About Me

Name: Michael
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

An Original Bush Bashing

I tend to avoid Bush-bashing because I find it to be the most incredibly tired and cliched aspect in modern America. I prefer to sift through and find the aspects of his administration that have been successes (as rare as those are.) 

Columnist Ron Hart, however, does something original in his criticism of Bush, coming from a humorous libertarian perspective. Starting off with a much needed bashing of NPR:


As giddy with anticipation as a schoolgirl, NPR reports that a record 5 million people will attend Barack Obama's inauguration this month. Ever the inquisitive columnist, I have examined these claims, determined that NPR might be right on this one, and got a nice tote bag from them for my efforts. Worry not about the impact on the economy. Even with 4 or 5 million Obama supporters in Washington for the inaugural festivities, only 28 of them will be missing work.

NPR, as we all know, is National Public Radio, which will be in an enviable position once the Democrats in Congress silence the free market of ideas that is talk radio. NPR is the monotone talking points of the left, subsidized with our tax dollars and pressurized pledge drives that seem to take place 365 days a year. If you are wondering what Congress would like your news and information stream to be like in the future, look no further than Castro's state-owned paper that talks about him in every issue, or Oprah's "O" magazine, dedicated to her and to her struggles with her weight.


Hart's assessment of Bush makes you say "ouch" out loud: 

Now all that is left for him is to pardon a few folks and try to burnish his legacy. To date he has pardoned fewer felons than his predecessors. My guess is that even criminals don't want a pardon from W because they don't want to be too closely associated with him.


If you thought that was harsh, take this one: 

The White House has been called on to answer for the Iraq War, which has been called the worst foreign policy blunder in history. That seems to me to be unfair and premature. Bush still has two more weeks in office.


Ouch squared. Thank goodness I never voted for Dubya. (I voted for Kerry in 2004.)
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Comics Will Rot Your Brains!!




A couple years ago, I set up a booth at a flea market in order to get rid of a huge number of comic books. I wasn't giving up the medium or anything like that but was instead trying to clear house of a good deal of comics that I'd acquired during a comic shop's going out of business sale in the mid-90s. The comics were mostly published by the now-defunct Malibu Comics and were published during the 1990s, easily one of the lowest points in comic book publishing history. I just wanted them off my hands.

I was struck by a hostility from older people at what I was selling. I kept hearing, "You know, these things will rot your brains" being said by grown men in a serious tone of voice. At the time I thought they were just "old," but in retrospect most of these nervous pervises were Baby Boomers. They were kids during the Red Scare, which was also a time when comic books were tackled by demagogic lawmakers and imposed with a rating system called the Comics Code Authority. (While mainstream publishers like Marvel Comics have abandoned the Comics Code, it can still be found on the covers of Archie Comics.) 

In a recent Reason magazine article, writer Brian Doherty reviewed the book The Ten Cent Plague: The Great Comic-Book Scare and How it Changed America by David Hajdu. Doherty writes that Hajdu argues that the comic book genre was subjected to a witch hunt by lawmakers, churches and academics comparable to the ones that took on Elvis Presley and communists. Hajdu's argument makes sense in explaining why so many Baby Boomers were getting freaked out about the comic books I was selling at that flea market. The book describes kids that beat up other kids who were caught with comic books. Were some of those bullies at that flea market?

Doherty notes that this may not seem relevant to the average reader but it should. Similar assaults have been made on music and video games and will likely continue towards new entertainment mediums in the future. Recall Tipper Gore, the wife of former presidential candidate Al Gore, and her Parents Music Resource Center or Hillary Clinton's efforts to legislate against violent video games.

Comic book companies are still being assaulted by moralist authoritarians in this country, and organizations like the Comic Book Legal Defense Fund have been set up to aid poor comic book creators that are defending themselves in court against bullying censors. While there are a few pretty racy comic books out there (both in regards to sexual and violent content), comic book publishers do a pretty good job of making it evident on the cover. Marvel has many "All Ages" lines that are tame and fine for little kids. In contrast to that, they have also set up a line called "MAX" that is clearly aimed at teenage and older readers. Comics that don't fall into those lines but have mature or older content are usually labeled as such. Like any medium, be it video games or movies, what ends up in the hands of kids falls down to the individual parent or guardian who is buying it or the retailer who is selling it, and not the publisher, who has little control over where their comics end up.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Ron Suskind takes on the White House

Ron Suskind, who wrote the book The Price of Loyalty, has written a new book, The Way of the World. One of the chief arguments is this:

The author also claims that the Bush administration had information from a top Iraqi intelligence official "that there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq – intelligence they received in plenty of time to stop an invasion."


