Quickie review of The Interview

Better than expected, which is not saying much, but still not completely terrible. I enjoyed it, and laughed a few times (the cringe-inducing teenage ribaldry was there, but sparse). However, if this movie took place in a vacuum with no other context, it would be among the many mildly entertaining comedies which were utterly forgotten.

Yet, as is obvious, it was more than that. Not only was it an international political jab at a terrible regime, which approvingly* depicted a current dictator's assassination (I don't think that has been done from these high echelons in Hollywood since Hitler--and even then I'm not sure), but brought the ire of some (maybe North Korean) hackers leaking sensitive info and making 9/11 style threats.

Which in turn made the headlines and now our president and government got involved.

Who would've thought Seth Rogen and James Franco would have played a significant role in global politics, or what might be the opening of a major cyber front in the technically ongoing Korean War?

So, I guess this mildly entertaining comedy will be remembered. And despite the crude humor, that's a good thing. I hope the controversy around this movie enlightens a few million more people as to the ridiculousness that is the North Korean government. And perhaps its other, more subtle point, that international politics are ridiculous as well (and I almost think the world is reflexively trying to prove the movie right).

The movie is available everywhere online and some theaters. Even right here:



*There's a tiny bit of nuance and a bit of a plot twist they can hide behind there, but I would be spoiling the movie if I explained why.

A few words on Cuba

It's about time.

If Obama will be remembered for anything positive, it's probably going to be this. While not ideal, still, good job. Props to the Obama administration.

I don't know if the theory about free trade and its liberalizing influence still holds much merit, but I think even while states are increasingly adept at avoiding such liberalization, exposing the masses to more trade and outside influence is generally a good thing.

Human rights: the not-so-ideal part about normalizing relations with Cuba. What is there to say besides that it sucks, and will take time to improve? Even the horrendous violator China is begrudgingly, slowly improving its human rights conditions.

I am reminded of that old Vulcan proverb, "Only Nixon could go to China." It's funny, I don't think a Republican president would have dared, nor could have gotten away with this. I tend to doubt Hillary would've done so either--she seems hell-bent on appearing hawkish.

Perhaps only Obama could go to Cuba.*


*Except he didn't actually go to Cuba.

OFA Logic in One Simple Chart

Alternatively titled, "Leftist logic ..."

Honestly, I could've come at this in different ways. My first reaction was laughter, followed by despair, then apathy, and now I'm kind of ambivalent. Am I wrong to think that this kind of thinking makes perfect sense to only small children and the cognitively disabled:

Here's how to improve our economy and create hundreds of thousands of jobs: #RaiseTheWage. http://t.co/NLM2t9NyhS pic.twitter.com/UDTcTSaqZJ
— Barack Obama (@BarackObama) December 4, 2013

I was apparently under the mistaken assumption that if you raise the cost of something, you get less of it--employment, in this case. I apologize for my conventional, mainstream, in-the-box thinking.

This new plan is almost as brilliant as the underpants plan:


I kid, I kid. But essentially, it's the same kind of wishful-thinking, horrible understanding and/or ignorance of economics, and logical fallacies that the South Park Gnomes employ.

Then again, maybe it's just how the president "changes" things.

Update: I wrote the post and p-shopped the image before I saw this tweet, but we're on the same wavelength:

FIFY. MT @BarackObama Here's how to improve our economy and create hundreds of thousands of jobs: #RaiseTheWage. pic.twitter.com/Zjq91SFMJs

— Caleb Howe (@CalebHowe) December 5, 2013

Colion Noir debuts on NRA News

So here's NRA News' new spokesman, Mr. Colion Noir, a lawyer and firearms enthusiast, making the case against more senseless gun control.

Pretty good. I like the part about the President suddenly caring about gun violence, as if Chicago never had such a problem.

Democrats suck, but voters are the real idiots

Yeah I'm just going to go the undignified route because I don't give two shits about politicians and the voting public in general. Let's just drop the pretense: the vast majority of Americans have a rational interest to be politically ignorant, and in our case, they are super-rational.

It's like they've all been urinating in the pool--what's a little pee in this giant pool, nobody will know--and now, thanks to all of them we're neck deep in piss.

