Larry Elder takes a break from the Treyvon Martin issue and starts talking about who the smart people are in politics and political commentary. Larry argues that most of the intellect is on the Right with people like Paul Ryan, Charles Krauthammer, Dennis Prager, Thomas Sowell, Walter Williams, Ann Coulter, and Laura Ingraham. (Interesting to note that Larry unwittingly categorized this list into white males, black males, and white females)
Who's on the Left? (Crickets, then audience laughter)
Larry argues it wasn't always this way. He points out Michael Kinsley who was once on Crossfire with Pat Buchanan. He also mentions blogger Andrew Sullivan.
Then he brings up Maureen Dowd and Paul Krugman and comments "That's the best you guys have?"
The case for a bigger government with a broad interpretation of the commerce clause in the Constitution is hard to make. How do you intellectually argue that the commerce clause allows the government to mandate you to buy something? The commerce clause is there to prevent one state from taxing another, "it wasn't designed to tell you what to pay somebody, what hours to pay, how far away from a computer screen your chair has to be.”
Ron Suskind wrote a Pulitzer Prize winning book, The Price of Loyalty about the George W. Bush Administration. It was unflattering and Suskind was treated well by the media and was invited on shows like The Today Show several times. After he wrote Confidence Men, un unflattering book about the Obama Administration, he was ostracized.
Suskind wrote about two Obama economic advisors Christina Romer and Alan Krueger and how they tried to convince President Obama that it is not true that productivity causes unemployment. This is about such claims Obama made about ATMs putting people out of work. ATM machines don’t cause unemployment. They shift employment to those who have to manufacture, improve, distribute, maintain and repair the machines. It is also a fact that there are now more tellers than before ATM machines.Obama, upon hearing these arguments, wouldn't budge according to the economists. “Obama was just wrong!”
Larry goes into how ABC News reporter Charles Gibson reminds then-candidate Obama that if you raise Capital gains tax, then revenue goes down.Obama agrees but says “it’s a matter of fairness”.Then, Obama goes on to say he needs the extra revenue to invest in infrastructure and our schools.HELLO!, YOU’RE NOT GETTING EXTRA REVENUE BY INCREASING THE CAPITAL GAINS TAX!!!!!
In the same interview, Obama condemns spending without cutting and hiking up the deficit to 4 trillion dollars during the 8 year Bush Administration.(It’s gone up 5 trillion in his 3+ years)
The show segues into the current controversy regarding the Treyvon Martin Killing. I admit that I figured there was a good chance this issue would be in the past once I got around to blogging this. No chance, this is not going away, unfortunately.
A caller named "Rod" slams director Spike Lee for domestic terrorism in attempting to broadcast the address of George Zimmerman. Lee only apologized for tweeting the wrong address. Other than that, he sees no wrong-doing.
Larry reminds us of how Spike Lee disapproves of inter-racial couples which should offend 1 out of every three couples in California since a third of marriages here consist of two people of a different race. Spike Lee also publicly called Senator Trent Lott a "card-carrying member of the Klan" to Diane Sawyer. Listen to Elder's impersonation of Sawyer with the audio link below, it's priceless.
If you really want to get Larry Elder's wheels turning, just mention Al Sharpton. No one mentioned him here, Larry just decided to talk about him and remind us of Sharpton's resume of of immoral behavior. He goes into the Tawana Brawley incident where Sharpton accused a white man of rape and said "If I lie, you sue me." When the man was acquitted, he did, indeed sue Sharpton. Sharpton transferred his assets to his wife's name and basically pleaded poverty. He only paid it so he could come clean in his Presidential run. Elder tells of how he called into the Ghiraldo Rivera show and Rivera said that "anybody can make a mistake."
He then talks of Crown Heights, a section of New York City where in 1991, a 7 year old black child was killed by an Hasidic Jew in an accident. Sharpton fired up the African-American community by calling the Jews in Crown Heights "diamond merchants" and challenged them to "pin their yarmulkes back and come over to my house". This led to 3 days of riots and 100 people injured and a young jewish scholar was stabbed to death by a black mob yelling "Kill the jew!". The New York Times reported this incident as an even fight between blacks and jews even though virtually none of the violence was committed by any jews. Sharpton never apologized and Elder questions how Sharpton has any moral authority to stick his nose into the Treyvon Martin incident.
Next, Elder talks about how two British students vacationing in Florida were called "crackers" and beaten to death by 17 year old Shawn Tyson. The parents of the two students tried to contact President Barack Obama. Obama never responded yet he was rather quick to put his two cents in on the Treyvon Martin case. What's the difference? Is it because neither of the Brits would have looked like Obama's son?
On Friday, March 30, 2012, Talk Show Host Larry Elder broadcasted his afternoon show from the Ronald Reagan Library in Simi Valley, California. I'm a big fan of Mr. Elder as I have been listening to him for 14 years or so. I decided to take the afternoon off from work and see him broadcast live. It was totally worth it, although, admittedly, admission was free.
Larry Elder must be the most congenial talk show host you'll ever find. I believe that many of those who disagree with him politically, like him nevertheless. He is so good-natured that it's hard to imagine someone strongly disliking him. Sadly, those who dislike Mr. Elder are those who can benefit the most from his wisdom. You see, Larry Elder grew up in South Central Los Angeles but due to a strong family upbringing, he doesn't fit the stereotype of a black male who believes he is an oppressed victim. Because of this, those who follow the likes of Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, and Louis Farrakhan see Larry Elder as a sellout and therefore, a threat. Larry Elder, like so many, isn't appreciated in his home community. Larry Elder is a Libertarian Republican. He's pragmatic enough to understand that it's best to support the Republican Party in order for his Libertarian beliefs of small, non-intrusive government to survive.
On to the show. I'm sharing this because although this was in an unusual venue, it was a very typical Larry Elder show and maybe someone will read this and consider listening to him. The show begins with a rousing round of applause as Mr. Elder walks in and sits down at his station.
