One thing that might serve to mark the onset of this spring, besides the usual warming and increased hours of daylight, is the geological manifestations in the form of earthquakes and volcanoes. Alaska has had rumblings from one of their active volcanoes, and for a while it looked like it was about to blow. The alert level was just recently lowered to yellow, but no sooner did it appear as though that was over with, then a major eruption occurred on the ocean floor just off Tonga, which also experienced a major earthquake, one well over seven on the Richter scale, while the aforementioned volcano has destroyed every living thing in its immediate vicinity. Nature can indeed be a harsh mistress. However, much like the Phoenix, the affected areas of Tonga will benefit from the increased fertility from the nutrient rich soil and, once it cools, life will spring forth abundantly. So has it ever been.
I'm saddened to hear of the death of actor Ron Silver. This was a guy who proved you don't necessarily have to be an utter brain dead fucking moron in order to be a liberal, and if that wasn't enough, he even proved that, as highly unlikely as it might seem, you don't even have to be a brain dead fucking moron to be a liberal Hollywood activist. Yep, Silver was as liberal as they ever came. Despite this, he appeared at the Republican convention in 2004, where he announced that he was a "9/11 Republican". Declaring that he could always work on his pet issues at any time, he went on to say regarding the War On Terror that, to paraphrase, "if we don't get this right, nothing else will matter."
Whether he was right or wrong about his stance is not even the point. The point is, he stood out as a liberal true believer who proved beyond all doubt that it is possible to put aside ones preconceived notions and prejudices and think independently, right or wrong. We don't have to follow the herd and jump through hoops at the command of our would-be lords and masters.
He also proved that there is a great deal of merit to the charge that Hollywood is so unfairly dominated by liberal politics, by asserting that even he, a multi-award winning and nominated actor, with numerous Emmy's and Tony's to his credit, lost some work due to his recent political stance. Yet, he soldiered on, determined not to have his voice shut out of the debate, until he finally succumbed this last Sunday to esophageal cancer-something which I am certain a great many liberal turds will take a great deal of delight in.
If I were a believer in the literal existence of the gods and goddesses, I would be tempted to believe they took him up to be with them. He was just too unique to stay in this fucked up world.
I think I might actually light a candle for him tonight.
NBC has taken a dumb idea and turned it into an absolutely stupid one. The whole idea of setting the Biblical Book of Kings in the modern world isn't really what I'm talking about either. That is actually a brilliant idea. The dumb part is in trying to make what by all rights should be a violent, even a bloodthirsty story, into one that might be a bit more palatable to modern sensibilities.
Ian MacShane is wasted in this garbage. For one thing, he doesn't fit the role. If they really wanted to create a modern King Saul, they should have somebody who is at the very least six-foot-six, and present him as an utter barbarian with maybe the thinnest veneer of civilization. That was King Saul. This modern version, King Silas, cooks breakfast for his family, for God's sake. I suppose I shouldn't be too rough on him. He did manage to order an assassination of one of his more upstart courtiers in the pilot episode, so maybe there's some hope for him. By and large, though, while he does present a regal appearance, he is just too polished in the modern sense of the word.
The David of the story is played by Chris Egan, who is particularly ill-suited for what should be such a compelling role. One hopes he will grow into it, but so far, the only authenticity he brings to the role is that he seems to be as much out of his depth in this part as the original boy shepherd must have been in the court of the original insane tyrant who, while in the depths of melancholy, was known to suddenly hurl his javelin for no apparent reason at anybody who presented a conspicuous target-usually David, whom he suspected of disloyalty.
The Goliath in the story, the one who turned our modern David into the hero who earns the King's favor (by saving the life of his captive soldier son, "Jack") is not actually a giant fierce warrior, but a tank, which he dispatched with a grenade strapped to a wrench. What a waste! Is this the best modern adaptation of the story these writers could come up with? It seemed like something they just did to get it out of the way as soon as possible.
The King has a daughter as well, who is advocating for some kind of nationalized health care. When David takes it upon himself-in the course of his first press conference in his official rewarded capacity of military press spokesperson, no less-to utter words of support for the daughter's pet project, I knew right then and there, this show was doomed to suffer a dismal fate, that of an unfortunate mediocrity. Seriously, nobody would take it upon themselves to do such a thing in an official capacity, especially over an issue that is not even a part of their official job description. The whole thing was an absurd cap on what was already an exercise in banality.
The concept of the show has promise. Well, it had it. I think that promise has been shot to hell with this first ill-advised episode, which made the show seem more like its trying to be Dynasty with vaguely Biblical trappings than an actual modern take on an ancient Biblical epic.
It's a shame too. In the original version, King Saul sunk deeper and deeper into the depths of madness, and it would be interesting to see how MacShane, who is actually a fine actor, would translate that story. Unfortunately, I don't think it will ever make it that far.
Nor do I think there is any danger of rewards being offered, or granted, for every enemy combatants foreskin which is taken in combat. And therein lies the problem with this show. It's bitten off more than it can chew, and it just doesn't have the heart to stay that faithful to the original source material. As such, why even go there to begin with?
I dunno, don't sound like much of a deal to me, a guilty plea on all eleven charges in return for a one-hundred fifty year sentence total-a life sentence, if you want to call that life. So yes, Bernard Madoff has or will in a sense pay for his crimes, having lost everything he ever worked for, i.e. swindled from his investors. It is by no means clear yet whether his wife will keep her home and roughly one hundred million plus dollars that is allegedly her own personal estate. This could figure into the deal at some future date, but that doesn't seem likely. She will probably have to account for the origins of her fortune, and will likely be able to do so satisfactorily. If this was a part of the deal, chances are we would know by now, wouldn't we?
So therefore, what led Madoff to make this deal? Why would the government make the deal, for that matter? They had him dead to rights, he had no defense to speak of, and even to this day claims he acted alone. Perhaps there is something going on in the background of which we are not being informed, but there again, at least officially, we have to take this at face value.
Only that's just impossible. I'm sorry, but somebody knows where Madoff has his money, a great lot if not most of it-if not all of it. I think somebody in the prosecutor's office is now in the sole possession of a certain set of secret bank account codes. As for Madoff, don't expect to see this guy doing hard labor. Don't expect any really big names to surface as co-conspirators. In fact, don't expect anybody else to surface.
And yes, do expect Madoff's wife to keep her holdings.
There is a chance, of course, that a great lot of the money will be returned to those from whom it was stolen. All but, say, about ten billion dollars of it.
Judging by the number of people in the entourage of Dayton Ohio author and independent film director Carl Merritt, it's almost as if he rounded up all his nightclub buddies and associates one night and said, "hey, gang, let's make a movie". Unfortunately, the movie does absolutely nothing to dispel that image.