Why am I so cynical today? You could probably guess in one try: Internet commenters. Specifically those commenters over at this Buzzfeed piece on the hypocrisy of Democrats.

A good percentage of those commenters get up on their high horse and say shit like, "Oh I voted for Bush, then I voted for Obama. Now I despise both of them. They are all corporatist war mongers!"

But you know what, it's ok because they're going to vote for the next candidate Pepsi or candidate Coke.


Go fuck yourself.

And no, I'm not saying we should get rid of democracy, I'm just saying it sucks. There are possible improvements, but that's for another post.

Roundup of 'Obama gun memes'

Of the image variety:

And a few others for good measure:

I could post these all day:

Everyone is a criminal

We are arguably the most free (freest?) country in the world, and for the most part I would agree. Americans tend to have a stronger sense of fairness and live-and-let-live mentality than others I think. Coupled with our constitutional, representative democracy where the rule of law is paramount, our comparatively huge and diverse country has surprisingly withstood all kinds of attacks with varying intensity on our liberty (for the most part).

But then there is our criminal justice system, on steroids thanks to our legislatures. For our own good of course. John Stossel disagrees:

The rules that bind us now total more than 160,000 pages. The Congressional Research Service said it was unable to count the number of crimes on the books. Yet last week the feds added or proposed another thousand pages. States and cities have thousands more. Have you read them all? Have our "representatives" read them all?

...When there is a big crime, legislators quickly demand that felons be given longer jail sentences and "mandatory minimums" for repeat offenses. This wins votes but kills judicial discretion and crushes unlucky people.

In Iowa, a man with an old felony conviction found a bullet, put it on his dresser and forgot about it. A police officer, looking for something else, saw the bullet. Felons may not possess any ammunition, and this "crime" made the man a repeat offender. He's now serving a 15-year mandatory sentence for possession of ammunition. Really.

Ron Paul was the only candidate to talk about this with any passion, not even Obama has discussed this.The article goes on to point out that if Obama had been prosecuted for his admitted crimes, he would not be president today, far from it actually. We were all young, and we've all done stupid things. In that respect, many of us are similar to Obama. Like him or not, he made something of himself, started a family and supported that family. Now imagine if he went to prison.

The point is that this is becoming a nation of people who are caught, and people who are not of increasingly vague and victimless crimes. And a prison term does not exactly open doors for people, at least not the doors we want.

New Romney ad out as Obama's support fades

Via Gabe at Ace's, Romney has an effective new ad hitting Obama on the idiotic "You didn't build that" comments:

While Obama keeps making personal attacks on Romney, insinuating he's some sort of tax evading criminal banker, Romney keeps the focus on the issues that matter.

Please Mr. President, keep putting your foot in your mouth. Or maybe Obama will try a new demagoguing tactic, since the Bain attacks aren't working out so well:

Obama's sinking in New Mexico

From the PPP no less:

PPP's newest New Mexico poll finds the race for President there getting a lot more competitive. Barack Obama continues to lead but his advantage is down to 5 points at 49-44, a far cry from the leads of 14 and 15 points he had on our previous two polls of the state.

The big difference between now and April comes with Democrats. Previously Obama was winning them 85-12 but now that lead is down to 73-21. New Mexico is a state, like North Carolina and Pennsylvania, where any chance at victory for Romney is going to require winning over a significant number of conservative Democrats. Right now he's doing a pretty decent job of that.

via Legal Insurrection.

I 'm not sure why he's losing support in New Mexico; maybe it's his stellar record on the economy, maybe it's record-breaking deportations, or maybe it's because his policies negatively impact New Mexico in direct ways. Or all of the above.

This potentially gives Romney and the GOP a huge opportunity. I've always believed Hispanics tended to be socially conservative, it's just that they more easily identify with the political party portrayed as the most pro-immigrant. Right or wrong, that's the Democrats. If the 'conservatives' would logically extend their free-market, limited government principles to immigration issues we could easily add in a whole new demographic to the GOP's base.

It's okay to be anti-illegal immigration, but it's politically cancerous to ignore legal immigration--which is a fucking nightmare for most immigrants. It should be easier, not harder for good people to enter and stay in the U.S.

