VOTE...Please Vote

ENOUGH-! I have had it up past here and all the way to there. VOTE. Please vote... Once upon a time -EVERYTHING- did not require politics. We did not season our food, bathe with, clean our cars, listen to music, buy clothing, choose friends based on politics... Yeah, I'm old. I have withdrawn from bloging, watching TV, reading the newspaper, opening mail... all are past habits. I have my opinion. Listening and speaking with people who, in the words of Jonathan Swift "Cannot be argued from a position they were never reasoned into.".. I ave restrained myself from blogging on the theory that there were too many opinions being developed before your eyes... clutter is just that...Clutter. So, everyone please vote... Let's get on to the next mess... We will not have someone who can cure everything and make it as it was... The past will not return... We will have either more of the same muddle as we have had these past four years, more abuse of executive/imperial power...or we will have a mess to clean up and new probelms will be uncovered... The world has not sat idle while we have had our experiment. New powers see opportunity as we retreat and withdraw... We don't wish to be The Worlds Policeman"... Nobody else does either...EXCEPT there is no other nation who can trusted with that power... America is unique in that we really wish the world to be peaceful and choose whatever form of government they wish. We'd like them to have all the benefits and rewards that we have, but that is their choice... We have learned to accept that reality... Can we get away from politics-? Do we need our fearless leader on our TVs every day-? Do we really need a cult of personality vs accomplishment-? Oh well, whatever you do...Please vote.. I have not concern of who you choose. I trust the American People... eventually, we get it mostly right. It's our fate...we will get what we deserve not all ways what we wish... CUE: Rolling Stones song...

Always Surprised-?

The headline says "Pro-Obama media always shocked by bad economic news"

The article then goes on to explain, expand and support the headline. What it also explains is who is surprised and why.

Michael Barone (author of article) is very good with numbers. He is too much a gentleman(?) or has too much to lose by saying what most of us would say...

"We're being lied to." Like children who will be frightened if we know the truth.

Unemployment figures are -only- the numbers of people drawing unemployment checks. It does not include the numbers of people who have exhausted they benefits, who never had them (contractors, consultants, sole proprietors, etc) or those who have given up looking. Some wise people estimate that the true number of those without a job and who wish they had one is double the official figures. Why not simply count the numbers reporting income pre-depression and subtract the numbers of people reporting today-? They do not include everyone who has graduated from college, high school, graduate school or released from active military service... -Why-? These are surely people who are unemployed... But they are ignored in official numbers.

Inflation numbers are rigged. They do not include the cost of food or transportation. The most obtuse and dense shopper knows thhttp://www.blogger.com/img/blank.gifat food prices are going up and not coming down. Food makers are doing two things to hide the fact. Some use smaller packaging. Some use "bonus" extra sizing and some are doing both... The fact is that food prices are up. Gasoline and diesel costs more. That means it costs more to get to/from work, go shopping, go on vacation, go anywhere. It also means that the average family is spending $168 dollars per month more on fuel. Higher prices dry-up demand for consumer impulse and non-essential products.

Companies, big and small, are sitting on their cash. The WSJ's Intelligent Investor column on Saturday ran an article asking "What Will It Take for Companies to Unlock Their Cash Hoards? "

He says "There is a cash crisis in corporate America—although it comes not from a shortage of the stuff, but from a surplus.

In the first quarter, the five companies with the greatest cash hoards—Micrhttp://www.blogger.com/img/blank.gifosoft, Cisco Systems, Google, Apple and Johnson & Johnson—added $15 billion in cash and marketable securities to their balance sheets. Microsoft alone packed away roughly $9 billion, or $100 million a day. All told, the companies in the Standard & Poor's 500-stock index are sitting on more than $960 billion in cash, a record.

To be sure, at many companies the cash piling up is at global operations that generate "undistributed foreign earnings" that can't be brought home, under U.S. law, without incurring taxes of up to 35%. But hundreds of billions in cash remain available—and idle."

What the author fails to report/recognize is that 1) Bank lending criteria has changed. 2) SEC regulations have changed 3) The affects of Obama Regulations and legal judgements are unknown 4) If the cash is paid out and a disaster or opportunity arises, the company will have a hard time replacing it. Even re-tooling to remain compliant and up-to-date will require cash, from where will it come-?