Yet, is that really such a bad thing? Abe's Tomb is one of those movies that might well finally steal the dubious title of "The Worse Movie Of All Time" from the generally agreed-upon title holder, Plan Nine From Outer Space by Ed Wood. Maybe we need those kinds of films, the kind of movies that, as the old cliche' goes, are so bad they're good, and become cult classics in their own right. The kind of thing that gets played at drunken frat boy type parties, movies where the plot, characters, dialogue, action-well, hell everything is so damned contrived, pointless, irrelevant, corny, cliche' ridden, wooden, and obviously staged-and the acting so bad-that what is meant to be a horror film, in this case, almost always turns out to be hilarious. And I'm not talking dark comedy here.
Briefly, the plot of Abe's Tomb revolves around a scheme by a group of vampires determined to destroy mankind and usher in a new vampire nation. The only hope for the hapless humans is an evil entity who happens to be the lone being who can foil their evil plot. One of the stars of this mess is Amanda Fire (not the British porn actress of the same name, but an aspiring Dayton Ohio model and actress), who plays the queen of the evil vampires-I think her name is actually Vampra, for God's sake-and who seems to have vanished from the face the earth shortly after the film was made, judging by the last time her website seems to have been updated. I don't think I can blame her much for that move.
You don't really have to take it from me how bad this thing is either. Carl Merritt has obligingly provided the following YouTube trailer-a full three and a half minutes-which will tell you more about the film than I could ever come close to doing. The trailer ends with a promotional dialogue by Amanda and one of the other female stars of this exercise in-hell, I don't even know how to end this sentence.
Just watch the trailer. The irony is, this thing might over time end up making Carl Merritt a millionaire many times over. Just not for the reason he intended.
Did you ever wonder what it would really be like if workers suddenly controlled the means of production? Well, we haven’t gotten to anywhere near that point yet, but a story out of Britain might give a fair indication of what might happen, as this would be a case of a workers organization influencing law.
The Performing Rights Society for Music has made it next to impossible to enjoy music in Britain without paying some kind of fee. If you own a pub with a jukebox, you pay a fee. If you own any kind of business, you pay a fee if you play music. If you walk down the sidewalk and sing, whistle, or hum a tune by any of their member artists, then yes, technically speaking, you might well owe a fee, depending on who hears you and reports the “offense”.
PRS for Music is outraged on behalf of consumers and songwriters that Google has chosen to close down access to music videos on YouTube in the UK. Google has told us they are taking this step because they wish to pay significantly less than at present to the writers of the music on which their service relies, despite the massive increase in YouTube viewing. This action has been taken without any consultation with PRS for Music and in the middle of negotiations between the two parties. PRS for Music has not requested Google to do this and urges them to reconsider their decision as a matter of urgency. Steve Porter CEO PRS for Music said "We were shocked and disappointed to receive a call late this afternoon informing us of Google's drastic action which we believe only punishes British consumers and the songwriters whose interests we protect and represent." Google had revenues of $5.7bn in the last quarter of 2008.
The lesson from this should be, when you act like a dick, sooner or later, somewhere down the line, somebody is going to act like a dick right back at you. Google’s 5.7 billion dollar revenues are irrelevant. They didn’t mind paying the fee until the PRS jacked it up. Now they’ve priced themselves out of two markets. And if you think this is unfair, consider the following-
PRS recently filed a complaint against a police station in Lancashire England for playing its stereo “too loud”. The point being that by doing so it crossed the line from private listening enjoyment into the realm of “public performance”, and thus by right of law, owed fees.
Any British performer that supports this nonsense doesn’t deserve to have their music heard by the general public. The problem is, I seriously doubt they have a choice, and I am also of a mind that the total amount of money this shabby organization takes in winds up for the most part with the company, with the performers seeing relatively little of it. Regardless of how much the performers themselves make, even this is actually irrelevant. This is an obvious shakedown. Jesse Jackson should intern for these people, as even he might actually learn something.
Never mind the reality that if I play music at my home, business, or just sing a tune out on the street, that would amount to a kind of promotional event, judging by these jackasses criterion. So in the event I ever go to Britain, or if things ever get that way here, I wonder what my chances might be of drawing advertising fees from these pricks. Don’t laugh, it makes as much sense as their current public performance fees policies. Actually, it makes a good deal more sense, since nobody is likely to pay me one red dime for singing a song while walking down the sidewalk, or for blasting my car speakers as I drive down the road. There is a fairly good chance, however, that I might inadvertently influence somebody to buy a damn recording.
Ever since police departments started issuing tasers to their officers in an effort to reduce the number of fatalities and serious injuries resulting from firearms, it was probably inevitable that a great many departments would have any number of jackasses who want to act like Captain Kirk taking down a savage Klingon.
Granted, this sixty-seven year old grandmother probably shouldn't be allowed to drive, seeing as she almost ran into a school bus, and her license should probably be suspended for trying to elude pursuing officers, but was there really any need to taser her? All she did was ignore the officers commands to stop when she got out of the car as she continued walking away. It's not like she jumped out with a weapon bearing down in their direction. Is it remotely possible this old woman has a hearing problem?
I think there's possibly an explanation for this though that goes beyond the simple prospect of some jackass with a shiny new toy. The police today are probably afraid to treat any one person from any given group-even someone who is obviously elderly and relatively infirm-differently than they would, say, a 240 pound, six-foot four inch muscle-bound thug with a carload of drugs and a semi-automatic weapon.
Can't we just agree that it's probably best to wait and see if there is any real danger posed to the officers or to by-standers before we start shooting voltage, or failing that, that the perpetrator might have a reasonable chance of eluding the police if drastic measures aren't taken? I don't think this old woman was going to get very far.
Now that Obama has reversed the Bush ban on federal funding of stem cell research, and Congress is poised to enact a law authorizing funds for that purpose, what does it really mean? Will it actually accomplish anything? I an very wary of government involvement in anything, and while Obama's pledge to insure the highest of ethical standards sounds reassuring, what that probably means in reality is just a more burdensome government presence in the research labs. I sometimes seriously wonder if there would ever have been a cure for polio or chicken pox if the federal government had been involved, or for that matter if even penicillin would have been developed to its true potential. I honestly doubt it.
At the same time, even if there are cures discovered and radical new treatments developed as a result of this decision and the research it engenders, I think people are fooling themselves if they think these will not come without a higher price than they realize.
Since the decision was announced, stock in stem cell research firms have shot up, one of the few bright spots in a very dismal and, dare I say, depressive stock market. It shouldn't take a world class economics expert to understand that people invest in stock in the hopes of making profits, and that profits arise from firm minimum prices. Yes, the infusion of government cash in the way of grants is supposed to ameliorate that phenomenon somewhat, but you can rest assured the market will most assuredly act to encourage a moderating effect, and the government will help by insisting on the highest and most rigid standards. Translation-don't expect any miracle cures overnight and don't expect the government to absorb the entirety of the expense when they do finally come about.