When I was working as a canvasser for the DNC back in 2004, I remember getting into a debate over Iraq with another canvasser. At the time I believed that there was no justification for the war and basically believed what most leftists believe, that the entire war was launched because Bush had picked Iraq to invade for oil, retribution and other nefarious reasons. The canvasser I was debating made a point that I remembered: Iraqi officials are not credible sources of information. It was a great point, and one that I conceded to.

It's the last year of the Bush administration. We are seemingly about to move into an Obama Administration next year (though things could take a surprising turn). Bush is becoming a larger and larger dartboard, just as his predecessor did, and as a result writers and former officials that feel disiullusioned or just want to cash in are coming out against the administration with regurgitated arguments.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

A new frontier of goods regulation in Los Angeles

Fast food restaurants may soon be banned in low-income areas of Los Angeles. Is this the beginning of "food zoning?"

The main reason people go to fast food restaurants is financial. For evidence of this, you need only look at the advertising campaigns by these establishments, which usually brag about $1 menus and the like. If you take a trip into a Burger King, McDonald's or Carl's Jr., you'll often see a mix of people on the go and homeless people.

I'm not really sure what the economics are, but I'm not convinced that the absence of fast food restaurants in low-income areas will in any way bring down the price of food at other establishments. In fact it may raise it as there will still be a high demand for food and suddenly fewer establishments available to sell goods at affordable prices. It's doubtful that very many unintended consequences were considered when the L.A. ordinance was passed. Feeling good and morally active is usually the top objective of these sort of actions.

From a Slate article by William Saletan:


What we're looking at, essentially, is the beginning of food zoning. Liquor and cigarette sales are already zoned. You can't sell booze here; you can't sell smokes there. Each city makes its own rules, block by block. Proponents of the L.A. ordinance see it as the logical next step. Fast food is bad for you, just as drinking or smoking is, they argue. Community Coalition, a local activist group, promotes the moratorium as a sequel to its crackdown on alcohol merchants, scummy motels, and other "nuisance businesses." An L.A. councilman says the ordinance makes sense because it's "not too different to how we regulate liquor stores."


What the councilman doesn't take into account is that, by banning the sale of certain foods, food zoning steps into a whole different territory than alchohol or cigarette regulation. Alchohol and cigarettes are vices. Food is a necessity. If this were to expand into the sale of unhealthy foods in grocery stores, which is possible, Los Angeles would really be stepping into a new frontier of government regulation.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Interview: Brett Joshpe, co-author of "Why You're Wrong About The Right"

A new book has been released called Why You're Wrong About The Right, written by S.E. Cupp and Brett Joshpe. I interviewed both of them for this blog, and have decided to split those two interviews into two posts. The last one, with Cupp, was published yesterday. If you like what you read, go buy their book on Amazon.

Tell us a little about the book.

We identify 20 common stereotypes often associated with conservatives and Republicans, discuss their origins and refute them. We make our arguments through our voices and through the contributions of several dozen well-known public figures ranging from academics to athletes to celebrities to politicians. In the course of explaining what conservatives and Republicans are not, we also try to identify some of the common themes that unite us. 

What inspired you two to write "Why You're Wrong About The Right?"

I'd say it was a combination of experiences that was particularly prevalent during college and law school. The visceral left-wing, anti-Americanism, from students AND professors alike, in higher education has probably contributed more to my desire to work on this project than anything else. In addition, because of 9/11 and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, these sentiments have been especially visible.

Do you think conservatives have been badly represented?


Badly represented by our own people or by those who portray us? I think there are many Republicans in Congress in recent years who have damaged the Party through scandals and wasteful spending. I think President Bush, who I support, has nonetheless alienated some people from the Party. There are also some spokespeople for the Party who I'm sure would have more appeal if they presented their message differently, but they are there to entertain more than anything and people should not take them too seriously. In terms of those who portray us, the stereotypes persist for a reason. The media, Hollywood, academia (frequent sources of our information) often paint a very unflattering picture.