Roundup of "You didn't build that" meme images

From the classic meme:

From Independent Review Journal

to the iconic:

via MotorCityTimes.com

the obvious:

via the Atlantic

And the awesome:

That last one is from none other than Jon Lovitz.

Romney hits back

In the midst of the media circus/speculation mongering over Romney's tax returns and Bain employment, Mitt's campaign finally hits back.



Needless to say, the lefty hacks' knee-jerk reactions are laughable.

And then there's all that stimulus money. Maybe if I was a major Obama donor, I would have been stimulated. Then again, maybe not:



It's nice to hit back, but let's focus on where it hurts the most.

Obama's job council hasn't met in six months

This is what Hope and Change leadership looks like:

At this point, the hiatus — which reached the half-year mark Tuesday — might be less awkward than an official meeting, given the hornet’s nest of issues that could sting Obama and the council members if the private-sector panel gets together.

For starters, there’s the discomfort many business leaders may feel in appearing to embrace the president with his reelection bid in full swing.

Then, there’s the fact that some members of the commission have conspicuously declined to endorse him. And that Obama has conspicuously declined to endorse some of their recommendations. And that some of what Obama won’t endorse has been warmly embraced by Republicans...

No wonder the Obama campaign and the media would rather talk about Romney's tax records and former employment.

This single example is a metaphor of the entire administration: sloppy, lazy, ineffectual, and always directing attention away from themselves. What has been the number one issue since Obama was elected? Jobs. Or the economy in general. 

Apparently assuming the Recovery Act was a cure-all, the check-list president then spent the next two years of his administration focusing on health care. But whether you like Obamacare or not, he left Nancy Pelosi to do the heavy lifting on that. I guess he needed his time on the green.

Even if I was a socialist, I would have to admit the president has been a complete failure of a leader. But it's worse; he won't assume responsibility for his failures, not even the failure to satisfy his base.

Report: Romney stayed at Bain 3 years longer than he claimed

According to the Boston Globe, Mitt Romney was CEO and president of Bain Capital until at least 2002, three years after he said he left.

Yeah, I know.

Romney did not finalize a severance agreement with Bain until 2002, a 10-year deal with undisclosed terms that was retroactive to 1999. It expired in 2009.

Bain Capital and the campaign for the presumptive GOP nominee have suggested the SEC filings that show Romney as the man in charge during those additional three years have little meaning, and are the result of legal technicalities. The campaign declined to comment on the record. It pointed to a footnote in Romney’s most recent financial disclosure form, filed June 1 as a presidential candidate.

“Since February 11, 1999, Mr. Romney has not had any active role with any Bain Capital entity and has not been involved in the operations of any Bain Capital entity in any way,’’ according to the footnote. Romney made the same assertion on a financial disclosure form in 2007, during his first run for president.

Either Romney left in 1999 or 2002, and while this may muddy the waters and help Democrats paint him as an outsourcer, the potentially bigger story is that he possibly wasn't honest. Coupled with the implied allegations of tax evasion via offshore accounts it isn't exactly good news for him.

I tend to think Romney will open his books, and similarly explain the Bain departure confusion, a reasonable amount of time before the election. But I could be wrong, and Romney doesn't even need to. This is a referendum on failed economic policies Obama.

Since they can't debate Romney on the issues, they will attack his character. Or lie.

Update: Is this report nothing made to sound like something?

Quote of the Day

Apparently I'm supposed to be more outraged by what Mitt Romney does with his money than what Barack Obama does with mine.

via Reason

Video: Romney's Full Speech at NAACP

So Romney ventured into the Lion's den, and well, it went more or less as expected.

Here's the full video from PBS:

Romney concern trolling continues

Listen, Romney wasn't my first pick. To be honest I wasn't happy with any of the GOP candidates, and it was the least interesting, least motivating, least inspiring GOP presidential primary that I can remember. Sure I want to beat Obama, and there is a HUGE swell of new Republican energy this year because of that. But that doesn't mean our candidates are the bees knees.