In the long run, I doubt that this will amount to much. The science is almost at a point right now where a person can set aside his own stem cells for the purpose of finding designer cures and treatments, including but not limited to not only repairing severely damaged limbs and organs, but potentially even growing new replacement ones. That could well be the wave of future, but there is a problem with that. How can one depend on a steady infusion of cash from such a dependable cure? Cures are forever, but symptoms pay a lot of salaries.
In the meantime, frozen stem cells might become a new growth industry, with the profits taken in by clinics from eggs and semen sold for research purposes surpassing their dubiously gotten gains from the Octomoms of the world. In fact, this might well save the in vitrio fertilization industry, which is obviously in serious need of regulation if anything is.
As for the ethical standards, I leave you with this excerpt from the Reuters article.
But DeGette and Castle, a Delaware Republican, said they would not take on the Dickey-Wicker amendment, which prevents the use of federal funds to actually extract the stem cells from human embryos.
"I think the Dickey-Wicker decision perhaps could be done later," Castle said.
The church shooting today that left a Baptist preacher dead was just the latest in a series of church shootings, that have occurred over the last several months, but so far in this case the name of the gunman, now in the hospital from a self-inflicted knife wound to his throat, has not been released. It's believed though that he lived in an upscale neighborhood, though it is unknown whether he actually knew the preacher he killed.
What is remarkable about this story is how the congregants reacted. The first shot from the gunman struck the preacher's upraised Bible, resulting in shards of paper spraying out in all directions, giving the appearance of what one witness described as flying confetti. He and others went on to say they thought it was some kind of skit. An assistant pastor at the church said he heard what sounded like firecrackers.
People's minds react in strange ways when confronted by the unexpected. It's hard to wrap your mind around the proposition that somebody could just casually stride up the aisle in a church, during a service, and shoot the preacher point blank. But that's what happened, and when it became obvious what was going on, several of the parishioners in attendance tackled the gunman, resulting in two of them receiving non-life threatening stab wounds, which resulted in one of them being hospitalized.
I'm going to guess this has something to do with a job loss and possible home foreclosure, and he might have heard something from this minister to make him think he was unsympathetic to his plight. A marital break-up is also a possibility. I'm not trying to play a game of blame the victim for any of this, but the point is, there is going to be a lot of this going on over the next couple of years, or at least over the course of this one. There are a lot of people in jams, and when people get desperate, they do crazy things. A lot of times they might well subconsciously seek out a symbolic target. I'm going to be interested in seeing how this plays out and exactly what its all about.
Like I said, people's minds work in strange ways when faced with bizarre and tragic events. I find myself hoping the preacher was messing with the guys wife or was up to something similarly shady, because otherwise, its nothing but a senseless, seemingly random atrocity that makes no sense whatsoever. But, unfortunately, a great lot of the time things like this happens, that's precisely what it is.
Senseless and random. We want to have an explanation for everything. It's just in our natures, but oftentimes the chaotic nature of these kinds of events just defy rationality whether we like it or not.
After closing down several stores and scaling down future store openings in the face of declining profits, Starbucks has now come up with what seems to be a desperate plan to stop the bleeding. They are now going to be selling breakfast sandwiches and instant coffee.
In the meantime, they deny there are plans to sell franchises of the Starbucks brand as they recently did with their other chain, Seattle's Best, on the grounds that they want to retain control of the company's image and brand. I guess they are hoping they won't end up going down with the ship, but something tells me they still haven't quite acclimated to the idea of being the rats that desert it on its way down. If they go down, they are going to go down fighting until the bitter end.
There has even been what seems to be a socialist inspired suggestion that the company might allow for some form of worker control, but I don't see that going anywhere soon, even though the company is getting desperate for answers and the employees are starting to lose patience.
Still, who knows? By the time its all over with, they might turn the company mascot into a live-action cartoon television marketing character like Ronald MacDonald.
I just think this is a sure indication of how grim the overall economy has become. Here we have a company that made a success story out of selling what is basically coffee based beverages, for four dollars and more a cup, about to go under. So, what do they turn to? Instant coffee, a beverage that acquired popularity with people too busy to either take the time to perk that morning coffee at home or to stop for a cup to go at the local diner.
Instant coffee, for a dollar a buck-at Starbucks. The real irony is pretty obvious if you've ever priced a eight ounce jar of instant coffee in comparison to say a 32 ounce can of regular brand name coffee such as Folgers or Maxwell House. Believe me, the regular coffee is far and away your better value. Yet, Starbucks claims their instant coffee is just as good as the regular coffee. Some people who tested it seem to like it, with one woman actually claiming the instant coffee was better because it wasn't quite as strong.
Seeing as how manufacturing instant coffee is a tedious and expensive process, and seeing as how the rise in demand is likely to push the price upwards, I just don't think this is a very good long-term strategy.
Sunday, March 1st, 2009, was the debut of the latest season of Donald Trump's Celebrity Apprentice, in which Donald Trump, allegedly genius billionaire businessman, fired the one and only reason I was half way thinking of giving the show a chance.
The Diceman was playing for the charity known as Standup For Kids. Evidently, he took exception to his Brooklyn pals seeing him on the tube baking cupcakes in a funny little baker's hat. Clay has his values, after all. As seen in the following clip, image is everything to him.
Now if Trump had focused the contest on, say, who could make the best prank phone calls, Andrew Dice Clay would have probably won hands down.
Surprisingly, I seem to be the same kind of gun as Lemuel Calhoun from Hillbilly White Trash, from whom I got this. Seeing as how he is a gun expert, and I'm most assuredly not one, I guess that's good.
Well, after answering that I would prefer to go to the opera than the races (assuming this meant NASCAR races-if it meant thoroughbred races, that would be different story), I would think I would have ended up something like a Derringer or whatever. I really figured I would nail something off the wall when I answered that I would prefer to be stranded on a desert island with Martha Stewart as opposed to Paris Hilton (though this would be for what should be obviously practical reasons). Maybe one of those old-fashioned muskets or ball and powder loads circa Daniel Boone.
Then again, my answers were so all over the map, I'm kind of surprised they have a gun that would suit my personality at all. I guess I might strike some as the Saturday Night Special type, or maybe even a cap gun or bb gun. Now that would have been embarrasing.
In order for a business to succeed and prosper long-term, it has to provide a service which people want or need, it must do so at a competitive price, and it must by all means provide quality merchandise and service. It must stand by its product, and honor the good faith investments of its customers. It still might fail due to a variety of factors, but those businesses with the most successful business models tend to be the most adaptable.