Where do you think the stereotypes of conservatives originate from?

Again, Hollywood, media and academia do a nice job of putting forth some erroneous myths, as well as many of the left-wing politicians who speak in 10 second sound bites and say things like, "Republicans just want to line the pockets of the rich." They are simple, conclusory statements that lack evidence but have an effect because people hear them so much they start to believe them. 

With such negative images of conservatism in the media, what then leads so many to drift towards the right?

Intuition and common sense. I think most Americans are a lot smarter than many of the coastal, media elites assume. Just because the biggest newspaper, The New York Times, says something does not mean people are going to accept it as true or representative of their point of view. To some extent, the media, Hollywood and academia are so out of touch with average Americans that it helps the conservative movement and fosters a back-lash with many people. 

Journalist Bill Bishop has said that Americans have clustered into regions of people that all for the most part share their worldview. Do you see this as a problem? If so, how should we solve it?

I don't view it as a problem. Yes, American cities tend to be more liberal and rural areas tend to be more conservative. That is not a new phenomenon. Naturally, cities are comprised of renters and tenants, whereas rural and suburban areas are comprised of owners, which is one of the many factors that leads to this dichotomy. There is also plenty of diversity. I'm a New Yorker, but I don't agree with the worldview of most of the people around me. It would be a problem if we didn't have an electoral college system, but because we do, and not a popular vote system, it ensures that all regions of the country (particularly smaller states and swing states) are adequately represented and heard. Furthermore, to the extent certain regions of the country are comprised of people with similar worldviews, there is nothing wrong with that. It is part of the American dream that if one wants to settle down in an area that doesn't resemble New York or San Francisco, that is part of their prerogative.

How do we think we can better expose younger students to conservative and libertarian ideas?

More conservative academics would be helpful. To that goal, conservatives should go back and re-read William F. Buckley's "God and Man at Yale." That seminal piece was fundamentally about how conservative alumni of higher education need to use their influence to insist and pressure college administrations to hire a more balanced intellectual faculty. I think if younger students are presented all ideas, not just conservative or liberal ideas, in time there will be a greater gravitation towards conservatism at a younger age, but right now, they are mostly just fed unrealistic, ivory tower bunk. Also, and perhaps most importantly, conservatives and the Republican Party need to start branding to America's youth. That is part of what my co-author and I are trying to accomplish through this book. Democrats have done a much better job of marketing to the youth demographic thus far and that needs to change. 

What's some advice you have for conservatives living in liberal areas?

Speak up and don't be intimidated. Embrace your status. Remind the liberals around you that intelligent, thoughtful, tolerant people might not agree with them. And go find fellow conservatives. They are out there. 

What criticism has your book been met with?


We have received some humorously intolerant criticisms from people on the Left…things like "you guys are morons, how did you get to write a book?" Most of the criticisms have been completely mindless and ad hominem. 

What praise has it been met with?

People, both on the Left and Right, have said that the book is fair and the tone is humorous and irreverent without being obnoxious or disrespectful. People have also said that the book paints a picture of conservatism and the Republican Party that is needed right now and is often lost in the popular depiction. Some of my liberal friends have given it the highest compliment of all: "persuasive".

How should conservatives deal with a possible Barack Obama presidency?

First and foremost, we should not concede a Barack Obama presidency yet. I still believe John McCain will win, but it is important for conservatives to "get onboard" the McCain candidacy and to work hard to convince people that he is a better candidate than Barack Obama. Conservatives needs to educate people as to what a Barack Obama candidacy would mean politically. It is not necessary to engage in unfair, personal attacks, because Obama's political record speaks for itself. He is a far Left candidate whose only record of embracing moderate, bi-partisan politics can be found in his recent policy shifts to appear centrist to general election voters. That is isn't hyperbole or fear-mongering. It is a fact, and it needs to be repeated.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Interview: S.E. Cupp, co-author of "Why You're Wrong About The Right"

A new book has been released called Why You're Wrong About The Right, written by S.E. Cupp and Brett Joshpe. I interviewed both of them for this blog, and have decided to split those two interviews into two posts. The next one, with Joshpe, will be published tomorrow. If you like what you read, go buy their book on Amazon.

First off is S.E. Cupp:

Tell us a little about the book.


