Mel Gibson Brutally Robbed by Housewife

Mel Gibson spent the last two years working out the details of his divorce with his former wife of 28 years. With a fortune measured at around $850 million, she ended up with half. His interim woman also received a settlement when he fathered a child with her.

I debated the merits of this settlement with a female, who took the wife's position. The argument went along the usual lines: That the wife spent years of her life both supporting his career, submerging her own life, and becoming accustomed to a certain lifestyle in the process. So why not give her half for her 28 years of support.

But this is nonsense. Giving a wife half of a man's money assumes a number of things. It assumes that the talent or skill that the one party has would not exist on the same scales, sans the other party. In other words, Mel Gibson would not have acted in The Road Warrior or directed Apocalypto without the support of his ex.

The split in the settlement essentially pins personal property, creativity and ambition against the wall and shoots. The bottom line assumption is that without a wife, Mel Gibson would not have been able to do all he has done. "Who would take care of the many kids while he is off making movies?" some say, supporting the wife. Hmmm, let's see how that works. Take the wife away, and how many kids does he have? Yea, no wife, no kids, no household duties to add to life's complexity.

Ambitious men tend to get prenuptial agreements but that is usually only after they have begun to taste the fruits of their own labor. Mel Gibson married early in the process of his own career, with his wife along for most of that ride. It would have been difficult to bring up a legal document five or ten years into a marriage when you both started from scratch. Indeed that would be inappropriate.

But the fact that she was "there" does not automatically imply equal achievement on her part or some moral equivalence in economic outcome. It's kind of like the argument you hear around Columbus Day, where the detractors of European discovery of the Americas assert, "Well the Native Americans already knew where they were, ha ha." This dubious statement is made in response to the fact that European explorers got their directions wrong, and reached places in the world they were not originally trying to reach, as in looking for India, but finding America.

But the critique is absurd. European explorers had the curiosity, the science, and the ambition to document the world beyond where they lived. That is an achievement undiminished by the fact that they may not have known where they were going. The knowledge gained through their curiosity created a better understanding of the world, versus a population--Native Americans in the United States--who might have just stayed put roaming the plains, and not seeking to understand the world beyond their immediate needs or document it.

The Gibson settlement is saying, "She was there, so she deserved equal reward." But she was the observer. You might be able to argue that her housework was equivalent to his outside work, and thus was the offset making her deserving of a payday. That is true to a point. But was her performance of housework the equivalent in quality with his execution of creating massive income with his skills? By all indicators Mel Gibson is outstanding at his job,when you consider the universe of actors who largely struggle. Was his wife the Van Gogh of housework? Was her housekeeping or child rearing on the level of a paid professional?

And while she was not rewarded with salary for keeping the household, she was rewarded with free rent, food, and support in ever escalating levels of quality. She likely got money and rewards along the way and received far more than her talents and career as a nurse would have rewarded her. One can also assume that any perk the Mel enjoyed, she enjoyed. One can also assume that if we grant her 50% of the fruit of Mel's work, Mel in turn should be rewarded 50% of the fruit of her work.

So if you could put a value on her work, and have Mel Gibson pay her, then fully half of that should come back to him. So let's say it's $50K a year for a top nanny, another $50K for a top housekeeper, and another $50K a year for the services of an escort. Right there you have the basic functions of a wife, and you can purchase top versions of those functions for about $150,000 a year. Over 10 years you are paying $1.5 million. Over 30 years you are paying $4.5 million.

See how that works? The high end commercial value of her work over a period of 30 years is $5 million tops. You could even add in another $30 million for intangibles--a million for each year. (And realizing that for $1 million a year you could hire a staff of 4 to 8 people easily).

Now having valued her work, does Mel Gibson get a share of half of that $35 million, leaving her with a more than adequate $17.5 million? If we assume she had a hand in half of Mel's success, did he not have a hand in half her success? Did not his millions make her job so much easier? She was not raising his many sons in a ghetto or struggling with them on the bus, or worrying where the clothing money would come from. She didn't have to do what many mothers do, and also work in order to create a two income household. At a certain point her life got really easy. Maybe that was in year two, or year 5, and certainly by year ten.

And yet, at the end of the day, Mel Gibson's wife gets half, or $425 million, for being there.

Obama & Healthcare: Less Imposition, More Choice

If there is any question at this political hour whether or not President Obama is a reasonable man, we need only look at the latest news from his health department.