The biggest culprit is the affect of unknown/unknowable regulations. The new financial act creates new agencies that write new regulations. It creates a czar who cannot be fired by the President. Who Congress cannot control and cannot even de-fund. Who is unaccountable to the Chairman of the Federal Reserve. And finally, who can tap the public Treasury for unlimited funds at any time, for any reason. Sarbanes-Oxley has killed the IPO market without touching -any- of the ills that led Congress to act. The new financial act will do nothing to regulate or control the root cause of this depression. FASB is still thinking of another mark-to-market rule. Fannie and Freddie are still alive and draining the Treasury of unknown future amounts. They are also still not being addressed as the problems they are. The fools who created them, ran the and enjoyed the perks/benefits of their irresponsible behavior have not been chastised or punished. Probably never will either. Crimes and moral turpitude at high levels and among the political class are never punished...

As a small/mid-sized businessman, -at this moment-. I am glad I have no employees, no business involvement, no exposure to the unknowns and the scary knowns, implied or implicit, or possible future unknowns... I have no payroll or employees for the first time in 40 years. It is a strange feeling. I never planned to retire this way. I don't like it. Being idle is uncomfortable.

I keep looking for opportunities. I see some. However, before -anyone- makes a commitment to invest time, money or reputation; they want to see a reasonable chance of success 3-5-10 years down the road. At this moment, I cannot see any opportunities that justify risk. The future is frightening. As entrepreneurs and managers our jobs are -not- to run away from risk. We must mitigate risk vs reward and choose the path(s) that best provide a shot at producing a return that justifies the expense. Breaking even/staying alive is good, but it's not enough.


The future will change. How an in what direction is unknown, by me, at this time. I cannot make a reasonable forecast and discuss it with others... Are the changes permanent-?

What affect will regulations have on the cost of supplies, transportation, funding, employees, taxes-? If I know the costs, I can compute the necessary price. Is the public ready to pay -that- amount so that my products/services will provide the return I need to repay lenders, trade creditors, investors for what they have put at risk-? will my competitors allow the price in their marketplace-? How will they respond-? Yes, unlike the governments, colleges, NGO's and other parasites; private enterprise has competition. We must serve the customer a good value for a fair price. We do not re-distribute the profits from the efforts of others. I am a bit blinded by the current economic mess.

I am open to suggestions.

Hollywood Attacks

Until we are able to love ourselves, how can the world love us?

The new fall movies have been announced. Following in the steps of "Valley of the Wolves"

In the noble tradition of mainstream genre cinema, the script takes a real-life event as a starting point and then spins off into Loony-Tunes land. On July 4, 2003, U.S. forces surrounded the HQ of an undercover Turkish unit in Sulaymaniyah, northern Iraq, led its 11 members out with hoods on their heads, and had them deported, even though Turkey was officially an ally in the war. The so-called "Hood Event" was seen by Turks as a national humiliation.

On the one hand, the basic format is peppered with some pure trash-exploitation elements, such as a strung-out U.S.-Jewish doctor (Busey) at Abu Ghraib who's trafficking inmates' organs to London, New York and Tel Aviv. Busey's few scenes -- and the whole tiny, undeveloped subplot -- are disposable.

and the not yet released "Redacted" the private vanity flick funded entirely by billionaire internet dilettante Mark Cuban and directed by Brian de Palma

From its title and intriguing opening (which shows words blacked out on a document by a censor's pen), the film seems determined to explore the repackaging of actual events by official and corporate media. In fact, it does nothing of the kind. From the first sequence, of Latino grunt Angel Salazar (Izzy Diaz) recording his buddies on video camera for a docu ("Tell Me No Lies") he hopes will get him into film school, "Redacted" is much more about the process and techniques of filmmaking than media distortion or coverups.

The breezy Salazar's fellow soldiers in Alfa Company, Camp Carolina, Samarra, fall into the usual stereotypes: bookish Gabe Blix (Kel O'Neill), who spends his time reading John O'Hara's "Appointment in Samarra"; soldier-with-a-conscience McCoy, a lawyer (Rob Devaney); and racist tree-swingers B.B. Rush (Daniel Stewart Sherman) and Reno Flake (Patrick Carroll). Their leader, Master Sgt. James Sweet (Ty Jones), is a motormouth hardass on his third tour of duty

It's soon clear De Palma intends to construct the whole movie from "found footage" -- Salazar's vid diary, security camera tapes, an Arab TV channel, websites (both U.S. and Islamic fundamentalist) or other docus and testimonials.