ObamaCare
Larry first gets into the Supreme Court and President Barack Obama's health care law. The Solicitor General did an awful job defending ObamaCare. He couldn't answer the fundamental question "If it is okay to compel me to buy health insurance, then it's okay to compel me to buy broccoli. It's okay to compel me to do 45 minutes on my treadmill 3 times a week. It's okay to compel me to get 6 hours of sleep." Elder asserts that Obama now wants his law to go down and he wasn't unhappy with his guy's performance. Why would Obama want it to go down? Basically, so he can blame Republicans for messing up his landmark legislation.
Erwin Chemerinsky, the dean of law at UC Irvine told Larry in a previous show that the law is legal and "those terrible appointees of the Supreme Court are running down a very good law." Larry challenges that ObamaCare is so bad and nobody in politics or the media can defend it with anything factual. So the best thing is, to let it go and blame the Republicans.
"Obama will bring us together." is what a friend of Larry told him. How is Obama bringing us together when his health care mandate didn't get a single Republican vote? What if George W Bush had gone to Iraq without a single Democrat vote?
Doctors don't like ObamaCare. Doctors represent one of the most respected professions and two-thirds of them believe it will worsen health care and a majority of them will either cut back hours or leave the profession altogether if ObamaCare gets implemented.
Richard Foster, the chief actuator of Medicare shoots down two big assertions of ObamaCare. One is that it will cut costs. Two is that one can keep their current plan.
Michael Hilton of the L.A. Times says ObamaCare is unpopular because people are unaware of the benefits. Elder asks that if this is so, why aren't we hearing about these benefits? Elder points out that a book titled "Left Turns" by a UCLA professor Tim Groseclose looks at the 20 largest media outlets and 18 of them (ABC, NBC, CBS, MSNBC, CNN among them), are left-oriented. The two right-leaning organizations are the Washington Times and Fox News. He also references a book by Ben Shapiro called "Prime Time Propaganda" that indicates how much to the left Hollywood is. So why aren't these organizations telling us how great ObamaCare is? Answer: they can't because it isn't so wonderful.
It seems to me that if there is a "War on Women", it is the Left that is conducting it.
Birth Control: It is the Left that seems to believe that all the costs and responsibilities of preventing a birth is 100% on the female. Witness the recent hullabaloo concerning Sandra Fluke. President Obama and the rest of the Democrats all sympathize with this poor, poor, woman who is burdened with $3000 in birth-control expenses. That must be because they believe the men she's with are free of responsibility. The Left, however, say it's the Right who have a problem with women because they believe in personal responsibility.
Name-Calling: Okay, Rush Limbaugh was way out of line publicly calling Fluke the names he did. Keep in mind that he did apologize for it. Ed Schultz of MSNBC called Laura Ingraham, basically the same thing. At least he apologized. Where's the apologies for the following?
Bill Maher called Sarah Palin the 'c' word and the 't' word. He has also said pretty despicable stuff about Michelle Malkin and Michelle Bachmann.
David Letterman not only made a reference to Palin having a "slutty flight attendant look", he also attacked her daughter.
Keith Olbermann called Michelle Malkin a "mashed up bag of meat with lipstick on it."
Harry Belafonte called Condoleeza Rice a "house [n-word]".
Governor Jerry Brown's wife called Meg Whitman a "whore".
I believe there is nothing the Left hates more than a conservative woman. Actually, that's not true, they hate black conservative women even more. They can't stand the idea of a woman using her own mind and making choices that don't fit the agenda. So basically, the Left is all for a woman to be smart, independent, and successful as long as she thinks and does, and believes in everything the Left tells her to.
Rape is Perfectly Okay (As long as it's a Democrat): Roman Polanski drugged and raped an under-aged teenager and most of Hollywood is perfectly fine with this. Whoopi Goldberg even said it wasn't "rape rape". Bill Clinton raped Juanita Broaddrick. Despite all the efforts by the media and Hollywood, the truth came out. Then you have Clinton placing Kathleen Willey's hand on his genitalia. Gloria Steinem (YES GLORIA STEINEM), the feminist's feminist, said this was okay since he stopped when she said "No."
The Left is all for women who think like they do. As for the rest, they are despicable and fair game.
Sometimes, the best way to get a point across is to twist the narrative around and force the opposition to see a situation in a different light. I am going to do this regarding the current controversy concerning ObamaCare and the Catholic Church.
For those of you who don't understand the hubbub regarding the mandate requiring facilities, including Catholic-run hospitals to offer free birth-control, please consider the following hypothetical situation:
What if it was discovered that bacon was strong in the prevention and treatment of breast cancer? What if studies showed that women who ate bacon were significantly much less likely to develop breast cancer? What if studies also showed that bacon helped and even cured women who already had breast cancer?
Now, imagine a President forcing all institutions, even those run by Jews and Muslims, to offer bacon as a treatment or a preventative measure. How would you feel about that? How do you think Jewish and Muslim communities would react? How many people would call the United States an "intolerant" or "racist" nation for such a mandate?
Or am I supposed to just accept that because the mandate only affects Christians that it's okay?
It was a pretty good year for me in predicting the recent NFL season. I wasn't perfect but I wasn't way off either.
Preseason Projection Actual AFC East AFC East (Perfect)
Patriots Patriots
Jets Jets
Dolphins Dolphins
Bills Bills
AFC North AFC North (Not so perfect. At least I got the Ravens right.)
Ravens Ravens
Browns Steelers
Steelers Bengals
Bengals Browns
AFC South AFC South (Who could have picked the Colts last, really?)
Texans Texans
Colts Titans
Jaguars Jaguars
Titans Colts
In the next two divisions, I was right except the last place team finished first. AFC West AFC West (I, like many, underestimated Tim Tebow.)
Chargers Broncos
Raiders Chargers
Chiefs Raiders
Broncos Chiefs
NFC East NFC East (I clearly underestimated the Giants.)
Eagles Giants
Cowboys Eagles
Redskins Cowboys
Giants Redskins
NFC North NFC North (Close)
Packers Packers
Lions Lions
Vikings Bears
Bears Vikings
NFC South NFC South (No comment)
Falcons Saints
Saints Falcons
Buccaneers Panthers
Panthers Buccaneers
NFC West NFC West (I always pick the 49'ers last.)