Why then are so many newspapers going under? Could it be they are trying to be all things to all people? That might arguably work with a very limited type of commodity, but for the most part, targeted marketing is king.
General Motors learned early in its history that, in addition to assuring quality product, they were obliged to reach out to various segments of the population if they were going to thrive. Thus, they produced three different models. The Chevrolet was geared toward the working class. Pontiac was designed to be the automobile of choice for the middle class and upwardly mobile. The Cadillac was considered a rich man's car.
Guess which one has now been discontinued? And so it goes. These are hard times, and a business that doesn't adapt will likely go the way of the Saber-toothed tiger. Without a steady supply of Mastodon on which to feed, his most striking features becomes not only obsolete, they are rendered impractical.
But you don't just do something for the sake of doing something. The e-reader proposal is meant to save newspapers from extinction by marketing modern technology, but I think its proponents are missing the point. The problem isn't the delivery system, it's the product meant for consumption.
There is a reason why Bill O'Reilly reined so long as the number one cable news analyst, and why Rush Limbaugh is still the number one radio broadcaster, while people like Brit Hume and other hard news-focused analysts are relegated to the much lower rated afternoon and early evening hours. The reason for the popularity of the pundits is only partially to do with conservative politics, and this is especially true of O'Reilly, who is actually not all that conservative on a good many issues. In fact, he is on balance quite moderate, certainly in comparison to Limbaugh.
What is it, then? I hold that it is due to the fact that you know exactly where they stand on any given issue, and they don't pretend to be objective about anything. Objectivity, after all, while a worthy goal for which to aim, is nearly impossible to achieve. Fairness is somewhat more attainable, if but in small doses.
Remember, newspapers by nature in origin were always partisan. It was only over the last century that the innovation of objectivity in hard news was adopted as a business model, but by its nature it was always doomed to a limited shelf life.
Niche marketing will be the new order of the day, and it will be the business model which will achieve the longest lasting success. The old underground papers of the past are going to be the major success stories of tomorrow. They will thrive in print. They might even do a respectable business by way of e-reader.
The newspaper business is not dying. It's just experiencing growth pains. It went through a period of puberty when it decided it should "grow up" and act more adult, and in the process it became a commodity produced in a sterilized environment which betrayed few signs of intelligent life, which was found more often than not, ironically, in the pages of the editorial sections. Even the "hard-hitting investigative reports", what few there were, seemed to betray a bias. They still do.
That's why newspapers are doomed to thrive only as niche markets. Yes, this means they will produce limited profits, individually. By definition, niche markets cater to a limited audience. By the way, this audience will mostly be comprised of adults. Few if any newspapers are read by high-school and grade-school children, and so another way for the newspaper industry to pull itself up by its bootstraps might be to discontinue this canard that they are a "family newspaper". Families don't read newspapers. People read newspapers. Another one of life's ironies is doubtless that a loosening up of the censorship standards of language and expression would actually increase readership among the young.
For a reporter to declare, "During a raucous meeting at City Hall, Mr. Jones cursed the mayor in foul language which we can not print here and threatened violence on his person", is asking for trouble.
For a reporter to say, "During a raucous meeting at City Hall, Mr. Jones called the mayor a 'stupid motherfucking son-of-a-bitch' and threatened to 'kick your ass from one end of this god damned hall to the other'", is something else-it is actually reporting the news.
See the difference? In the first example, unless you are personally involved or know or are related to Mr. Jones or the Mayor, you are unlikely to care enough to read on. In the second case, you want to read on to see what happened.
Unfortunately, newspapers are still mired in the sensibilities of a by-gone era. This, in addition to the thinly disguised bias masquerading behind a veneer of objectivity in hard news coverage, is why so many papers are in trouble, and even the New York Times is barely hanging on for dear life.
The wave of the future is the old underground papers, like Cincinnati's City Beat.
When the old dinosaurs finally fall by the wayside, they will be there to take up the slack.
The tea party protest pictured here in Lansing Michigan was just one of many that transpired Friday across the nation. Inspired by the rant of Rick Santelli on CNBC, a grassroots organization opposed to the wave of spending by the Democratic Congress and the stimulus program of Barak Obama, in addition to the bailout package, have converged in cities across the nation to engage in peaceful protests.
To get that last point across, one site advertising a tea party in Los Angeles listed the following advice-
“Few simple rules, :
NO: breaking the law (e.g., loitering, vandalism) NO: violence (physical or verbal)
JUST: good cheer & a positive sense of public engagement & a smile.”
All of which begs the point-do they even get the point of what the original tea party was all about? Can you imagine the original participants of the Boston Tea Party taking seriously any admonitions from officials to refrain from dumping tea on the grounds that it is bad for the environment, and might even discolor the water? Of course not. Yet, this was precisely what happened in Iowa.Granted, this is a young movement, and might well grow into something big over time, and I would be the last to encourage violence or destruction of property, which actually would be counterproductive. In fact, the resultant higher prices on goods would possibly result in even more money in the coffers of the federal government.
Like children, the movement should grow, but also mature, and work toward not destruction, but simply to affect prices in the opposite direction. It's actually quite simple.
SAVE-DON'T SPEND!
Unfortunately, that is a hard lesson for children to learn, to say nothing of putting it into practice. Still, I'm afraid that all of us are going to have to make some serious sacrifices in the way we live if we really expect to affect needed change. A few hundred or thousand people here and there engaging in a symbolic act of dumping tea while chanting slogans and waving signs is all well and good, but like all protests, it must be followed with decisive action. Let's call it, well, fiscal discipline? />All of us are going to have to make some serious sacrifices in the way we live if we really expect to affect needed change. Otherwise this protest movement, like so many others, will just be hijacked by a few loud-mouths who will in the end accomplish nothing but serve to rally some people to a cause that in the long run will be seen as one chasing a fantasy, but willing to do nothing to really change anything.
Gold might be more stable and secure now than it was in 1980, but just be sure you know what you're doing, regardless of the hype. Gold will probably be a safe investment over the next four years, for the simple fact we are going to experience sluggish economy recovery beginning at the end of this year, or the beginning of the next one. Since the dollar is going through a period of devaluation, gold is king once more, until the next period of significant economic recovery-again, more than likely not until roughly four years from now.
And then-
Translation-there will probably be a massive sell-off as folks diversify their investments once more. Watch the stock market closely over the next couple of years. A good rule of thumb is, once the Dow inches back above or close to the 9000 mark, that might be the best time to diversify while you still have a chance to increase your profit margins.