Paraphrasing William Jacobson at Legal Insurrection, it was the establishment that wanted Romney, and now it's the establishment who is disappointed:


Yes I wish Romney could hit a little harder, keep Obama on defense (after all, it is his presidency we're after). But we fight with the candidates we have, not the ones we want to have.

Morgan Freeman: Obama's not black

From NPR:

[Freeman] was especially interested in talking about President Obama, and why Freeman thinks he should not be called America's first black president.

"First thing that always pops into my head regarding our president is that all of the people who are setting up this barrier for him ... they just conveniently forget that Barack had a mama, and she was white — very white American, Kansas, middle of America," Freeman said. "There was no argument about who he is or what he is. America's first black president hasn't arisen yet. He's not America's first black president — he's America's first mixed-race president."

I'm sure Sharpton and Jackson are already doing damage control.

via Mediaite.

Talking heads' echo chamber: Romney is in BIG trouble!

For the life of me I couldn't figure out what the deal was with a couple of seemingly small stories. Then the narrative started to take shape--that Romney is in big trouble, his campaign is confused, his supporters are angry at him, and Romney himself is looking like a flip-flopper among other depressing and nefarious things.

Take for instance this article from Politico:

On Thursday, Romney’s team put out word of a massive $100 million fundraising haul — but its skill in attracting donors has done little to tamp down longstanding concerns within the GOP about the insularity and rigidness of the Romney camp. Those gripes are now being aired in public, as center-right staples from The Wall Street Journal editorial page to conservative radio host Laura Ingraham lament what they view as an uninspired, passive campaign. Romney’s general-election approach has resembled the strategy he used during the GOP primaries, a keep-your-head-down, minimalist effort aimed at keeping the focus on his opponent.

Not to miss out on the media's current obsession, Bill Kristol wonders aloud if Romney is the next Dukakis or Kerry:

Adopting a prevent defense when it's only the second quarter and you're not even ahead is dubious enough as a strategy. But his campaign's monomaniacal belief that it's about the economy and only the economy, and that they need to keep telling us stupid voters that it's only about the economy, has gone from being an annoying tick to a dangerous self-delusion.

Of course Republican concern trolling is just not complete without the New York Times. Jeremy Peters opines:

The editorial was a stern reminder of Mr. Romney’s failure to win the trust of the Republican Party’s core conservatives, a group that pays close attention to Mr. Murdoch’s newspapers and cable news outlets. Though political strategists debate the ultimate impact of any single media outlet, what is written in the pages of The Journal and The New York Post and talked about on Fox News — all Murdoch properties — could have the collective power to shape the thinking of millions of voters.

So what do we conclude with this narrative that has saturated American punditry? Answer: OMG, Romney is gonna implode!!1!

As I mentioned, this boils down to two, very small stories.

First, one guy on Romney's campaign staff said that the Obamacare mandate is a penalty and not a tax. It's easy to take either side, or both sides, since the Court was very creative in justifying the mandate as a tax. So one guy went off message on something most normal people could take either side on. The semantics of the mandate/tax don't change what it really does.

So I would like to know, how this is so different from Cory Booker going off message? Why didn't that spell doom for the Obama campaign? Do tell.

Second and finally, the other small story is about what a rich guy tweeted. Yes, Rupert Murdoch has some problems with Romney, and why are we supposed to care? The election is a referendum on Captain Failed-Recovery Obama, not on the true conservative manliness of Romney. Murdoch even said it was a referendum and that "all else [is] pretty minor"! It's not part of the narrative so it doesn't get reported.

It's going to be one of those elections.

Obama outspending Romney by $25 million so far

Remind me again, what was all that fear about Citizens United? You know, the one where a few evil Republican billionaires would buy the election?

Tell me about that.

From July 2 through July 8, the Obama campaign has purchased $6.5 million of advertising in the battleground states; the Romney camp $4.3 million...

Obama and his supporters [are] outspending Team Romney, $110 million to $85 million

Via Politico's Alexander Burns.

Rasmussen poll: 47% consider Obama's views extreme

Granted, it's only from 1000 likely voters, and if I remember correctly, likely voters are slightly more likely to be Republican. Though I could be wrong.

Either way, 47% say he holds extreme views. That's what I would call significant.