Why You're Wrong About the Right tackles 20 stereotypes about conservatives and/or Republicans...that we're racist, sexist, homophobic, warmongering, uncool, unfunny, bad in bed, and heartless, to name a few. We interviewed dozens of noteworthy thinkers and doers to help us prove the intellectual diversity of the conservative movement and the Republican party. Tucker Carlson, Newt Gingrich, Tony Stewart, Ted Nugent, Laura Ingraham, George Will, Curt Schilling...these are all folks with very different political views and perspectives. The more interesting areas are where we all disagree, and not always where we all come together.

What inspired you two to write Why You're Wrong About The Right?

Brett and I grew up in the liberal Northeast, went to very liberal universities, live in liberal Manhattan, and work primarily among liberals, I at the New York Times and he at a NYC law firm. So we were used to defending ourselves, or at the very least explaining ourselves, to our liberal contemporaries. Most people were surprised to learn we were Republicans...we didn't seem to fit the image they had in their minds about what Republicans were supposed to look like and talk like. After all, we didn't go around stealing babies, clubbing seals and ripping trees out of the ground to whittle into gun racks. People were genuinely surprised by our politics, and then incredibly disappointed.

Do you think conservatives have been badly represented?

Absolutely. The Left, the liberal media and Hollywood have done a fantastic job of uniting in this endeavor. And as such, they have collectively been able to seal into American sediment the image of the Republican as uptight, cold-hearted, stiff, sober, evil, backwards, stupid, fanatical, reckless, money-grubbing, self-absorbed and a whole host of others. But Republicans (and conservatives, to a degree) also haven't done an adequate job of defending themselves, especially in recent years. So we're partly to blame.

Where do you think the stereotypes of conservatives originate from?


It would be hard to pinpoint, as there are so many, with so many different historical birthplaces. But I'd say that the reason they have stuck is that liberals seem to change their cause on a daily basis. Causes du jour are embraced with alacrity and passion, regardless of how capricious or rooted in the moment they are. Though much remains unsettled, conservative ideology hasn't changed much over the past century...it's been honed and nuanced, but most conservatives agree that we want to preserve tradition, limit the size of government and promote individual responsibility. Because we don't ebb and flow so easily with the Zeitgeist, liberals can't really attack our ideology in new and fresh ways, so they attack our collective character. We go after their causes (because there are so many and it's relatively easy) and they go after our so-called nature. 

With such negative images of conservatism in the media, what then leads so many to drift towards the right?

Most conservatives (and Republicans too) that I know aren't "joiners." There's a rebellious streak on the Right that frankly used to characterize the Left but has gone since all the liberals who were at Woodstock and Haight-Ashbury have grown up to be successful bankers and lawyers and country club members. So when the media or Hollywood criticizes Republicans for being (gasp!) Christian, or redneck, or stupid, I think middle America rejects that kind of condescension and characterization out of hand as transparent, manipulative and mean-spirited. The Right is far more tolerant than the Left these days, and that's understandably appealing. 

Journalist Bill Bishop has said that Americans have clustered into regions of people that all for the most part share their worldview. Do you see this as a problem? If so, how should we solve it?

Yes, his is an interesting argument, and not entirely untrue I'm sure. But if it is, there's nothing really new or different there. There have been nomadic tribes, clans, settlers, etc for thousands of years who have grouped together to be among their own kind. The only difference now is that we don't do so for physical survival. But maybe we do it for emotional or social survival. While I enjoy my minority status as a conservative in Manhattan, I absolutely love going to areas I know to be "friendly to my kind." It feels good. Besides, it's understandable that people would want to raise their children around like-minded people.

How do we think we can better expose younger students to conservative and libertarian ideas?

It's not really up to us to expose young people to conservative or libertarian ideas. If parents want to raise their children to be conservative or libertarian, they'll do so. I don't want my child to be influenced by a liberal agenda, so I wouldn't expect to influence others by a conservative agenda. Politics isn't for children. Morality and values are, and those aren't up to me to impart. 

What's some advice you have for conservatives living in liberal areas?

Enjoy it! Use it as an opportunity to refine your own beliefs and maybe even inform someone else's. Develop thick skin and a good sense of humor. Start a "Drill in ANWR" rally at a sporting event. Wear GOP paraphernalia to Whole Foods. Loudly criticize PETA on any college campus in the country. It's only politics.