Drama finally clicks into gear when a car driven by Iraqis doesn't stop at the checkpoint, and Flake and Rush open fire. Even when it turns out the car contains a pregnant woman rushing to get to a hospital (where she subsequently dies), the two soldiers remain unrepentant. In dialogue that sounds too theatrically scripted, Rush contends, "You can't afford remorse. You get remorse, you get weak; you get weak, you die."Violence escalates when the locals take revenge on one of the group, in a well-staged shock sequence. After a night raid on a private house, seen from the p.o.v. of an embedded journalist, and the subsequent media hoo-ha, Flake and Rush pressure the rest of their group to return on a private mission. Secretly helmet-cammed by Salazar, this ends in the horrific rape of a 15-year-girl and the shooting of her and her family.

Ironically, pic's most powerful section is its final 10 minutes, as McCoy's traumatic experience is reduced, back home, to a bar yarn that ends with friends cheering him as a hero. De Palma follows that with a photo montage of real-life Iraqi victims of violence, dubbed "Collateral Damage" -- a harrowing couple of minutes that seems, alas, to be a coda to a better picture than "Redacted."

We have coming first to our TV sets, some of our favorite stars on late night talk shows peddling the flicks, then the various entertainment/celebrity news magazines and cable channels, then the week before they are released we'll get the reviewers comments.

Eventually we'll be allowed to see, "The Kingdom" staring Jamie Foxx as leader of an FBI antiterrorist team;"Lions for Lambs" with Tom Cruise playing a Senator making foreign policy; "Charlie Wilson's War" with Tom Hanks and Julia Roberts; "The Valley of Elah" starring Tommy Lee Jones; ." Battle for Haditha" by Nick Bloomfield and Grace is Gone" by James C. Strouse.

Hollywood is taking advantage of the lame-duck Presidency, the 2008 election cycle and the background noise about the war in Iraq to fill it's wallet. The movies will be released in the fall with all the noise and attention that a Hollywood movie generates. Then in the Spring we will get the Academy Awards, presented again by Jon Stewart. and in the fall, just in time for the actual voting we'll get the DVD releases.

Todd McCarthy observes in Variety:

Just as, during World War II, Hollywood pictures had a unified aim, to rally viewers around the war effort and present an image of the Allies prevailing, today they are also identical in nature, except in the opposite direction.

The first problem is that fictional films take at least a year, sometimes two, to create and disseminate, and thus the attitudes they reflect can be a bit stale at a time when events move so quickly (even if, alas, the war is still very much with us).

When someone like Richard Gere spouts off about Bush at the Venice Film Festival, as he just did, how much more tired can you get? Being anti-Bush simply isn't enough, as this point; there's an election coming up, a future to decide, complex issues to sort out, and Bush won't be part of the equation.

Where current events are concerned, documentaries are far better equipped to tackle them than are fictional features. The film of the year for me in many ways is "No End in Sight," a profoundly analytical, meticulously methodical and rewardingly specific study of where the U.S. went wrong once it achieved military victory in Iraq; it was the film I'd long been waiting for after the emotional hysteria of "Fahrenheit 9/11" and its ilk.

Now that the vast majority of Americans have misgivings, at the very least, about the Iraq adventure, producers are betting that mainstream audiences may be ready, up to a point, for the homefront stories of mangled, maimed and disturbed vets and their families. But the overt polemics of most of the Iraq films thus far, such as those expressed so predictably at the end of "In the Valley of Elah," seem calculated to once again stir up the Cindy Sheehan crowd, to preach to the converted of four years ago. Move on, indeed. (Emphasis added)

Following the pattern of "Constant Campaigning" set by the Clinton White House, Hollywood has found that they can play politics and increase box office to everyone's benefit. Politicians need the attention and money that celebrities can bring. Hollywood needs the political stew to bring the stories that will guarantee box office success.

"Wag the Dog" was not about a President hiding a scandal behind an international incident. It was about Hollywood (the tail) wagging the dog (the President). George Bush has not been as good for Hollywood. He has committed no scandals. He has not tolerated any lapses among the administration. He has not given any basis for believing that he would go nuts and blow things up, get bogged down in minor indiscretions that would lead to an escalating series of violent acts to cover up, or leave his wife for another woman or intern. He is not a drunk, an addict, a predator. His wife is none of those things either. The Bushes is boring in the best possible way.