And incidentally, you should plan on diversifying soon. This is actually a good time to buy stocks, at least theoretically, as most of the more dependable stocks would seem to have no place to go but up. Still, take it slow for now. By the time the year is over with, there could well be more big name companies that tank, and one sudden disruption in any given number of areas could see many of them could evaporate overnight.
And by all means, buy some gold-a moderate amount. Don't imagine for one minute its going to remain at current prices, or rise even higher, and stay put. You might think you've got a pot of gold now, but if you aren't careful you could end up holding an empty bag.
Also, when buying gold, look to things like Canadian Maple Leafs, South African Kruggerands, and other such issues that remain stable in price. They don't rise in price with the gold market, but neither do they crash. Thus, they are a safe investment.
Personally, I wouldn't touch a gold fund with a ten foot pole. The current line is that gold is far undervalued since the 1980 debacle and allowing for current rates of inflation, it has a ways to go yet to catch up to its true value. That sounds reasonable, but then they try to sell you the song-and-dance that once it gets to that level it will stay there.
It will stay there until the next major sell-off, and then it will go down, maybe not as low as it has been typcically over the last three decades, but low enough that if you have a lot of money tied up in it you could lose your shirt.
Still now, for sure it is a good investment, like all things, in moderate measure.
What would you pay for a person who could be absolutely anything you wanted him or her to be, a person who could be programmed to do anything you wanted, an individual whose memories of everything they did would then be erased forever? That is the premise behind Dollhouse, a show by Josh Whedon, the former creative genius behind Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Angel, and Firefly. It stars Eliza Dushku, formerly the star of Tru Calling. In this show she plays Echo, who in an attempt to escape her past agrees to have her true memory and identity erased, thus becoming the “Active” who is the central character of the show.
The Dollhouse, as it is known, is illegal, to say nothing of unethical, and a doggedly determined FBI agent is determined to find it and shut it down. First, he has to prove its existence to his skeptical and even derisive fellow agents.
Sure, the program has its obvious flaws. For example, anyone with the money can hire an Active to perform any task they want or need. The flaw here is, how many people who could afford such a high fee could also be trusted to keep the details of the operation secret? It seems to me that it would be better to hide the true nature of the Dollhouse from the clients. All they need to know is these people can perform the needed tasks beyond any ordinarily reasonable expectations. On the other hand, many of the tasks involved are illegal to begin with.
The procedure is fraught with danger. The various personalities grafted onto the Actives are real ones, and along with their talents, they are also replete with their own sets of weaknesses. Unfortunately, there is a rogue Active on the loose, one inadvertently imprinted with the memories and personality of a murderous maniac. After wreaking havoc on the operation, murdering all the then current Actives with the exception of Echo, whom he spared for some unknown reason, he then escaped. He is still on the loose, awaiting the opportunity to strike.
It’s hard to explain my liking for this show, other than I can see where it has potential to be something really special and exciting, providing it lasts long enough to develop its potential.
Eliza Dushku is delicious in the role of Echo, whose true identity and motivations are unknown as of now, though she seems to retain some slight trace of her original personality which manifests in flashbacks during periods of unexpected stress when certain projects start to go wrong. As the Dollhouse is under assault from two different fronts, from the rogue Active as well as from the one lone FBI agent determined to shut down the operation, we can expect these moments of unexpected duress to come with some degree of frequency.
As an aside to those of you-well, both of you-who read my novel Radu, which I still hope to have published and eventually become a screenplay or a mini-series, I think I’ve found my Grace Rodescu. Eliza is certainly in the top ten of my picks to play the character on screen.
I’ll say no more for now, as words can really not do it justice anyway. Watch the video I’ve provided at the beginning of the post. If it succeeds in whetting your appetite, the Dollhouse is on Friday nights at nine.
Chris Matthews wasn't the only person muttering under his breath when Bobby Jindal stiffly walked out onto the stage to deliver the Republican response to Barak Obama's State of The Union address Tuesday night. He was just the only one unfortunate enough to be overheard by a television audience as he did so into an open mike-supposedly accidentally. I say supposedly, because I do have a sneaking suspicion it was done purposely. Had it truly been an accidental occurrence, Matthew's utterance might have been more like my own-
"What in the fuck was that?"
Matthews defended himself by saying it was his response to the stagecraft, not an expression of dismay at the idea of Jindal's predictable reply. Indeed, the stagecraft, for want of a better word, set said stage for what was to follow-a distracting tone accentuated by stiffly karate-like chops of both hands that in total served to distract in almost full measure from the message of Jindal's words, and has in fact been compared to the Saturday Night Live character, perennial candidate Tim Calhoun. The sing-song, faux folksy voice and smile has also been compared to Kenneth the Page in 30 Rock.
Since this appearance, which has been panned on a bi-partisan basis, it seems, by Republicans as well as Democrats-and even by many of the same people who criticized Matthews for his open-mike utterance-much speculation has been offered as to Jindal's future intentions, and prospects. As such, much digging has went into the Louisiana Governor's background. Of all the things unearthed so far, perhaps the most interesting is an account, written by Jindal himself, of an exorcism of a female friend in which he took part, and in fact seems to have played a pivotal role.
Unfortunately, the entire article in the New Oxford Review is not available to any but subscribers, but thankfully the opening portion which is available tells you a great deal about Jindal. It might even hint slightly at the origins of the "demoniac possession".
Though she had not said anything, I knew something was wrong. Susan and I had developed an intimate friendship; indeed, our relationship mystified observers, who insisted on finding a romantic component where none existed. I called her after the University Christian Fellowship (UCF) meeting -- UCF is an Inter-Varsity Christian group composed of undergraduate and graduate students. Though the interdenominational group's weekly program of songs and prayers had produced the usual emotional high among most members, Susan had left the meeting in a very sullen mood. I asked her to join a group of us who were attending a Christian a cappella concert to be held on campus that same evening.
Despite our intimacy, Susan and I had not spent much time together this past year. We had succumbed to pressure from our friends and decided we should not be so emotionally interdependent without a deeper commitment. To be honest, my fears of a relationship and the constraints of commitment had kept us apart; our friends' objections merely provided a convenient excuse. Still, I felt comfortable asking her to come to the concert, and she accepted the invitation. Though Susan appeared composed throughout the concert, her sudden departure in the middle of a song convinced me otherwise and affirmed my earlier suspicions.
There was no doubt in my mind that I had to leave my friends and follow her outside. I was not exactly sure what I would do or say, but I knew I had to run after her. I found that she had not gone far, but was sobbing uncontrollably outside the auditorium. Since we had been very careful to avoid any form of physical contact in our friendship, I was not sure how to respond. My inaction and her sobs produced a very awkward situation. Fortunately, a female friend who followed us out was able to comfort Susan with hugs and soothing words of reassurance; her quick action was in stark contrast to my paralysis. Once Susan had regained her composure and fell silent, I knew I had to intervene. The female friend meant well, but did not know Susan well enough to provide the advice Susan was sure to seek.