What criticism has your book been met with?


Plenty. We were attacked by liberal literary agents just for wanting to write this book. There's a good amount of hostility toward two young, urban conservatives who have dared to write a book. It's like we're treading on liberal turf and we're not at all welcome.


What praise has it been met with?


We do press almost every day, and at least once someone on the radio or in an interview will tell us how much they enjoyed the book, how provocative they found it, or how funny it was. The truth is, people want to be engaged by politics, not bored by it. We infused this book with the kind of irreverence and ease that we like to read ourselves.


How should conservatives deal with a possible Barack Obama presidency?


Only half-seriously. While the prospect of President Barack Obama is real, I don't think most voters will feel comfortable entrusting national security, the beleaguered economy, or our overseas endeavors to someone with such little experience and obvious lapses in judgment. Besides that, I think most of middle America finds him elitist and out of touch, and I don't think they're wrong.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Rest in Peace, Tony Snow




Tony Snow has left us at only 53. This is very sad. Snow was an exceptionally good Press Secretary, a charismatic and intelligent man. I never met him but he always seemed like one of the warmest and most likable political pundits out there. Godspeed.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (2) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

On this day, Aaron Burr shot Alexander Hamilton




According to Wikipedia, on July 11, 1804, U.S. Vice President Aaron Burr mortally wounded former U.S. Treasury Secretary Alexander Hamilton during a duel in Weehawken, New Jersey. Both figures are ones that the third President of the United States, Thomas Jefferson, didn't care for very much. Jefferson viewed Burr as reckless and Hamilton as a monarchist. For more on Jefferson's views, be sure to check out the public radio show "The Thomas Jefferson Hour."

The above photo is taken from a re-enactment of the duel by Douglas Hamilton and Antonio Burr, descendants of the Treasury Secretary and Vice President (I'm surprised they both inherited those last names after 200 years), in Weehawken, New Jersey, four years ago.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Flashback: Racial quotas do students a disservice

I'm not really up to putting up a new article for this blog, so I thought I'd put up a Flashback article from February 2007. It deals with the use of racial quotas by public schools, a practice that has now been declared illegal. It's one of my favorite articles of mine, so I hope you like it too.

As I write, the Seattle School District is defending its policy of race-based school assignments to the U.S. Supreme Court. This is a hot-button issue that has gotten Seattle mentioned throughout the mainstream media.

The school district's official defense for its race-based assignments is that it "enhances students' education by introducing them to people with multiple backgrounds and points of view." 

That may be what the bureaucrats at the school district tell themselves, but for many of the people who actually felt the brunt of their policies, opinions are quite different.

Added challenges

In a recent column by nationally syndicated columnist George Will entitled "Justice or Racism?" he cited two parents, Jill Kurfirst and Winnie Bachwitz, who both felt that they were discriminated against. 

Both parents had children who were assigned to distant schools that required them to get up at 5 a.m. and return at 8 p.m. at the earliest. They only avoided this by taking their children out of the school district altogether.

Jake Foxcurran, a student at University of Washington and vice president of the UW College Republicans, voiced concerns over the policy. 

"It doesn't do anyone a favor when students are thrown into an academic environment that is overly challenging," he said. "It makes the teacher's job impossible, it holds other students back and [it] leads to dropouts among the unprepared students. The best thing is simply to allow student placement to be based on merit alone."

All of my siblings were negatively affected by this policy, as I imagine thousands of other Seattle students were. I, myself, was forced to attend Meany Middle School after attending View Ridge Elementary School for five years. The racial taunting and bullying I experienced left me with a chip on my shoulder that did not coincide well with the behavioral pro-blems I had due to Asperger's syndrome. 

The goal of the school's policy was to fill a "40-60 balance" quota for all of its schools. If the student's skin color did not fulfill the needs of the district's desired quota, it didn't matter what the student thought. Diversity and multiculturalism were more important than the well-being of the student.

Punishing the children

One of the 20th century's most famed American presidents, John F. Kennedy, spoke out against the use of racial quotas. He did so in 1963, in the midst of the civil-rights movement, when the White House and civil-rights icon Martin Luther King Jr. still had the ear of one another.