Seahawks 49'ers
Rams Cardinals
Cardinals Seahawks
49'ers Rams
Eagles over Patriots in the Superbowl (I had one team right. I had the wrong NFC East opponent.)
Other fearless predictions:
Besides Peyton Manning, another top tier quarterback will miss much of the season due to injury. (Matt Schaub)
Of the teams that are expected to be improved (Lions, Rams, Buccaneers), one will fall flat and finish last. (Rams and Buccaneers. I was off by one.)
Of the teams that are expected to be elite (Patriots, Steelers, Chargers, Eagles, Packers, Saints, Falcons), one will greatly disappoint and struggle most of the season. (Chargers and Eagles. Off by one again.)
There will be one team that will come out of nowhere and do extremely well, defying all the odds with players experts thought to be inferior. (49'ers)
One and only one rookie quarterback will have a successful season. (Newton and Dalton. Damn!)
Scoring will be down this year. The new kickoff rule and the short preseason will be the reason. (Wrong! I underestimated the effect of the "no leading with your helmet" rule. Defenses were pretty soft this year.)
There will be a renewed emphasis of the running game for many teams in the middle of the season as many complex passing schemes fail. (Wrong! Most teams think they are the Packers or Patriots.)
At the end of the season, I'll go over these and see how I did.
The traditional rules to winning a Superbowl are the following:
1. Have a smart, accurate quarterback who performs under pressure. Quarterbacks who double as running backs need not apply.
2. Have a featured running back who rushed for over 1,000 yards but did not lead the league or even the conference in rushing. Teams that are mostly about the running game don't belong here.
3. Have a strong defense.
For decades, having all three of the above has been the formula. There have been a few exceptions, such as the 2000 Ravens, but year by year, this has been almost always the case.
However, each of the last two years has featured teams that don't quite fit this formula. Two years ago, the New Orleans Saints won with hardly any running game to speak of. They, in fact, barely beat the Indianapolis Colts, another team without a strong running game or even that good of a defense. Both these teams featured complex, dynamic passing games that seemed to overcome their other deficiencies. Then last year, it happened again with the Green Bay Packers. This leads to the question - has the formula been changed?
This year, the Packers went 15-1 with a weak running game and a suspect defense. They seemed to be on a collision course with the Saints, who had similar strengths and weaknesses. This weekend was supposed to be the big shootout between these two pass-happy teams. As we know now, it wasn't to be. In fact, the two teams in the NFC that won last week follow the traditional formula.
Now, of the four teams left, only the Patriots depend almost solely on their passing game with their weak running game and suspect defense. However, I'm not sure if the Ravens fit the formula either as we'll see if Joe Flacco is poised and accurate enough.
The way I see it, this is a very good thing. Just like the steroid-era of baseball showed, too much offense is not necessarily a good thing. In baseball, home runs were supposed to be special and exciting. When there's 10 home runs in a game, the luster wears off and it just becomes expected. In football, stuffed runs, quarterback sacks, and knocked-down passes are as exciting as touchdowns. A 10-3 game can be as entertaining as a 35-31 game.
Alright, it's time to chime in on the 2012 Presidential candidates.
I've seen many debates, watched the candidates on news shows, listened to interviews, and examined their records. I also want to add I've watched and listened to the left's take on these candidates to get an additional perspective. After all, I am a firm believer that 2008's John McCain was a product of the left-leaning media that relentlessly and successfully convinced Americans that he was the most electable Republican candidate.
This is not 2008. It seemed, at first, that the left-wing media (you know, those "mainstream" outfits like CBS, NBC, ABC, NPR, CNN, The New York Times, The Los Angeles Times, and pretty much any major city newspaper) decided that the best way to get Barack Obama re-elected was to promote Mitt Romney. Romney, after all, initiated "RomneyCare", the basis for "ObamaCare", so he wasn't conservative enough to rally the conservatives of the Tea Party ilk. The problem with that idea was Romney is also a successful businessman and just might come across as someone who could actually fix the economy and get elected. The media, for a while, just seemed content to let the debates go without saying much. When Herman Cain started repeatedly getting accused of sexual harassment, the story was so juicy that the media made sure it got plenty of airtime. I'm sure the media was happy they didn't have to deal with a black Republican candidate. After all, any criticism of him would be condemned as racism by the right. No wait! That's what the left does. Now, the media is promoting Jon Huntsman. He has virtually no chance of winning but I'm sure the media is promoting his leftish platform as a model of how the eventual Republican winner should run his campaign against Obama.
Here is my take on the candidates:
Jon Huntsman: This man is irrelevant. The only person who thinks he can be President is him.
Herman Cain: While I would have relished the thought of the left squirming about a right-leaning black man running against Barack Obama, it just wasn't to be. Cain lost me with his insistence on his "9-9-9" plan. I'm all for radical tax reform but Cain's plan seemed too convenient. Are we really supposed to believe that after careful analysis of the tax system, the optimal tax rates for personal income, business income, and national sales tax just happens to be 9%, 9%, and 9% giving Cain a handy catchphrase to state over and over again? Good thing it wasn't the 8.75-9.34-7.73 plan. Nobody would have remembered it. The tax plan was also the only thing Cain seemed to be armed with. He stumbled badly when handling questions about foreign policy or positions on abortion. I like Cain as a person but he frankly was not ready to be President. By the way, whatever happened to all the sexual harassment suits that were popping up until he cancelled his run?
Michele Bachmann: Every time I heard Bachmann speak, she always said all the right things. She comes across as very smart and very conservative. However, Bachmann's got some baggage with her husband and there are indications that she doesn't always "walk the walk". Also, Tim Pawlenty accused her of not accomplishing anything in Congress and she wasn't able to respond well to that. Sorry Michele, not this year. Stay in Congress, stay conservative, and we'll see next time. I haven't given up on you but this 2012 election is not for you. I still wonder what the "Queen of Rage" cover of Newsweek was about. She never seemed angry to me. Oh yeah!, it's the media, never mind.
Rick Santorum: I like him a lot. He may be the best conservative candidate. He comes across as a hard-working, very knowledgeable family man. If this election was based strictly on integrity and principles, Santorum would be my guy.