Not even knowing the cause of this raucous scene, I asked Susan if she would like to talk, and volunteered to walk her home. Wanting to avoid any additional embarrassing scenes, I thought it best to remain in silence while we walked. I dared not cause another emotional outpouring until we were safely behind closed doors. When we finally reached her dorm room, I promptly sat Susan on a bed and placed myself in a chair located several feet across the room. This physical arrangement was hardly conducive to the love and support I was supposed to be providing, but I was too scared and unsure of myself to get any closer.
Jindal's article, the rest of which is unavailable, supposedly goes on to relate how he encouraged the girl to recite certain Bible passages, many of which contained the affirmation that Christ is Lord. She was unable to repeat the phrase, but after so long, after evidently passing out, she recovered and seemed to be "healed". She even smiled and asked what happened.
This seems to be the kind of story that almost seems tailor made to go into the annals of political folklore, much like Washington's chopping down the cherry tree, or Lincoln's walking several miles to return loose change, or William Henry Harrison's log cabin and hard cider days. Only this might be considered the perfect story to appeal to the Republican Christian conservative base, but unfortunately not much of anybody else.
Not that this account disqualifies him in my view, at least not on the face of it, but it does suggest several points.
One, those of strict religious beliefs tend to be also the most ideological and immovable. This can be good or bad, depending on the situation, but the fact that he would openly write something like this, even in a subscription web-site, suggests that he is very devout, or very deluded-or possibly very self-serving and manipulative. In fact, Jindal's parents are apparently devout Hindus who did not approve of his conversion to the Catholic Church, right about the same time he inexplicably changed his name to Bobby after one of the boy characters in the old Brady Bunch series. What to make of all this?
The problem with Jindal is, this history will be enough of a distraction, without the added problem of a false and insincere sounding speech delivery. Some would even call it phony. I would be one of them. Naturally, you can put this down, possibly, as a certain discomfort at appearing on the national stage for the first time, giving a response to the President of the United States, a man with yet high poll approval numbers-still over 60%-and who is obviously a gifted speaker. Barak Obama is a man who, despite the very real opposition against him, most people want to succeed.
There was nothing wrong with the words of Jindal's speech. The problem was, there was nothing new about them, nothing to invigorate or excite. The red meat thrown to the GOP faithful, still so relatively close on the heels of a solid election defeat, left the rest of us cold.
But, in the final analysis, it wouldn't have mattered regardless. Jindal failed in his mission the second he stepped onto the stage. Everything that followed, the mannerisms, the phony smile and wooden yet sing-song, deliberate folksy voice accentuated by the hand chops, all of which served to make him appear robotic, just sealed his fate, one it would have been hard enough to extricate himself from regardless of how well he spoke.
Many people are going to take exception to my view of Jindal's speech. If so, I would suggest you look at it this way.
Suppose Sarah Palin had been chosen instead of Jindal to give the rebuttal speech. Suppose she was the one who strolled out from the back of the stage, only in her case, she wore nothing but high heels and a semi-see through gown which drew attention to the shadowed genital area, under the kind of stage lighting that forced you to keep your attention focused despite yourself on her body-your eyes drinking in first her waist, and then her hips, thighs, etc.
From that moment on, it wouldn't matter what she said, would it? Of course not. Whatever she had to say at that point, no matter how relevant, valid, or well said, would be lost. Nevertheless, if what she said came across as wooden, phony, and insincere, it would most certainly be noted by her detractors. Why? Because delivery is everything.
Jindal's delivery was like that. Horrid, without any sex appeal, or any other kind of appeal. And it all started to go wrong the minute he walked out onto the stage.
And that smile, as he was walking out on the stage. That ghastly, horrid smile. Were you in your home and suddenly see this creature appear from the shadows, you would have to think, here is a dangerous man.
Indeed, Bobby Jindal is a dangerous man. Not because he is religious, or ambitious, or shallow, or insincere, or even because of his ability or lack thereof.
He is dangerous because he just isn't ready for the prime time so many people would seek to thrust upon him. That's just the problem. By the time the GOP party establishment is through with him-and also by the time they're through with Palin, for that matter-he, and she, will have turned into pale and hollow caricatures of their true selves, their individual talents and ethics sublimated to the ideological dogma of the party elites that from this point on are on the hunt for the proper image to present to the public-not the true face of the candidates with all their appeal, along with their true convictions and ideals-but a mere projection of the Republican Party, or more aptly put, the image the Party wants you to buy.
In this case, they seem to have their work cut out for them. In both cases, they will most assuredly work to co-opt the message and persona of the candidates to their own benefit, before the candidates have the slightest opportunity to make the party their own.
In both cases, as in all such cases, buyer beware. You don't necessarily always get what you pay for.
Some long-time readers of this blog might remember a post I did some time ago in which I did my own ranking of presidents.
Well, lately C-Span commissioned a ranking of presidents by professional historians, which they and others seems wont to do on a fairly regular basis. My reaction-you could do a Family Feud audience survey on the rankings of American presidents that would be as valid as this most recent one of historians commissioned by C-Span. Really, it's all over the place. If you can make heads or tails of the criterion by which they judge former chief executives, please explain it to me.
Sure, there are some surprises, such as Reagan's listing in the top ten, at in fact the number ten spot, but for the most part, it's about what you would expect. Or, well, maybe not, if you are going for possibly the most important criterion of all-objectivity.
It is ludicrous in the extreme for, for example, John F. Kennedy to be placed in the top ten at number six. It is just as ludicrous, if not more so, for Woodrow Wilson to be in the top ten at number nine. Richard Nixon's spot is pretty well where you would expect it to be, in the lower numbers, though granted perhaps a tad higher than he deserves as well at number twenty-seven. In the meantime, here we have John Adams at number seventeen. Abe Lincoln is at the top of the list, where he usually is. Historians tend to automatically put him there without really giving it a lot of thought.
So why exactly do I single out these presidents-Kennedy, Wilson, Nixon, Lincoln, and Adams? Well, it is because all of these presidents had one very important thing in common. More than other chief executives, they tampered with civil liberties. In some cases-hello, Mr. Lincoln-they suspended them altogether. This, to a historian, should be of the utmost concern, and certainly worthy of some note.
Adams did it with the passage of the hated Alien and Sedition Acts which sought to curtail freedom of speech and the press, particularly as it applied to criticisms of his administration. Yet, he gets a pass, despite the fact that this is to all intents and purposes the defining event of his administration.