Kennedy said, "I don't think we can undo the past. In fact, the past is going to be with us for a good many years in uneducated men and women who lost their chance for a decent education. We have to do the best we can now. That is what we are trying to do. I don't think quotas are a good idea. I think it is a mistake to begin to assign quotas on the basis of religion or race - color - nationality.... We are too mixed, this society of ours, to begin to divide ourselves on the basis of race or color."

King's dream was not to have generations of white Americans feel guilt for sins of the past, or for generations of black Americans to feel they can only achieve with the help of the government. He saw a future where blacks and whites stood shoulder by shoulder equally, not eyeing each other suspiciously. 

By punishing children for the sins of history, we're corrupting our future and leading our society further into darkness.

Michael Powell can be reached at mptimes@ nwlink.com. He also has a web log at deschamps.townhall.com. His post "Mohammed in the Supreme Court" was the featured post on Townhall.com in early December and is the eighth most-read blog entry.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

India gets blowback for Afghan reconstruction efforts

There is a compelling argument that the problems with Islamic terrorism wouldn't occur if we weren't interfering in their affairs. It's been echoed with venom by the Left and eloquently by Ron Paul. I've considered it many times, but with that argument comes the uncomfortable notion that we may not want to even help these countries, as simply being there to help can make one a target.

That looks like the case with India. It seems that India does have a low level of troops in Afghanistan, but they aren't there in a military capacity as much as to protect Indians there to help reconstruct the war-torn country:

India is sending 300 special police (Indo-Tibetan Border Police, or ITBP) to Afghanistan to help guard Indians working there on reconstruction projects. Eighty of the ITBP are already in southern Afghanistan, guarding Indians helping to build roads there. Taliban terrorists have attacked the Indian workers several times, with gunfire and bombs. Last year, twenty ITBP were sent to Kabul to guard the Indian embassy.


That's the same embassy that was torn apart today. Should we leave countries like Afghanistan to disintegrate, or should we intervene in their affairs? Even what we consider to be helping can be seen as interference. 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

New Article: The Middleman Does Justice

I have a new review of the ABC show The Middleman up at TheAtlasphere.com, a networking site for fans of Ayn Rand:

The Middleman is a unique television pilot which centers around the familiar theme of a below-the-radar agency that takes on the paranormal anomalies that society either chooses to ignore or is unaware of.

Unlike similar fare such as Hellboy or X-Files, it doesn’t take itself seriously at all, instead treating spectacles such as a gorilla with a machine gun and a giant multi-eyed squid as the ridiculous things that they are.

The plot centers on Wendy Watson (no relation to Mary Jane), played by Natalie Morales, and the Middleman, played by Matt Keeslar.

Wendy becomes embroiled in the world of the paranormal when a giant “hentai tentacle monster” (Yes, they actually said “hentai” on cable television, in a very geeky salute to the infamous Japanese cartoon La Blue Girl) destroys the science lab that she was working at as a secretary.

The Middleman comes in to eliminate the tentacle monster, and, after being impressed by Wendy’s apparent calm in the face of an attack by something straight out of a Japanese adult film, tries to seduce Wendy into becoming his sidekick.

The Middleman is an ex-Navy Seal armed with more weapons than the Punisher and Batman combined, and he uses them quite a few times during the pilot.

Don’t let that make you think that he’s a brute, however. The character seems to be a testament to Steve Rogers, better known as Captain America, in his conservative mannerisms.

During the show, he addresses all the female characters as “ma’am,” says “Jeepers!” and “Gosh” in place of the familiar epithets and orders a glass of milk in a bar occupied by gangsters, all of whom he proceeds to beat up.

For the comic book geek, this show is a dream come true. Instead of filtering comic book fandom into morsels more fit for a mainstream television audience, The Middleman delivers nuggets of geekdom as corny, ridiculous, and socially adverse as we fanboys often are in real life.

Cult comic book series such as Powers, Astro City, old school X-Men, Mouse Guard, and The Flash are all referenced to.

The comic book references are all appropriate, as the show is based on a series of comic books published by Viper Comics.

The comic book series received critical acclaim and was named by the American Library Association as one of 2007’s “Great Graphic Novels for Teens.” Viper Comics provides free samples of the series on their website (www.vipercomics.com).

The satire hit home for me in a way many libertarians and Ayn Rand readers would relate to. 

It’s often noted that libertarians tend to live amongst liberals more than amongst conservatives, and as such have no doubt observed many of the eccentricities of Blue State America, which are satirized recklessly in The Middleman.