Rick Perry: Perry comes across to me as weak. He seems to have been a pretty good governor but I have no idea where he is on foreign policy. He shows up at debates unprepared which is pretty unacceptable. He reminds me of George W. Bush when he speaks and that won't get him elected.
Ron Paul: I wish this guy was as irrelevant as Huntsman because in my opinion, he has no business being a Presidential candidate. The utopia of a teeny, tiny, government would fail within weeks when Iranian-sponsored terrorists attack us and we aren't able to do anything about it because we'll have such a small military. Paul is weaker than Obama on foreign policy and frankly scares the hell out of me. I would honestly vote for Obama if Paul became the Republican candidate. (Which is very unlikely.)
Newt Gingrich: When Gingrich put his hat in the ring, I was very uncomfortable and I wasn't sure why. I kept hearing from supporters how intelligent he is and how he was the one primarily responsible for the "budget surplus" that everyone gives Clinton credit for. (Not really a surplus but that's not important right now.) Once I heard Gingrich in a debate speak favorably of the federal government aiding people in buying a home. He is always talking about a "government policy" for this and a "government policy" for that. Gingrich has shown himself as a big-government Republican. Yet, he has the gumption of calling himself "conservative". Hey Newt, know thyself and stop attacking Romney with your leftish, anti-capitalist views. Why don't you just become Obama's campaign manager and be done with the charade?
Mitt Romney: This election is about A. Who is going to fix the economy? and B. Who is going to guide the U.S. and the free world through what is going to be a very dangerous time for the world? The President is going to have to deal with a new leader in North Korea, Iran about to become a nuclear power, a very nervous Israel, potentially hostile new regimes in Egypt and Libya, and all sorts of instability in Europe. On this basis, I am convinced that Mitt Romney is that candidate who is best suited to deal with this by far. Really, my fellow Americans, this is not the time to fret over positions on abortion or gay marriage. We need to have Americans working and producing again. This is the best way to stay strong and be in position to confront those who would destroy us.
If you believe I am wrong about this. Please let me know. I'd love to read it.
First of all, here's a sneak peak at the final standings:
AFC East
Patriots
Jets
Dolphins
Bills
AFC North
Ravens
Browns
Steelers
Bengals
AFC South
Texans
Colts
Jaguars
Titans
AFC West
Chargers
Raiders
Chiefs
Broncos
NFC East
Eagles
Cowboys
Redskins
Giants
NFC North
Packers
Lions
Vikings
Bears
NFC South
Falcons
Saints
Buccaneers
Panthers
NFC West
Seahawks
Rams
Cardinals
49'ers
Eagles over Patriots in the Superbowl
Other fearless predictions:
Besides Peyton Manning, another top tier quarterback will miss much of the season due to injury.
Of the teams that are expected to be improved (Lions, Rams, Buccaneers), one will fall flat and finish last.
Of the teams that are expected to be elite (Patriots, Steelers, Chargers, Eagles, Packers, Saints, Falcons), one will greatly disappoint and struggle most of the season.
There will be one team that will come out of nowhere and do extremely well, defying all the odds with players experts thought to be inferior.
One and only one rookie quarterback will have a successful season.
Scoring will be down this year. The new kickoff rule and the short preseason will be the reason.
There will be a renewed emphasis of the running game for many teams in the middle of the season as many complex passing schemes fail.
At the end of the season, I'll go over these and see how I did.
“...as long as I’m concerned, the Tea Party can go straight to hell!” -Rep. Maxine Waters
"Let us all remember who the real enemy is. The real enemy is the Tea Party -- the Tea Party holds the Congress hostage. They have one goal in mind, and that's to make President Obama a one-term President." -Rep. Frederica Wilson
"The Tea Party is so obviously racist." -Janeane Garofalo
"Let’s take these sons of bitches out and give America back to America where we belong.” -Jimmy Hoffa Jr.
__________________________________________________________________________________
Let's forget about the whole "call for the end of vitriolic rhetoric" and consider the above statements.
There's a lot of harsh speech against a group of Americans who recently began calling for a smaller federal government and lower taxes. It's obvious that those on the political left (those who call for higher taxes and larger government) don't like them. Many publicly call them "racists". Other than the fact the the President of the United States is half-black, what's the justification?
The Tea Party seems to protest Congress as much as Obama. This makes sense since Congress is the legislative branch of the federal government, the part that actually approves budgets, tax breaks, and tax increases. Congress is mostly white so what are these accusations of racism based on?
The Tea Party is also accused of being "the enemy". What is this all about? Lower taxes and more personal responsibility is a threat? To whom is this a threat?
12. Political Offices Available To Average Citizens.
13. Intrusive Government Stopped.
14. English As Core Language Is Required.
15. Traditional Family Values Are Encouraged.
If any of the above items are racism or in some way, a threat to you. I'd certainly like to know why. I don't personally believe in every single item here, but this stuff hardly seems worthy of any of the harsh rhetoric.
There's a great scene in the movie Time Bandits where John Cleese, as Robin Hood asks "Have you met the poor?". He then points to a group of people behind a rope. The "poor" might as well have been Jews, Eskimos, or Lithuanians. They were portrayed satirically as a fixed group of people who are in some way different. However, what seems funny to me is becoming the state of mind of many people, namely Democrats.
Democrats like to talk about "the poor". They project how they know their pain and show pity to them for being in such a sorry situation. They see themselves as the party that cares about "the poor" as opposed to those evil Republicans who support the wealthy. So I have to ask the question; Does the Democrat Party really care about "the poor"?
The answer is "Yes, they do".
Of course they do. After all, the majority of poor people are Democrats. "The poor" represent a win-win for Democrats. "The poor" are dependent on government for sustenance and this dependence creates more poor people - thus, more Democrats.
If you look at Democrat beliefs -- tax the job-providers to create more unemployment, create more public services, take away guns, government control what we are allowed to eat, how to get medical care, what we are allowed to drive, and how we get our news, they are out to create more poor people dependent on government to run their lives.