Lincoln did it as a wartime measure, under the guise of national emergency, by also curtailing press freedoms and by suspending habeas corpus. He gets a pass today, and perhaps this is understandable, but he sure didn't get a pass by a great many of his contemporaries, who skewered him mercilessly over the issue.
Wilson went after anyone who openly spoke against America's involvement in world War I. Yet, he gets a pass, probably because of his domestic economic reforms, but mainly no doubt due to good intentions in helping form the League of Nations, practically the only one of his Fourteen Points in the aftermath of the war to be adopted by the European community. Even at that he failed (thankfully) to convince Congress to allow the US to join the first major international body. He also failed at restraining the excesses of the victorious allied nations of the Triple Entente.
Kennedy-what can you say, other than this man was little more than a common criminal who used the CIA in an illegal manner to overthrow regimes not to his liking, engaging in assassinations and attempts at such. And that's not all. Acting on the urgings and encouragement of the Attorney General, his brother Robert-who has over the years morphed from a savage, ruthless punk into a personage nearly as deified as his presidential brother-wiretapped anyone whom they deemed a potential threat, including but not limited to Martin Luther KIng Jr. They also violated the civil liberties of alleged Mafia figures, including one man whom they kidnapped and forcibly threw out of the country without a trial or hearing.
Yet, he gets a pass because so many middle-aged, and for that matter younger and older historians get all misty-eyed (and in some cases they probably get a woody to boot) over the myth of Camelot-which, by the way, doesn't say a hell of a lot for their historian credentials.
Nixon-maintained a secret enemies list, spied on his enemies, and even corrupted the Justice Department in order to prevent investigation and prosecution of individuals involved in the Watergate break-in.
Strangely, he has jumped up nine notches from the last presidential rankings. Why is that? Well, he founded the EPA, which is all the rage these days amongst the chattering classes who want to do something about global climate change, he paved the way for normalizations of relations with China, and he did finally do something about that pesky Vietnam War, after all. But we've always been aware of those things. Did professional historians just now catch on to their historical significance? I find that hard to believe.
What I don't find hard to believe is the ranking of George W. Bush at number thirty-six in the rankings. Granted, he doesn't deserve to be anywhere near the top ten, and maybe not even in the top twenty-but 36? I ranked him at eighteen, and though this is tentative, and there is hopefully nowhere for him to go but down-36? This is obviously not an objective poll, for a variety of reasons, one of the most important to do with the subject of this post-the record on civil liberties.
One of the most valid and yet as far as I'm concerned still the most obviously and unfairly exaggerated complaints of Bush Jr.s tenure of office, is the way the Bush Administration abused civil liberties. Bush's enemies point to the creation of the Department of Homeland Security and, most especially, to the passage of the Patriot Act as the defining moments of his presidency in terms of abuse of office and the usurpation of powers by the executive branch.
Or at least, that used to be the case. Now, the major complaints against him remain most of the other same old stuff he has always been roundly criticized for-the war in Iraq, the deficit, out-of-control spending, America's standing in the world, torture of terrorism suspects, etc. Added to all of this lately is of course the current financial meltdown, which he only deserves, by the way, a significant and yet still relatively small amount of the blame for.
The point to all this being, I have an idea you are going to hear less and less about his alleged abuses of civil liberties, such as they are. After all, there is a new game in town, a new face of hope and change who is, I have an idea, ready and willing to step into the same federal infrastructure George Bush inhabited and, in some cases, built and expanded. Thus far, the most far-ranging vision Obama has truly exhibited in earnest is his sudden change of heart and decision to support the Telecommunications Bill that granted immunity to phone companies charged with illegally wiretapping customers as a service to the federal government. Obama's most vociferous supporters questioned his about-face on this, and even displayed concern, and criticism. For a day or two, that is, before they decided they would just shut the hell up about it.
You might infer from this that the prospect of the Unitary Executive suddenly doesn't seem like such a horrible one after all.
Thus you have men whose presidential terms are marked by such abuses high in the rankings, and in the case of Adams, you have a relatively high ranking and respected president whose presidency is all but solely defined by it. Well, and by The Adams Chronicles, a favorite amongst historians, and no this is not a facetious statement. Suspiciously close to father John in the rankings, just two notches below him is son John Quincy Adams, another well-intentioned president who accomplished absolutely nothing of note, whom these same historians nevertheless inexplicably placed at number nineteen. So who is the sole occupant of the number eighteen position, between the Adams father and son?
George H. W. Bush.
It's almost like by their putting Bush Senior between them, they were childishly saying-
"Hey Bush Junior, you ain't nowhere near as good as your dad, like John Quincy was almost as good as his. Your dad's at number eighteen. You're eighteen too-eighteen notches below him that is, nyahh, nyaah, nyaa."
Bill Clinton, another president with some minor criticisms for abuses of civil liberties of his own (he too supposedly maintained an enemies list and was alleged to use the power of the Treasury Department to harass enemies by engaging in unfounded tax audits) amongst his myriads of other short-comings, also raised inexplicably in the ranks, from somewhere in the twenties to number fifteen.
The idea of presidential rankings has justifiably been compared to a parlor game. Recently, a group of historians were invited to contribute to another such function. Any qualified historian could participate, but from all of those who seemingly rushed in excitedly to engage in this bit of academic posturing, it seems this was the result pertaining to the standing of one George W. Bush-
Asked to rank the presidency of George W. Bush in comparison to those of the other 41 American presidents, more than 61 percent of the historians concluded that the current presidency is the worst in the nation’s history. Another 35 percent of the historians surveyed rated the Bush presidency in the 31st to 41st category, while only four of the 109 respondents ranked the current presidency as even among the top two-thirds of American administrations.
Only between one and two percent of these professional historians ranked the presidency of Bush a success. Most of the ones who ranked him a failure but did not rank him at the very bottom, nevertheless ranked him in the bottom five, along with Buchanan, Pierce, Harding, and Andrew Johnson, whom they apparently hate for not razing the south in the aftermath of the Union victory in the Civil War. In fact, it seems as though one of the typically lower ranking presidents, Millard Fillmore, had to be unceremoniously booted from his well-worn position from the bottom five. He is typically blamed for inflaming passions between southern secessionists and northern abolitionists who wanted to contain the spread of slavery, and thus creating the conditions that led to the Civil War. But, they already have Buchanan and Pierce to hate for that, one more is just overkill. Make room for Junior.
Yes, I am being somewhat facetious, but serious too. I think that is exactly how these people think. If we can't justify putting him at the very bottom where he belongs, because we need to maintain the appearance of objectivity, let's at least make sure we tag him in the bottom five. Unfortunately for this cabal, the majority of the barely more moderate participants assured Junior would average out to 36, though still in merely the bottom ten.
