and being quite loud about it. It looks like they may have been obstructing pedestrians, too, which is completely illegal. And rude.

There isn't any video of it (conveniently enough) yet, but the Oakland police said the protesters were throwing rocks, bottles and paint at them. It very much scuffed and otherwise defaced their body armor -- which, I might add, was paid for by taxpayers. I mean, tear gas may be too dangerous for warfare, but common decency has its limits.

Think about that the next time you see one of these "peaceful protests" in the news. Hippy.

The Grand Ol' Party (or: How Republicans Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb)

Let's flash back to 2008 for a moment. Spirits are high across the nation, and Democrats are fat with power and pride. It seems as if the excess of the Bush Administration has stirred a powerful backlash that, combined with the political and rhetorical skills of the newly-elected President, might just cause an era of Democratic control.

That, uh... that didn't seem to last long.

Just before Obama's landslide, the Republican machine went into full-on panic mode. Like a cornered animal, starving but resourceful, they lashed out full-force in a desperate bid to survive. Almost immediately, the Right-Wing Echo Chamber wrenched the debate away from silly trifles like economic recovery in a global market to important issues like the decades-long conspiracy to hide Barack Hussein Obama's international citizenship. Republican operators FreedomWorks and FoxNews seemed to spur the growth of teabaggers, the Tea Party Beta.

This proved most effective. The original mantra of the group was actually agreeable, on its face. They were tired of Democrats and Republicans and all the useless ideological quibbling. They demanded their government sober up and focus only on one thing: the economy. Jobs and revenue. Cutting waste, trimming bloated government, and - most intriguing to me - saving fights over social policy for a brighter day. This was the party that loved Ron Paul, after all, and he openly criticized government restrictions of liberty, and even the War on Drugs.

PARTY OF NOTHING

That turned out to be far from reality, but it was a potent platform. Combined with non-stop, unprecedented, vicious attacks on the President, and the (totally not racist) gutteral loathing many (in the South) seemed to have specifically for Barack Obama, 2010 saw the Democrats taking a huge political hit. The GOP as a whole had embraced the Policy of No, the art of opposition, and it had worked.

So far, the 112th Congress has passed less than 1% of the nearly 4,000 bills introduced. That's a bit misleading, perhaps, as their session is only part-way through, but the 111th passed only 3% of the bills introduced during their's. Most concerning, though, is that those numbers are owed, in part, to a surge in cloture votes. The 111th Congress used the filibuster in unprecedented numbers, and were it not for a corresponding historic rise in cloture votes, the recent inactivity would have been that much more glaring. The number of filibusters may fall in the 112th, but only because the House has greatly reduced the need for such measures by coupling opposition and inactivity with an urge to pass bills they know won't become law.

That's all political infighting and Congressional criticism. But there's a much more immediate and insidious side to these current politics, giving rise to a disturbingly interesting conspiracy theory. What if, the idea goes, the GOP has seen political oppurtunity in sabotaging not just their political opposition, but the constituency thereof? Put more bluntly: Are Republicans purposely destroying America?

This is a purely intellectual excercise. It would be wrong to assume that anyone could be craven enough, or deluded enough, to use their power in such a way. The members of Congress are in Washington to work as part of the government - you have to assume they're doing their jobs, and doing so with the best interests of our nation, this Grand Experiment of ours, in mind. Right? Right.

PLOTTING

But, what would you have to do to actually destroy America? If your aim was to tear down the framework of our nation, how would you go about it? Let's say you're a powerful politician whose sole aim is making life miserable for the people you govern, ultimately in hope they'll take their anger out on those you oppose. More specifically, the President.

It's a herculean task, really. You'd need a groundswell of popular support. You would have to somehow develop a rabid constituency, if not manufacture one altogether. No matter how corrupt your vision of government may be, it's still impossible to legislate without the power of the ballot behind you. Palpatine dissolved the Alliance to thunderous applause, I'm sure we all recall.

If you wanted to take out the President, the best way to do that -- historically -- is to make sure there's a bad economy. In our evil plot, here, there would be all sorts of other benefits to a declining economy, but the most dramatic, immediate and important would be the impact it would have on control of the White House.

Now, if we're deliberately maneuvering government to directly oppose the interests of our constituency, we need some sort of cover. Whatever we do, we have to create a general sense of panic, anger and frustration. Political crises can be manufactured, for example. Disasters of any sort would be beneficial, really, but must be accompanied with appropriate political spectacle.