Democrats in general (along with some Republicans), give less of their income to charities, make it difficult for employers to hire people, and don't want to punish criminals if they are poor. In other words, they have no interest in giving opportunities to "the poor" to move out of poverty. Their wet dream is to have a society of "the poor" that they can service and therefore control.
Have you met "the poor"? Watch out! There are those that want you on the other side of that rope. They're the smiling faces that support "the poor".
(Revenue X Tax Rate Increase) = New Tax Revenue for State/Federal Government
Does the above equation make sense to you? To most Democrats (President Barack Obama and Governor Jerry Brown, for instance), it makes perfect sense. It states that if a corporation takes in a certain amount of revenue, increasing their tax rate will equate into increased government tax intake. This will fix deficits, allow more spending on education, fix infrastructure, and generally make everyone a whole lot happier.
Wrong!
If you ever took an algebra class, you learn that there are constants and there are variables. The mistakes the Democrats make is they assume corporate revenue is a constant. As any person who has run a business knows, it is a variable. Company revenue is a complex variable at that. It is dependent on many factors, one of them being the tax rate.
Why do so many people not understand that when tax rates increase, it forces companies to adjust other factors in their business to account for that? These factors can include laying off workers, lessening worker's hours or pay rates, increasing prices of their products and/or services creating a burden on the consumers, or just simply going out of business which would create more unemployment.
It creates a vicious cycle. Any increased revenue from the higher taxes would end up being needed to aid the new group of unemployed people at best, and it wouldn't be enough anyways. So politicians would want to raise taxes again to cover this additional expense. Sound familiar? This is exactly what is happening. Higher taxes is self-serving. In other words, raising taxes actually creates more reasons to raise taxes.
Franklin Roosevelt raised taxes. Result: The depression got worse.
John F. Kennedy lowered taxes. Result: The economy grew.
Richard Nixon raised taxes. Result: A major economic downturn from the mid-70's to the mid-80's.
Ronald Reagan lowered taxes. Result: The economy performed well from the mid-80's to the early 90's.
George HW Bush raised taxes. Result: The economy went down.
George W Bush lowered taxes. Result: The economy boomed.
Barack Obama is finding ways to raise taxes. Result: What do you think?
(Here is my first attempt at a video film analysis. Joe vs. The Volcano has fascinated me for years. There's a lot more to it than what appears on the surface.) The video is in three parts. I've also included a written version of the analysis below.)
(Youtube embedded files don't always seem to work so here's the link to the actual Youtube page.)
When you consider the movie, Joe vs. the Volcano, you must remember that it was released in 1990. This was before Philadelphia or Forrest Gump. Tom Hanks, at this time, was mostly considered to be a physical comic actor. Audiences were used to seeing Hanks in rather buffoonish roles in movies like Bachelor Party, Volunteers, and Dragnet. Joe vs. the Volcano seems to be a rather silly title, so it was natural for audiences to expect to see a screwball comedy.
Audiences and critics didn’t seem to think too highly of the movie. It was generally panned and it did not stay in theaters for very long. It seemed to come across as a weak screwball comedy that had only occasional funny moments and nothing truly memorable.
Yet for some, the movie’s bizarreness seemed to linger in their minds and in subsequent viewings, most likely from their homes, many started to detect that there was something more to Joe vs. the Volcano than what they saw in their first viewing.
Let’s take a close look and explore some of the hidden themes.
The very first thing we see is a placard. The words “Once upon a time” are a clue that this is a fairy tale. The characters, places, and events are mostly made up. Fairy tales also often have elements of magic or the supernatural so this simple placard is a clue to what follows. Also notice the nursery rhyme music indicating something child-like.
Joe Banks, played by Tom Hanks is going to work. We are hearing a song with the words “I owe my soul to the company store” Joe, as well as a mass of people, apparently in a dazed state, are walking like zombies to a factory. This is an everyday ritual of getting up early and going to work that many of us can relate to.
The song “Sixteen Tons” reveals the slightly hidden story within the story. Joe vs. the Volcano is basically the classic story of making a deal with the Devil and losing your soul. There is also a theme of personal redemption.
Joe is among the myriad of people who have no meaning in their lives other than going to their job every morning. Their dazed state and dreary surroundings hint they are in some kind of limbo – between awake and asleep. They are barely aware of the awfulness of their situation and they seemed to have stopped caring long ago. These people are unaware that they have traded their souls for a dull, meaningless life.
The sign of the Devil is a crooked line and we see it as the logo of the company Joe works for. We soon see it again as the camera moves upwards revealing that the path the workers are taking is the same crooked line. This scene will be played out again. In fact, the whole movie is essentially a crooked and wide path to redemption that Joe takes. This contradicts the traditional dogma that redemption is found by walking a straight and narrow path.
Joe walks in to the advertising department. It features poor lighting, drab colors, a broken hat rack, and an annoying buzzing sound from the fluorescent lighting. The employees are in their own little worlds – oblivious to anything around them. This is particularly true with Mr. Waturi. Mr. Waturi is on the phone engaged in a pointless, seemingly endless argument. The prosthetic testicles on his desk reflect his lack of manhood. These people have horribly mundane jobs and lives. They dress in dark colored clothes and appear half-dead. They are soulless.
Only Joe seems a bit different. While he has the same deadpan look as everybody else, he seems a bit more active and aware of his surroundings. Once he gets to his desk, he pulls out a child’s reading lamp. The lamp is colorful and contrasts everything else in the office. This is an indication that though Joe is in limbo like everybody else, he doesn’t seem as far gone and the lamp symbolizes that he has hope. When he turns on the lamp, a tropical island with a volcano appears on it. This is also symbolic as this forebears Joe’s destiny with a volcano. While the red and orange image of the volcano contrasts the drabness of the office, it also indicates danger. Indeed, the volcano represents hell itself. The nursery-rhyme music; however reflect Joe’s child-like demeanor. It’s the same music we heard when the “Once upon a time…” text appeared earlier.
In case the hidden story is too hidden, Joe brings it out in an obvious way when he tells Deedee, played by Meg Ryan, “I’m losing my sole.” Deedee, whom we’ll see more of later, comes across as totally non-assuming, too accepting, and very dull.