Hollywood cannot wait for him to leave. They want another Clinton White House. Scandals, screw-ups, firings, tax increases, inflation all mean better financial times for Hollywood. (Inflation will drive up the value of the assets collateralizing their loans and make it easier for people to pay more than $7-$9 dollars for a seat.) Threats of war with Russia or China will make good movie backdrops. Terrorist attacks will drive people to escapist fare. Steady headlines will mean steady box office. Hillary or Obama either one fits a preset Hollywood stereo type and will be just bad enough to generate 1,000 story and plot lines. They'll back both. But eventually Hillary will get their support because the Clinton's are a known factor. They are safe box office. Obama may not be the kind of greedy grasping weasel that Hollywood can trust to keep the spin machinery going.

What the world thinks of America will be driven by these movies. People will sit in darkened theaters watching our movies and believing they are reflection of real life and real Americans. They have been doing this for over 90 years. Michael Moore's "Fareheit 9/11" grossed over $222 million. Since then, the current administration has been -THE- target for profits.

Of course, another terrorist attack and the mood of the nation may swing back in support of the one who has kept us safe for over six years. There is also the possibility that the nation will become tired of being force fed all the anti-war propaganda.

That would fly in the face of the famous Mencken quote "Nobody ever went broke underestimating the American boobsousie". Our appetite for celebrity seemingly knows no limit. Our ability to concentrate and think about an issue can not gain attention for any period of time. Maybe we are as naive and foolish as H.L. Mencken and Mark Twain described us.


Hollywood wants a "sure thing" and is not beyond cooking the books, manipulating the politicians and public opinion to get ever more profits. I doubt we'll ever see a movie with that plot line... Even Joel Surnow, the director of "24", would not bite the hands that feed him so very well.

As Brett Harte wrote about the man who when asked why he had gone to gamble knowing the cardroom cheated. The man replied "It's the only game in town."

If the public decides that Hollywood is at war with them and begins to reject the movies it will mean bad things for Democrats. If the public decides that the Democrats are too shrill, too childish and incapable of being trusted with power, Hollywood could suffer. Large bets by both Hollywood and the Democrats. could tempt some weaker souls. Is it really the "Only Game in Town" ?

Women, Politics, Real Issues

"Thinking is the desire to gain reality by means of ideas."

José Ortega y Gasset

A sentiment I can champion...besides it's a pleasant way to spend the weekend.

In S.F. visit, Obama takes aim at Clinton's strength: women's votes

Sen. Barack Obama's appearance in San Francisco today is designed to attack a key strength of his prime rival for the Democratic presidential nomination: former first lady and current New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's support from women of all backgrounds.

Hundreds of women are expected to pay anywhere from $250 to $2,300 to meet Obama at a lunch at the Bill Graham Civic Auditorium, and he'll speak at a $25-a-head event after the lunch.

On Saturday night, the Illinois senator's outreach to female voters gets another boost: Talk show host Oprah Winfrey, America's most successful female entrepreneur and opinion-maker, is the host for an A-list fundraiser for the senator at her estate in Montecito (Santa Barbara County).

We all have a sense of pride in the fact that a woman is being taken seriously," Harris said. "Hillary is obviously appealing to anybody who cares about having have equal opportunity for women, and all of us applaud her candidacy."

But, she said, "support for Barack isn't denying that or exclusive of that fact."

Harris said Obama has shown "a proven commitment to women and women's issues. ... He's pro-choice, pro-public education and pro-immigrant." (Oh Really-? ed.)

Mack now heads Obama's grassroots Sacramento effort - spending her weekends canvassing, calling voters and raising money for her candidate.

"As much as I would like to have a woman president, I want to have the right woman," she said.

Stephanie Chan, 20, a junior at UC Berkeley, was spurred by Obama's candidacy to become involved for the first time in a presidential campaign.

"I've heard things like, 'Hillary is a woman, you should be in her camp,' " Chan said. "She's an amazing woman and a great candidate, but for me, Obama is the candidate who brings it all together." (oh-oh... Scroll down to follow -ed.)

Chick, the Los Angeles controller, said many women are "tired of hearing about women's issues - because I believe our issues are human issues, universal issues."

"Half of the kids we bear are boys," she said. "Women's issues are everybody's issues - and I believe that Barack, as a candidate, speaks to all of these issues equally as well as Hillary."