"In a major surprise on the politically charged new health care law, the Obama administration said Friday that it would not define a single uniform set of “essential health benefits” that must be provided by insurers for tens of millions of Americans. Instead, it will allow each state to specify the benefits within broad categories."
(N.Y. Times)

Ahead of any health care rulings next year by the Supreme Court and the elections to follow, Obama is preparing the ground to counter any suggestion that he has imposed any sort of rigid ideologically driven program on Americans.  As we've long argued, he is far more interested in leaving a legacy than in undertaking a noble fight of purity that leaves him empty handed.

History will actually serve him well, even at this non-historical vantage point, given what has already been accomplished. Nobody will argue over perfection of implementation when the choice is one of imperfect policy or no policy. The Republicans have made sure that imperfect policy will always be the result, and until the public matches wisdom to outrage and supplies him with suitable support in Congress,  that won't change.

That said, if you were a soldier in Iraq, you are happy to be home. If you are starting to get some preexisting conditions or preventative care covered on your health policy, you are better off. If you are an Al Qaeda leader, you are likely enjoying the painful joy of your afterlife. And if you are headed to the ATM to pull out cash to finish your Christmas shopping, you are likely pulling an apple off the fruit tree of Obama economic sensibleness, where banks were rightly deemed important enough not to let fail in a manner that would lead to more bananas, less republic. If you are in Detroit making cars, you are for the moment relieved, and if you are buying a car, you have more choice than you might have had.

None of this was brought to you by his opponents, though we can thank George Bush for the offsetting visionary achievements of creating the economic collapse through blindness, and seeing the reasonable and quick partial solution via the TARP program. It's become common to criticize TARP from high (academic) and low (masses) vantage points, but in a bank run you don't fart around and your band aids don't come perfectly sized.

We assume the stark differences in achievement between the President and Congress, the President and the previous administration, and the President and his presidential opponent, will be made with some force next year. We hope people will be listening to actions, rather than reacting to words.

Obama Tells Iran to Return Trojan Horse

Iranian General points out tiny chipmunks

We could take this late night moment to talk about something important. Newt Gingrich, renaissance man of yesteryear, is challenging GOP leader Romney, taking him down to the undergarments in recent polls. And over there is our president, Mr. Obama, meeting with the leader of Iraq, while reinforcing a campaign promise kept (which was easier done than said given Bush's already set withdrawal timeline, but whatevs).

Instead we want to talk to you about drones. Nothing technical or deeply philosophical. According to news reports, a drone of ours, a kind of unmanned plane perfectly sized for chipmunk vacations, opted through magic, Iranian cunning, bad electronics or voodoo to land in Iran. Not crash land. Not shot out of sky into a million bits. But land, comfortable and apparently intact. 

The Iranians were glad to display this acquisition as it no doubt reinforced the truth that the Great Satan (that would be us, as in U.S.A) was not so satanically powerful after all. "We got your drone" they said via display, with further threats to take it apart, rebuild it with Iranian sauce, and wreak stealthic havoc back on us. 

President Obama eventually got around to requesting the plane back, though the general delay and all around casualness should make Iranians a bit skeptical about saying the inevitable "No, you can't have it back, Sons of Satan!"

"We have asked for it back," Obama said Monday at a news conference in Washington with Iraqi Prime MinisterNouri Maliki"We'll see how the Iranians respond." 

His comments marked the first public confirmation that the RQ-170 Sentinel drone now in Iranian hands is a U.S. aircraft, though U.S. officials privately acknowledged that in recent days. Iran has claimed it downed the stealthy surveillance drone, but U.S. officials say it malfunctioned.

(LA Times)

Now we don't want to be Obama fan boys and imply that this whole implausible situation is merely a diabolical plot concocted by the President and his administration to land a homing device inside of Iranian research facilities, because that would be mental hyperbole. It would be the same type of thought pattern that allows extreme conservatives to place Obama at the center of all and variable diabolical evils.

And yet,. the utter casualness in the official responses the past few days is almost comical, culminating in an almost ridiculous request to have the drone returned. Let's pretend the United States is Greece. Let's pretend Iran is Troy. Let's pretend horses can fly, like unicorns, and call them drones. Now let's pretend we land one or allow one to get captured. Now let's pretend certain components inside the flying horse are deeply locked and will take years to open and define. Now let's pretend Troy really gets on our nerves. And finally, let's pretend we turn the homing device on, and unload mega bombs on whatever high security research site is trying to backward engineer the horse.