Lastly, and least intuitive, it would be important to diminish the populace's opinion of Congress itself. The more they see the body as a collection of lazy, bumbling fools in a distant capitol building, the better. This is a sinister and far-reaching plot, and a perception of impotence or incompetence will only make things easier. It would be ideal if all useful government activities ceased to function. Failing total shutdown, any blows to efficacy or even efficiency would be beneficial.

THE CONSPIRACY

Let's slip off our corrupt politician hat and put on one made of aluminum. We've identified the steps one could take to sabotage a nation for sake of political expedience. Now, let's pretend the plot is real and people in the government are acting it out.

Congressional Republicans have quite a bit of support for crazy, destructive policies thanks to an outbreak of extreme conservative activists, most often calling themselves the "Tea Party." (To confuse things further, they actually belong to the Republican Party.) The movement started with a successful, screaming conservative on national television, and was supported, often even funded by major media outlets (most notably FoxNews, the most influential network on television).

As for economic sabotage, examples of GOP activity that has directly and negatively impacted the economy are many and varied, and date back to the previous Republican administration. Here's one of the theorists propagating this particular aspect of the Grand Ol' Conspiracy for HuffPo.

Then, of course, there's panic. Luckily enough for conservatives, though, we've existed in a culture of fear for about a decade. The Right has used every failed terrorist attack as a talking point, highlighting the ineffectiveness of the current administration and the agencies established to protect us from such threats. Numerous disasters have also been used to further political interest, most notable being calls to abolish FEMA.

As for evil mastermind credibility, have you seen Congresses approval ratings? They wish they had Obama's numbers! Every day another congressman does something so awful, so craven, we all shake our collective heads and swear aloud. If it was an evil plot, mission accomplished. Everyone hates Congress.

And don't even get me started on efficacy and inefficiency...

VERDICT

It's interesting to think about. And, though I hesitate to admit it, I would not be the least bit surprised if there were actually people in powerful positions who have actually see the political benefits of sabotage. When I hear talk of dramatic defecit reduction in an economic crisis worse than any since the Great Depression, I do wonder if the person making the argument is just oblivious to history, or economics, or if they genuinely want to see a double-dip.

But it isn't all insidious. A depressing number of people honestly believe, almost religiously, in certain ideals that are truly harmful to government and society. There's some hope; people yearn to be good, and to do good. If we just gather together, and work to share our beliefs, and the logic behind them, maybe -- just maybe -- we can talk some goddamn sense into these morons.

The Demon Licks Obama

One can't help but wonder about this
man's views on foreign policy

Gene Simmons, member of a band I'm told plays something similar to Rock 'n Roll, recently railed against Barack Obama - or, more specifically, Barack Obama's recent assertion that Israel and Palestine go back to the border agreed upon back in 1967.

Says Simmons...

For a president to be sitting in Washington, D.C., and saying, 'Go back to your '67 borders in Israel,' how about you live there and try to defend an indefensible border nine miles wide?

...

It’s a nice idea, when you grow up you find out that life isn’t the way you imagined it, and President Obama means well," Simmons said. "I think he’s actually a good guy. He has no fucking idea what the world is like because he doesn’t have to live there.

...

If you’ve never been to the moon, you can’t issue policy about the moon. You have no fucking idea what it’s like on the moon.

For reference, here's where Simmons lives. Note the similarities to Israel. (SPOILER: There are none.)

(via Politico)

Osama's Dead. Now What?

On Sunday, the White House announced a sudden and mysterious late-night speech by the President. For about an hour, the subject of the speech went unstated - causing a feeding frenzy among the media.

I sat with some friends of mine, all enjoying some old-school thrills, switching off on Super Mario 64. I - ever the nerd - was browsing the internet while the others struggled to find all eight of Big Boo's red coins, when I noticed a Breaking News alert on HuffPo. It said something to the effect of, "President to give speech; subject withheld." I announced this to the room, and the speculation was on! What could he be announcing? Why so late at night, so sudden? Why the secrecy?

Then it was announced it was "national security related." Cue full freak-out mode. We were all, apparently, going to die. Finally, finally, someone read the news on Facebook. Osama bin Laden had been killed. And that was totally awesome. I clicked "like," cementing my approval for the ages.