Me, I placed Bush in my rankings at number 18 for a reason. I placed him one notch under John Adams at 17 and one notch above John F. Kennedy at 19 (I put Kennedy this high solely for his work promoting the space program). I placed Clinton, Wilson and Nixon at 28, 29 and 31 respectively. Lincoln I placed at number 2, second only to George Washington. This is because when I went to work doing my rankings, I set about being as objective as possible, and in all these cases I have listed in this post, one thing stood-all these presidents had problems adhering to the highest of standards when it comes to the the enforcement of and protection of civil liberties. In all regards they failed the test miserably, and only in the case of Lincoln was this ameliorated by extreme conditions which arguably warranted his policies in this regard. Even at that, it served to put him below Washington in my rankings.
The other two groups were both lowered significantly in my own rankings due to their policies in this regard. The gap between the two is explainable as a matter of greater accomplishment, integrity, and/or political or other hardships endured during tenure of office both by those within the higher ranked group, and those who fell in between the two groups.
Still, of course, it's a parlor game, with little meaning, other than as an exercise in either partisanship or, in my case, objectivity. If I were to do my list over, it would be different in some regards. Reagan would go from eleven to nine. Coolidge would probably be somewhere between twenty and thirty, but still not as high as he could have been had he not allowed his adherence to ideology to prevent him from doing just a couple of things differently. FDR would be lowered, but still in the top ten. Same with cousin Teddy. Jackson would go down from an already low twenty-four to an even lower thirty something ranking, as would partner-in-crime Van Buren, whom I last put just a notch above Clinton at twenty-seven. Clinton would also go down, Nixon would go up, etc. Harding would rise higher, maybe even into the top twenty. See, it is really too subjective to ever qualify as objective, something you can only aim for, but will find exceedingly difficult to achieve.
Two things I'm pretty sure of though that would remain the same were I to do my rankings over.
George W. Bush would probably stay at eighteen, or maybe just a tad lower. George H.W. Bush would probably stay at thirty-six, or thereabouts.
Well, there is a third thing. Professional historians are mostly full of shit.
Of course, so are most presidents, who are after all politicians deep down? Are they all basically the same, maybe different only in some cases by small degrees? Maybe, maybe not. Whatever the case, you might appreciate the following video montage of each president morphing into his successor, in order from first to last.
If nothing else, it could be a good way to teach your kids the presidents in the right order.
I watched Obama's speech before Congress tonight, and though there are a lot of things there to talk about, I want to focus on just one thing that will probably get lost in the overall flood of promises, warnings, and rhetoric. In a way this is understandable given the depths to which to the national economy has sunk, and the very real problems we have relative to energy, the housing crisis, banking, credit, Wall Street, mortgages, and the by now seemingly permanent dire straights of our medical system. Add to all of these problems, as if they were not bad enough, the steadily increasing job loss, and the fact that we are, to all intents and purposes, still bogged down in the fighting of a war on two fronts, with a deficit now over a trillion dollars per year.
Yet, I have no doubt in my mind that, were this one particular topic thrown out there on its own, it would result in an overwhelming flurry of outrage and possibly even outright rebellion. Yet, tonight, it was mentioned only in passing, and seemed to elicit not so much as even a sneer from the Republicans in attendance, and even went unremarked by Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal in his later response on behalf of the GOP.
What I am referring to-and I am taking the time leading up to it because I am trying to make sure I get the point across just exactly how seriously wrong this is-is the idea that education should be reformed to such an extent that, to paraphrase Obama, it should begin "from birth".
Now of course, I don't take this too literally. Naturally, he is being euphemistic to the point of hyperbole, and I am not trying to suggest that Obama wants the government to snatch everybody's kids practically from their mother's breasts, or from their hospital cribs the minute they are born, and begin a lifelong process of indoctrination which would amount to a massive kind of brainwashing that not even George Orwell could have envisioned.
Still, it's hard to see how what he proposes isn't too far removed from that. His words were, again paraphrased-
"Those are the most formative years of a child's development."
He is meaning, apparently, the years from the age of two to four. By the age of five practically every child in the country has been subjected to some form of kindergarten and/or pre-school of some form or another, if in many cases not before that time.
There are tempting reasons to support such proposals, of course. There always are. The earlier a child can begin an education at a state sanctioned facility, the sooner both parents are relieved of a considerable amount of time that is the natural burden of child care, and can then pursue their own individual careers, without the draining costs of baby-sitters or expensive day-care centers.
And, doubtless, if run efficiently and correctly, and with all of the needs of the child in mind, this could indeed result in a much better education for the average child-at least as you would measure education according to purely technical terms. In purely clinical terms, yes, we can in this manner potentially turn out not only far more high school graduates, but also college graduates as well. We would no doubt as a result be far more competitive in the world economy, against such nations as India and China, for just two examples.
But just exactly what are we giving up in the process? Well, that's an easy answer. We are giving up our freedom and independence in the long haul, because if you think for one minute that early childhood education is not going to involve mind manipulation and indoctrination with a heavy dose of political correctness thrown in for more than just good measure, you are sadly mistaken. The Democratic Party, working in conjunction with the powerful teacher's union, the NEA-which all but controls their agenda on education issues, and is influential on others-will see to that.
We will go from a nation that believes in individual freedom to a nation of guaranteed rights. That is a bigger deal than it sounds at first glance. Of course we are now a nation of guaranteed rights, but we are entering a period where these guaranteed rights will be expanded far beyond those enumerated in the Bill of Rights.
The problem is, the more guaranteed rights there are, the less liberty there will be by definition. And its a safe bet, even a sure bet, that an early childhood education is not going to focus on an appreciation of individual rights and freedom. Individual dignity, yes, but that's a different thing altogether. It's a fine line, but it becomes a lot easier to walk that line, and eventually phase into crossing over it completely, when you're a nation of trained seals, as opposed to a nation of free people.
We as a people need to demand that our elected officials begin a really serious discussion about this prospect. I say it's a big mistake, no matter how well intentioned some might be. In competing with India, China, and Europe, is it necessary to morph into a carbon copy of them? If so, maybe we're better off just letting them fight it out amongst themselves, and then stepping back in just in time to take the spoils. This time, by the way, we should keep them.
If this thing goes too far-and eventually, it's all but guaranteed that it will go too far, over time-what it amounts to is that all children will first be wards of the state, which will be responsible for everything from their education to their health care. The state, not parents, will decide what values children should be taught. Before too many years have passed, the state will very possibly be the controlling entity of children's lives.
Parents will be no more or no less than their state-approved guardians. They will be accountable to the State-not the other way around.
I don't think we want to go down that road, but it's just around the corner. Once we head too far down that road, there might be no turning back.
/>