Even worse though, is Joe’s boss, Mr. Waturi. He obviously lives to work. It is all he is about. To him, there is nothing beyond the office. He can’t comprehend why Joe doesn’t share the same dedication to his job. Mr. Waturi can’t stand Joe’s lamp and makes him put it away.
Joe seems to deal with his co-workers like a child dealing with his parents, perpetuating the notion that Joe is basically, a child. Mr. Waturi has no childishness left in him and resents it in Joe.
We see Joe in a Doctor’s waiting room. He is shielding his eyes as if he is hiding from something. He is hiding from the real world. Part of Joe wants to die and this has made him a hypochondriac. He is secretly hoping he will be afflicted with some deadly disease so that his horrible life will soon be over.
Note that the waiting room is plain and dull – as is the nurse. She is just like everybody else just living a lousy, meaningless life. Contrast this with the Doctor’s office. It features warm colors. The fire in the fireplace gives it life. Here, we discover that Joe used to be a fireman. He saved people from fire. In the soul-selling allegory, this makes Joe a fallen angel as he is no longer saving others from hell. He has allowed himself to become a victim instead.
Notice how the Doctor doesn’t seem to even know what a fireman is. He asks “What did you do in the fire department?” and “Was it dangerous?” Allegorically, the Doctor is not human. He is in league with the Devil. We’ll see that he is setting Joe up to sell his soul. The fire behind Joe and the redness in the room are evidence of this.
The Doctor informs Joe that he has a terminal condition called a “brain-cloud”. This is fitting since Joe’s mind is definitely in a fog, as it has been since he left the fire department. Joe anxiously asks if it is incurable as if he wants the answer to be “yes”. Notice also how Joe shows no disappointment, despair, or any negative emotion over finding out he is going to die within six months.
Finding out he has only six months to live seems to flip a switch in Joe. He starts acting like the proverbial man who had a brush with death and now appreciates life so much more. This is of course, the opposite of this situation. Back at work, things are just the way he left them. Mr. Waturi is in another pointless conversation and everybody else is minding their own business. Joe stirs things up. He briefly interacts with Deedee and with Frank. He mocks Waturi with a prosthetic arm, again suggesting Waturi’s lack of humanity.
Joe’s closing the valve suggests he is regaining his bravery and is going to try new things. It scares the hell out of soulless Mr. Waturi. In a sudden inspiration, Joe quits his job. The three books – Robinson Crusoe, Romeo & Juliet, and The Odyssey foretell his upcoming adventures. He leaves the lamp with Deedee. He is passing the torch in hope that Deedee can find her childlike wonder in the lamp. In his speech to Mr. Waturi, Joe no longer behaves like a frightened child, but a giant compared to the others in the room. Joe suddenly realizes the ridiculousness of his whole situation
We now see Joe and Deedee on a date. Joe is doing all the talking. Note how he is focused on only himself and Deedee – as if they are the only two people who matter. Joe is full of energy but he lacks direction. Like the Doctor’s office, the restaurant is colorful and features a lot of red. This again, hints that the Devil is near and Joe is ripe for the taking.
Deedee, with her brown hair, acts as the goddess of the Earth. She is nature and Joe is reaching into the supernatural which is beyond her reasoning. Deedee is overwhelmed. She can’t understand Joe’s change. It enchants her but it also frightens her. It’s unclear here as to which side will win out.
As they leave the restaurant, we see that a volcano is visible on a poster titled “Fire in Paradise”. Joe seems to be in paradise, but it is a false one. Joe is celebrating his upcoming death when he should be celebrating his life. An erupting volcano on a welcoming tropical island reflects this paradox.
At his apartment, Joe tells Deedee his bad news. This is the final straw for Deedee. She is not ready to deal with something like this. She leaves Joe forever.
Samuel Graynamore enters Joe’s apartment the next morning and now we see a large scar on Joe’s wall. It’s the same crooked line that represents his former company and, as we know, the Devil. Mr. Graynamore is no one else but the Devil himself. Here, Joe is given the Faustian bargain – that is for Joe to get all his heart’s desires and pay the price later. Specifically, Joe is given carte blanche to spend huge sums of money, live like a king, be treated as a hero, and then finally jump into a volcano. Joe doesn’t even think about it very long before agreeing to the deal. This just shows how lost Joe really is.
Joe is ready to go on a Manhattan shopping spree and satisfy every materialistic lust he has. This fits exactly into the Devil’s plan as Joe will lose what’s left of his soul with his greed. However, help is on the way – in the form of the limousine driver Marshall. Marshall is basically Joe’s guardian angel and subtly tries to steer him right. Joe doesn’t know where to go or what to buy – again indicating how directionless he is.
But Marshall won’t directly tell him either. He wants Joe to make these decisions. Marshall says “clothes make the man” and later tells Joe he has no clothes hinting that Joe isn’t a man, but a child. As a guardian angel, Marshall is constantly giving Joe advice. Later, Marshall later tells Joe he is “coming into focus” once Joe has new clothes and a new haircut.
Joe encounters the luggage man. Here is a real lost soul. All he seems to think about or talk about is luggage. He reminds us of Joe’s former co-workers who live meaningless, petty lives. Notice however, the blue sky covering the door to the steamer trunk. This, the star on the floor, and the choir that chants are indications of heaven. The trunks represent a gift from heaven.
Marshall’s mentoring puts Joe on the correct path of life. When Joe tells Marshall “There are certain doors you got to go through alone.” Marshall smiles, as this confirms that Joe is finding direction and himself.
Upon reaching Los Angeles, Joe remarks “It looks fake. I like it.” Joe prefers living in a fairy tale world. Earlier, the hairdresser said he looks “like a prince in a fairy tale”.
Angelica, also played by Ryan, is very different than Deedee. She is weird and moody. She is also utterly self-absorbed and likes to talk about herself. When the subject is something other than about her, her favorite response is “I have no response to that.” Angelica, with her fiery-colored hair, clothes, and car, represents the goddess of the sun. Note how depressed she suddenly gets at night and she talks of killing herself.