Wendy Watson’s boyfriend is a film school student who she beats up after he records himself breaking up with her for an art project, and her roommate is a clueless, blonde animal-rights activist who protests outside of French restaurants.

When Wendy’s boyfriend apologizes for the film project, claiming that it “seemed like a good idea,” Wendy retorts cleverly, “So did the Carter Administration.”

Lambasting of Jimmy Carter is indeed a rare occurrence in the mainstream media, especially in today’s political climate. Is Javier Grillo-Marxuach, the scriptwriter of The Middleman, a libertarian?

The Middleman is being broadcast on ABC Family, which may lead many to cast it aside as a kid’s show. It’s not at all, as many of the jokes I really doubt would get through to youngsters. I would argue that the Sci-Fi Channel would be a much more appropriate home for this show.

Wherever you find it, you’ll no doubt enjoy the light-hearted geekiness of The Middleman.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

A letter to Obama supporters

You desperately want to re-gain the White House. You’ve endured eight, long years of President Bush, wherein he pushed forth the Patriot Act, soiled our global reputation, got us into an illegal war in Iraq, failed to act while New Orleans was devastated by Hurricane Katrina, cow toed to Big Business, failed to act on global climate change and illegally spied on Americans. 

That is what you believe. And not only that, you want Democratic nominee Barack Obama to win, so that we can finally rejoin the global community, take on climate change and get out of the Iraq quagmire. Achieving that task of getting Obama elected is not as easy as it might sound, and not everyone in the country is buying what Obama has to say. He didn’t get the Democratic nomination easily, leaving a lot of possibly disaffected Clinton supporters, and a lot of people in this historically center-right country who have concerns about this charismatic newcomer.

That means you have to put your money where it counts to get the man you want in the White House to win. There’s very good reasons to trust that Obama will use his campaign resources affectively, since he was able to bring down the Clinton Machine while being a relative newcomer to nationwide politics. You may disagree with Obama’s campaign on a few things, or don’t feel comfortable giving to the Democratic establishment, so you decide to invest in a political campaign organization better aligned with your beliefs, like the 1 million strong Moveon.org.

This is your big mistake. Politics isn’t about talking to constituents like you would your politically similar friends. It’s about convincing the undecided of the merits of your argument by relating to their own lives, something Bill Clinton did and John Kerry failed to do. Ads such as Moveon.org’s recent “Not Alex” ad is exactly an example of something that may be effective to your friends, but is going to be offensive, angering and ineffective to those you’re trying to get on your side.

The campaign ad, which Moveon.org has laughingly called its “most effective ad,” shows a mother holding her young baby, Alex. She is addressing Republican nominee John McCain, speaking about how much she adores her son before saying, “John McCain, when you say you will stay in Iraq for 100 years, were you counting on Alex? Because if you were you can’t have him.” 

First, this ad is dishonest. The 100 years quote came after a questioner in New Hampshire asked him about staying in Iraq for 50 years. McCain replied, “Maybe a hundred. We’ve been in South Korea. We’ve been in Japan for 60 years. We’ve been in South Korea for 50 years or so. That’d be fine with me as long as Americans aren’t being injured or harmed or wounded or killed. It’s fine with me. I hope it’d be fine with you if we maintain a presence in a very volatile part of the world where Al Qaeda is training, recruiting, equipping and motivating people every single day.”

You can view McCain’s “100 years” statement unedited on YouTube at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VFknKVjuyNk.

This quote was used before, not just by Moveon.org but also by the Democratic Party itself in its “100” ad. While watching this ad on TV, an acquaintance of mine praised the ad. I told him it was dishonest, illustrating that they had obviously taken him out of context, to which he replied that it may be dishonest but it is naïve to believe that we can stay in Iraq without anyone being killed. That may be true, but that is not the argument that Moveon.org and the Democratic Party are touting. They are trying to make McCain look like he wants to have a massive war in Iraq like we’ve seen in the previous five years continue for a century, something anyone who pays attention to what McCain actually said can tell is not the case.

Second, the “Not Alex” ad makes no sense. As a grown man of military age, Alex would be legally free to make his own decisions independent of both his government and his mother. He could join the military, he could work at McDonald’s, and he could go to college or work for a presidential campaign, in addition to countless other avenues. There is a volunteer army and no draft, as there presumably would be when Alex is an adult. The ad is intended to grab for emotions and throws reason out the window.