MISSION ACCOMPLISHED

We watched the President live on the White House web page. Obama swaggered to his podium, read the announcement, and footage started popping up of spontaneous mass patriotism outside the White House and in Times Square. Mario, long forgotten now, was fast asleep in Peach's courtyard. The rest of the evening was spent researching exactly how grisly Osama's death had been. (In the eye? Yikes. So much for kidney failure...)

The speech was brief, and as the President receded into the ominous Cross Hall, we all wondered aloud what this would mean for our country. Is this the end of the war in Afghanistan? Or Iraq? How did it all happen? Did we really have the body, or was this an elaborate ruse on the level of pretending to be an American citizen so you can run for President? How will this affect the election?

On the last point, some prognosticators have predicted that this news could bump up Obama's approval some 10 points or so, which might be sustained for up to six months. Seems sensible enough - even Republicans were having a hard time criticizing the President's handling of the operation.*

No, it's the liberals attacking the President this time. I had thought the execution of Osama bin Laden was a universal desire - he had masterminded at least one plot that resulted in thousands of deaths, possessed the ability to do so again, and stated his clear intention to do just that. I'm not the biggest fan of the death penalty, but goddamn if this isn't a worthy enough argument in favor. Osama's death wasn't just retribution, it wasn't murder, it was justice. More than that, it was the intelligent thing to do.

I understand some hesitation. We essentially committed an act of war in Pakistan. No matter how cool our equipment was, how smoothly the operation went, you can't change the fact that we flew troops into their country and rushed in, guns blazing. Hell, we blew up a helicopter on our way out - exactly the wrong sort of thing to do on the sovereign land of a nuclear power. Could this further anger the military of Pakistan?

IMPLICATIONS

Bin Laden was found not far from the Pakistani capitol, in a prominent, even affluent, military town. The "Pakistani West Point," Kakul Academy, is a stone's throw from where Navy Seal Team 6 exploded a cutting-edge stealth helicopter in Osama's walled-in compound. It's hard to imagine such a feat from the most wanted man in the world without some assistance, or at least a few turned heads, from the nation's powerful military. Will this lead American war-hawks to put more pressure on Pakistan? Could actual complicity come to light? And, if so, will our relations with the country, already frayed, prove irrevocably severed?

And, so long as we're asking questions, what does this mean for al-Qaeda? Without its founder and leader, can it remain the galvanizing, frightening organization it has been? Further, after this blow, and continued reports about what seem to be al-Qaeda's death throws, with the Taliban a distant memory in the national consciousness (hell, there's an entire generation now that doesn't even know who Osama bin Laden was), what purpose are American troops serving in Afghanistan? Isn't this grounds for immediate withdrawal?

All this ruminating, and no answers. Just question after question. The death of a madman is inarguably good news, and seems somehow to resolve so much. But it seems everyone seems stuck in the same loop as I, pondering mysteries that always seem to resolve themselves in the unshakeable refrain of, "Now what?"

_______________

*UPDATE 5/8: Not that it stopped them from trying.

Mid-West Mafia Take Over NLR

Alright, maybe the title's a little hyperbolic... but this is awesome.

I'm pretty new in Arkansas - I've been in Little Rock, the state's capitol and largest "city," for about a year - so I'm still catching-up on the intricacies of local politics. Sometimes it can be so hard to wrap your head around city politics in a new area. It's all dense with names and locations that have no meaning, no previous relavance. In short, it's all boring. But, every so often, due diligence can result in the discovery of a juicy news morsels like this one.

I love a good corruption story, but what's really savory here is the mob connection. George Wylie Thompson was arrested by the FBI in Cabot. The charges span from possession of 147 firearms and 80,000 rounds of ammunition to bookmaking and marriage fraud, going all the way back to 2008. (A lifetime ago, really.) A felon isn't supposed to own a single gun, and I hear the Feds really start to raise an eyebrow when the total exceeds 146...

Thompson had first been arrested at the tail end of 2009, on stereotypical mafioso charges in an East Coast sting. One can only conclude drug mules that speak in broken English aren't always the best business associates. Also, Arkansas isn't as boring as it seems.

Thompson got 10 years, the Alderman got four months. At least Thompson totally knows karate. That'll come in handy in the Pen, I'm sure.

Pretty cool, huh? A made man in the Mid-West. And somehow I still can't find a decent cannoli in Little Rock.