Joe soon recognizes her as a fellow lost soul – more lost than he is. Joe asks her if, instead of killing herself, do what you’re afraid of doing, wouldn’t it be worth the risk? Joe had tried to help Deedee by giving her the child’s lamp. Now Joe is trying to put Angelica on the right path. Joe’s growth is evident here. He is selflessly trying to help a fellow human being. Note how, unlike with Deedee, he chooses not to bring Angelica to his hotel room. He also never tells Angelica about his situation.
Knowing what we know about the two previous Meg Ryan characters, it’s easy to deduce that Patricia is the Moon goddess. She remarks that the sunshine gets her down. It’s clear that she and Angelica the Sun, don’t get along.
Patricia is another lost soul. She is ashamed at herself for performing a service for her father in exchange for a boat. To her, it is a compromise of principle so she, like Joe, took the Faustian bargain. Joe begins to bond with Patricia, something he couldn’t do with Deedee or Angelica. They are all lost souls but Patricia seems a kindred spirit. Like Joe, she is aware of what she has done and is rediscovering herself.
The crew are enjoying themselves fishing the next day. However, the shark, like the “Fire in Paradise” poster, is an omen. It forebodes that not all is well and there is danger ahead.
Joe and Patricia bond further that night. Joe asks Patricia if she believes in God and Patricia answers “I believe in myself.” After all, she is a god in the underlying story. It’s interesting how Joe seems to see no difference between a tropical island he is going to and Staten Island where he is coming from. We already know Staten Island is full of lost souls and we’ll soon see the Waponi Wu is no different. Patricia remarks that her father told her that most of the world is asleep and the few who aren’t live in a state of constant, total amazement. We already know this to be true and who better to make this observation than the devil himself, who preys upon those who choose to sleep through life.
Joe looks back at his life and realizes how different both he and his life are now as to when he was working in the factory – more indications that Joe is growing as a person.
When Joe told Deedee about his predicament, she was overwhelmed and refused to deal with it. Joe had the good sense to not even bother to tell the self-absorbed Angelica. Joe does decide to explain it all to Patricia. Patricia is a bit shocked, but seems to accept it. This is more evidence of her similarities with Joe.
Note how there are candles and sunflowers behind Joe. The candles remind us of the candlelight dinner with Deedee while the sunflowers represent Angelica. Twice in the movie, Joe tells one of the women that he felt he had seen her before. Deedee, Angelica, and Patricia represent different parts of the same woman – which is why Meg Ryan plays all three parts. So Joe is basically addressing all three of them as the symbols in the background suggest.
Joe may have sold his soul, but he now seems to be re-claiming it. He has full self-awareness and a true love of life. He has also met the women he was meant to be with. For Joe to fully claim his soul back, he will have to be severely tested. A one-time firefighter, Joe bravely rescues Patricia when she is knocked overboard. Here we see the storm was brought on by the devil as we see the lightning bolt in the shape of the crooked path strike and destroy the boat.
Not all is hopeless, though. The trunks he had bought come to the surface. These trunks represent Joe’s guardian angel Marshall as Joe had purchased them with Marshall’s assistance. He is being looked after.
Joe sacrifices himself to try to save the now unconscious Patricia. He doesn’t drink any water. Joe spends days and nights in solitude with only the music from the radio and his ukulele to keep him company. Joe seems to maintain good spirits. Joe is going through the type of fast associated with Jesus. Fasts in religions have a cleansing effect and Joe is being rid of the pettiness he once had. If Joe survives the fast, he’ll emerge as something greater than a mere man.
The rising giant Moon serves as a signal that Patricia, who represents the Moon, is coming back. Keep in mind that the other nights shown were Moonless so a sudden full Moon is a magical event. It also symbolizes that Joe’s personal growth is complete. Where earlier, it was uncertain of whether or not he believed in God, he now thanks God for his life. Joe is now the man he was meant to be, not the cowering child he was at the beginning of the movie, but a selfless, heroic, leader.
The Waponis are lost souls. They traded their souls for orange soda. They traded their God-fearing culture into one of western decadence. No one of the tribe is willing to sacrifice himself or herself for the good of the tribe. Enter Joe, the savior and that is how he is treated. As Jesus was welcomed into the temple in a celebration of palms, Joe is given similar treatment. Note the Jewish song being sung here.
At the feast, we see a Waponi wearing a very strange, yet familiar mask. It's familiar because it is a mock up of the factory Joe used to work in. Notice also, that a Waponi appears to have a pyramid painted on one hand and an eye on another - a masonic symbol. These images reinforce the idea that Waponi Wu is really no different than Staten Island, or Manhattan Island. They're all full of lost souls.
Once again, we see the crooked path symbol, this time, as an actual crooked path up the way to hell. Joe is perfectly willing to sacrifice himself for these soulless people. He accepts it as his duty and is willing to forsake his newly found love to do what he feels is right. Patricia, in finding Joe, has found herself as well and realizes her place is with him no matter what. So she and Joe leap into the volcano to destroy themselves by descending into hell to save the Waponis.
But… an unexpected thing happens. Hell rejects the two who have proven themselves so worthy and instead, consumes the Waponis. This contradicts the Christian story as the soulless are not saved.
Joe and Patricia are once again saved by the trunks and are now Gods themselves and will live “away from the things of Man and happily ever after”.
Or will they? Going back on board the Tweedle Dee – Patricia’s boat, Patricia told Joe about how sleeping on a boat affects your dreams What if the whole part of the movie that followed was just a dream through Wonderland?
(Linsey Davis)
"If this winter seems especially brutal, scientists say you're right. ABC News contacted 10 climate scientists to ask their take, if an extreme winter like the one we're having is the way of the future. The consensus? Global warming is playing a role by shifting weather patterns in unpredictable ways. Many say the forecast for the future calls for record-breaking precipitation and extreme temperatures year round. And that means winters with more snow."
(Diane Sawyer)
"...millions of people across the East saying enough already with the snow and ice and cold. Another winter storm roared through today. More records were toppled, and it heightened that question: Do the leading scientists now agree that this is global warming? "
Wait a minute!!! Al Gore and others specifically told us that global warming will cause warmer winters and less precipitation. I read a lot about global warming and its effects and if I put all the claims stated by "scientists" from various media, I can draw the following conclusions:
Warmer than normal temperatures are due to global warming.