Read the whole thing: Follow the links and read the story, then the comments. The SF Chronicle blog 2Cents has some more SF Bay Area views. There is something happening here. It looks like a ground swell or earthquake that may break apart the Hillary Foundations and assumptions of her slow walk to a coronation. If this most Liberal Bastion can look around and if Oprah can shift some of the quieter Hollywood types into action... We may have a horse race. That means we'll see more of Hubba-Hubba-Bubba. We'll get to watch her flail about as he makes her look small and very un-Presidential. Presidential-level experience means running your own campaign




Kimberly Strassel has some answers from the other side of the aisle

What Women Want
How the GOP can woo the ladies.
(I liked Republicans better in blue. But since some TV twit declared red states Republican... I'll post some extensive points from this editorial. It's good. It's smart. It resonates with the women in my household. -ed.)

Expect to hear a lot about lady voters over the next few months, though most of it from Democrats. Women make up 60% of the left's primary electorate, and the front-runners are already going to the mat for their vote. It's why Ms. Clinton has six full-time staffers for women's outreach; why Mr. Obama sports a women's "policy committee"; and why Bill Richardson recently told a cheering mob that "women are better workers than men" (you go, Bill!).

The Democrats' own views of what counts for "women's issues" are stuck back in the disco days, about the time Ms. Clinton came of political age. Under the title "A Champion for Women," the New York senator's Web site promises the usual tired litany of "equal pay" and a "woman's right to choose." Mr. Richardson pitches a new government handout for women on "family leave" and waxes nostalgic for the Equal Rights Amendment. Give these Boomers some bell bottoms and "The Female Eunuch," and they'd feel right at home. Polls show Ms. Clinton today gets her best female support from women her age and up.

The rest of the female population has migrated into 2007. Undoubtedly quite a few do care about abortion rights and the Violence Against Women Act. But for the 60% of women who today both scramble after a child and hold a job, these culture-war touchpoints aren't their top voting priority. Their biggest concerns, not surprisingly, hew closely to those of their male counterparts: the war in Iraq, health care, the economy. But following close behind are issues that are more unique to working women and mothers. Therein rests the GOP opportunity.

Ms. Clinton likes to bang on about "inequality" in pay. The smart conservative would explain to a female audience that there indeed is inequality, and that the situation is grave. Only the bad guy isn't the male boss; it's the progressive tax code.

• Most married women are second-earners. That means their income is added to that of their husband's, and thus taxed at his highest marginal rate. So the married woman working as a secretary keeps less of her paycheck than the single woman who does the exact same job. This is the ultimate in "inequality," yet Democrats constantly promote the very tax code that punishes married working women. In some cases, the tax burdens and child-care expenses for second-earners are so burdensome they can't afford a career. But when was the last time a Republican pointed out that Ms. Clinton was helping to keep ladies in the kitchen?
  
• Should President Bush's tax cuts expire, tens of thousands of middle-class women will see more of their paychecks disappear into the maw of their husband's higher bracket. A really brave candidate would go so far as to promise eliminating this tax bias altogether. Under a flat tax, second-earner women would pay the same rate as unmarried women and the guy down the hall.
• Ask almost any working woman what the toughest part of her life is, and she'll say the complications of scheduling both work and family life. What makes that task so tough is a dusty piece of legislation called the 1938 Fair Labor Standards Act, which requires that hourly workers who put in more than 40 hours a week get overtime. Some women like overtime. But in a 1995 poll, an extraordinary 81% said they'd prefer compensatory time off. Put another way, many women would like to pack 45 hours into the first four days of work, then knock off early on Friday
  
• The mod term for this is "flex time" and Democrats pay it lip service. But what the left won't mention--and Republicans have failed to mention--is that Democrats are the obstacle to changing the overtime law. Organized labor likes the 40-hour-week law, and union leaders prefer to be the ones to arrange any flex-time agreements on behalf of their members. So in 1997, when Republican Sen. John Ashcroft put forward legislation to allow flexible scheduling in the private workforce, it was Democrats, at the beck of unions, who killed it
• The majority of health-care decisions are made by women, yet neither Rudy Giuliani nor Mitt Romney has explained how their innovative proposals to put individuals back in charge of care would help women in particular. No candidate has explained that only through private Social Security accounts will women ever see the full fruits of their payroll taxes.

Read the whole editorial. I like smart well written articles. This one is very good-! It's also free.



Have a good weekend-! Take the family somewhere fun.