Finally, third, it could very well be taken by those in the military or with family in the military as very insulting, as it insinuates that enlistment is somehow not a voluntary decision. This is a group of people that Obama would benefit greatly from having behind him, and would certainly be harmed by having against him.

On the Moveon.org website, next to a video clip of the “Not Alex” ad, it says, “Our new Iraq ad is the most effective ad we've ever put together. This isn't your average political ad--it lays out the truth about McCain's Iraq policy in a personal and compelling way. We just got the results back and polling shows that voters found it to be more persuasive than any other ad we've tested before.”

If they really believe this is their “most effective ad” they’ve ever put together, then I really wonder what kind of voters they showed this ad too. I can believe that people who voted for Kerry in 2004 and are already inclined towards Obama would cheer it on, but I highly doubt that Bush voters in Ohio, New Mexico, Florida or another swing state who don’t necessarily always vote Republican and are leaning towards Obama would have the same response. 

Barack Obama would be wise to back as far away from Moveon.org as he possibly can if he wants to win over those voters, and those of you who want him to win would be wise to direct your money away from Moveon.org. Otherwise this “most effective ad” and others like it will result in being effective for John McCain’s campaign.

These Moveon.org ads could tilt the election by alienating swing voters. The leftists who make up Barack Obama’s core base will inevitably become convinced, if they manage to lose to Barack Obama after failing to speak to average Americans, wondering how on earth John McCain got elected when Obama was riding so high and the incompetent Republican riding so low. I’m not emotionally invested in an Obama victory, or a McCain victory for that matter, but that would also drive me crazy for at least four years. Even if I’m no longer living in the Bay Area, and have relocated to a more libertarian-friendly city like San Diego or Nashville, I’ll have to hear whacked out conspiracy theories from my family members of how John McCain and the Republican Machine stole the election. I can already hear it in my head, and it’s already annoying.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Environmental group leaves mess of trash in national parks

There's an interesting story over at NPR on the environmental group the Rainbow Family, which continually leaves masses of trash after their annual gatherings at the nation's national parks:

This morning on the BPP, we spoke to a U.S. Forest Service official who's in charge of monitoring the yearly festival of the Rainbow Family, an anti-establishment, pro-environmental group.

"I don't think we question their love of the land, which is very similar to ours," said John Twiss, our guest from the Forest Service. "I think what we question the most is the way they gather."

Twiss says the group leaves large amounts of trash and bring other problems you'd expect from gatherings of thousands and thousands of people on remote federal lands.

The Rainbow Family's own website puts it this way: "Some say we're the largest non-organization of non-members in the world. We have no leaders, and no organization."


Like alot of these festivals inspired by lefty politics, I would gather the bulk of attendees are late teens to twenty somethings who have tagged along in order to bake their brains on pot and have meaningless sex with strangers. They're likely far more concerned with pleasuring themselves than what their carbon footprint is.

If you follow the link to the story, you'll find pictures of thousands of cars, which look like they include some (gasp) SUVs, parked by Rainbow Family members and a large trail that has been made in fields of grass by members of the Rainbow Family. No matter how much they may say they care about the environment, if the Rainbow Family is disturbing the area they should be barred from doing so. We pay for National Parks in order to preserve nature, not to be a giant concert venue.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (2) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

John McCain courts the youth vote


Tags: John McCain  
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

On the D.C. gun ban

Washington, D.C. may be a testament to the fact that gun-control laws target the wrong people. The large majority of gun-related murders in the city are tied to illegally obtained arms, but controlling laws such as the one struck down today are known for keeping guns out of the hands of law-abiders more concerned with personal defense.

I wrote an article called "We must stem the flow of guns" last year after the Virginia Tech shooting. I still think we should go after the flow of guns and other weapons into psychotic, deranged people, drug dealers and criminals, but I edged a little close to sounding like a gun grabber. The article was more of an emotional response to the VT shooting that a well thought out position on policy. From my experience of being at the mercy of bullies in public school, I understand how important the right of defense is to a human being's dignity and the Second Amendment was put in place to protect that right.
Tags: Gun Control  
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (2) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous123456789107576Next »