Colder than normal temperatures are due to global warming.
Temperatures that are approximately average for a given area for a given time is proof of global warming.
Dry conditions and droughts will be common due to global warming.
Heavy precipitation is due to global warming.
Places reporting average amounts of precipitation indicate global warming.
Ice melting in the Arctic is due to global warming.
Ice sheets increasing in size in the Antarctic is proof of global warming.
The imminent rise of ocean levels will be an indication of global warming.
The ACTUAL non-significant rise of ocean levels is due to global warming.
An expected increase in the number of hurricanes and typhoons and the expected increase in their intensity will be proof of global warming.
The reality of six consecutive years of a normal or less than normal frequency of hurricanes and typhoons is also a strong indication of global warming.
Recent earthquakes in Haiti and Pakistan are due to global warming.
The real question is: Why are so many trying to convince us that disaster is imminent and no matter what the data is, it gets twisted into the same conclusion?
This is something I am exploring this year. Think about an answer to the question above. It's not really that hard to find the basic answer.
May we all enjoy the Christmas season and remember the reason for the season.
The Month before Christmas Twas the month before Christmas
When all through our land,
Not a Christian was praying
Nor taking a stand.
See the PC Police had taken away
The reason for Christmas - no one could say.
The children were told by their schools not to sing
About Shepherds and Wise Men and Angels and things.
It might hurt people's feelings, the teachers would say
December 25th is just a ' Holiday '.
Yet the shoppers were ready with cash, checks and credit
Pushing folks down to the floor just to get it!
CDs from Madonna, an X BOX, an I-Pod
Something was changing, something quite odd!
Retailers promoted Ramadan and Kwanzaa
In hopes to sell books by Franken & Fonda.
As Targets were hanging their trees upside down
At Lowe's the word Christmas - was nowhere to be found.
At K-Mart and Staples and Penny's and Sears
You won't hear the word Christmas; it won't touch your ears.
Inclusive, sensitive, Di-ver-si-ty
Are words that were used to intimidate me.
Now Daschle, Now Darden, Now Sharpton, Wolf Blitzen
On Boxer, on Rather, on Kerry, on Clinton !
At the top of the Senate, there arose such a clatter
To eliminate Jesus, in all public matter.
And we spoke not a word, as they took away our faith
Forbidden to speak of salvation and grace
The true Gift of Christmas was exchanged and discarded
The reason for the season, stopped before it started.
So as you celebrate 'Winter Break' under your 'Dream Tree'
Sipping your Starbucks, listen to me.
Choose your words carefully, choose what you say
Shout MERRY CHRISTMAS!
not Happy Holiday !
Please, all join together and wish everyone you meet
Now, "rich businesswomen" (as the L.A. Times refers to them) Meg Whitman and Carly Fiorina have won Republican primaries and are taking on incumbent Democrats (Jerry Brown and Barbara Boxer, respectively) in my State of California.
Carli Fiorina has a similar story. Starting out as a secretary, she worked her way up to becoming CEO of Hewlett Packard. This was at a time when a female CEO of a hot tech company was unheard of. If only she had been a Democrat, she would probably stand above Hillary Clinton as the benchmark feminist that all our daughters should aspire to be.
Of course, had she been a Democrat, that would mean that she didn't have the internal convictions to have been a successful CEO in the first place so it was a moot point.
Last night, Michelle and I went to the Hollywood Bowl and saw Carole King and James Taylor perform, both individually and as a duet. These are two of Michelle's favorite artists. I always liked James Taylor, although I was never what you would call a fan. I had barely heard of Carole King before I met Michelle but I found out she had performed written, and co-written quite a few songs I knew and liked. I had no idea she had co-written "The Loco-motion" or "Will You Still Love Me Tomorrow" until last night.
Getting to the Bowl almost requires taking a Park & Ride as the parking at the Bowl is really bad in terms of space and accessibility. It gets rather cool there this time of year and the seats are wooden park benches - towards the back of the arena anyways. Despite all that, it was very enjoyable. James Taylor has not lost anything in his voice at age 62. His voice sounded like we were in the studio with him in 1970. King was also impressive and the chemistry between them was great.
I tend to prefer rock and roll with more substance than these two offer. I like layered instruments, tempo changes, and lyrics with obscure or double-meanings. Taylor and King make very personal music with simple melodies. Their lyrics are straightforward. You know what they are conveying. However, these two artists do their thing so well that I found myself enjoying the show quite a bit. Michelle was enthralled. When it was over, we both agreed it was a great show.
One Observation
I realize as I write this that this is going to come across as completely inappropriate to some people. I had a good view of a horde of people just arriving and getting to their seats just before the concert began. The thing that struck me was... ready... They were almost all white! As I then looked across the mass of people, I realized that at least 98% of the audience was white. I spotted a couple of black people amongst the thousands. I saw no sign of a Latino or Asian whatsoever. Is there something wrong with this? Of course not!
I imagine that some black performers are going to attract mostly black audiences, the same with Latinos. It's apparent that some performers have broad, cross-racial appeal such as Madonna and the late Michael Jackson. While others don't.
What's my point? It is that if this were any kind of political event, it would have been blasted by the mainstream media. I'm sure someone at MSNBC would have called this some kind of "Klan" or "Nazi" event. In the case here, it was a collection of people who shared a similar taste in music and that's okay. In the case of a Tea Party event, it is a collection of people who are concerned about tax dollars being wasted on corporate bailouts, possibly jeopardizing the future prosperity of the United States. Apparently to the mainstream media, this is not okay. By the way, I certainly hope the black people at the concert weren't "uncomfortable" as I am sure, they were as welcomed as anybody else.
Has it ever occurred to anybody in the media that the reason so many people attending the Tea Parties are white because black people don't want to protest a black President? I'm sure many blacks are concerned with the same things the Tea Party is about as their children are in jeopardy too. The media seems to want to believe that only white people are concerned with skin color. I don't believe that's the case.