Which is why if I were Iran, I would send it back and make a huge public relations gesture out of it.

While we strive to not get toasted and go conspiratorial here, hating the tendency in others, we nevertheless can't help but imagine what spy versus spy shenanigans might be going on between Iran and the United States. There is mystery in the belly of beast. 

Saveur Magazine Serves Up Holiday Wampum

One of my guilty pleasures is reading Saveur magazine. In my mind it is one of the best produced food magazines around, filled with lengthy centerpiece articles, beautiful photos and a fair amount of recipes. I don't actually cook all that much, so I don't get it for the recipes. I get it more for articles that usually drop you in the middle of some region or culture, highlighting the unique facets of their relationship with all things food.

And of course, I look forward to the holiday issues, even though the pantheon of holiday food is pretty set and there are only so many ways to cook a turkey or make mashed potatoes stand out. But I was not ready for my November and December issues, where Saveur editors opted to be decidedly agnostic as far as any sort of holiday fair. Not completely agnostic, but indifferent enough to the specifics of American Thanksgiving to render the issues a complete letdown.

The November issue does have "28 Great Holiday Sides" splashed across the front, but not much else to give the meat loving festive person a spark. The December issue gives us "Italian Christmas" with pasta on the cover; it's less a about Italians and Christmas than it is a retrospective of the influence of Italian cooking across the United States. The other main article "Puerto Rican Feast" sort of fits the bill, but the pictures lack any true festive appearance. No families round the dinner table, no tables, no Christmas lights, no Jesus, no religion at all.

Apparently the lead editor must have hit a severe patch of holiday blues and political expediency, deciding to forgo any traditional imagery or foods in both issues.  I don't really read Saveur to get my longings for standard American fare continually reaffirmed, but you do like to see a spot of the familiar mixed in with articles about how "other people do it" or, don't do it, during the holidays.

In place of my turkey or how to make a killer stuffing, and pictures of same, I get a vegetarian who has decided in this issue, MY ISSUE, that she will not even allow her guests to bring the turkey they usually offer to bring. Her ethics are her hero and my bane as she slips us wheat berry pilaf (in place of stuffing) and autumn vegetable patties (in place of meat).

I actually have no problem with that. It makes for interesting reading to see how other people eat and live and adapt a tradition to fit their own style. But when I am offered nothing else, and thus forced to dine on peas with orange and mint, sans turkey, ham, roast beef, or anything remotely familiar like baked mac and cheese, sweet potato pie or mashed potatoes, well, I get a bit peeved. You can't exclude the majority while including the minority as some project in equality or mind control.

It's disconcerting. I don't like all my holidays "disappeared" and replaced by meaningless otherness and commercial considerations. Thanksgiving itself is being sacrificed itself to corporate interests, with Black Friday dominating the news, while we are encouraged to give thanks to the Native Americans. There is so little now that is fun or authentically focused on the holiday's original intent.

I sat through the Thanksgiving Day parade in general annoyance and horror. The two hosts blabbed on and on, as the child who was watching the parade with me asked, "When is the news going off?". I told her "This is the parade, and those are the hosts."

There was more focus on those hosts and boring guests than on the parade itself.  Even the balloons were no treat, flying lower each year to avoid liability should a wind come and make things interesting. And at the very end, right before Santa, we had a Native American float called, "The True Spirit of Thanksgiving," because apparently for all these years we have all been getting it completely wrong.

Oh Saveur, how I know thee not, this holiday season. I don't want yuppie totalitarian vegetarians from comfortable Lawrenceville, New Jersey standing in for actual Thanksgiving. Take thy literary food wampom elsewhere, and given me something true.

Frankenstein Monster Candidates: Republicans Debate Bonus Wars

Robin (on left) with Batman

In case you were thinking that our military adventures (necessary and otherwise) are on the wane, with troops leaving Iraq, and Afghanistan looking more dubious by the hour after the death of Darth Bin Laden, rethink.

In  tonight's debate with the Republican presidential candidates, we are assured of one more war. Both the  front runner and the hind quarters of the political presidential race have come on in favor of attacking Iran IF they prove to be building nuclear stuff. And human nature being what it is, we can be pretty assured that Iran believes it has the right to build whatever we Americans gave ourselves the right to build. We don't mean to suggest any sort of equivalence between American and Iranian nuclear purposes, but then again, a bit of hypocrisy can be seen blowing from our end of the national possiblity pipe.

Romney said that if "crippling sanctions" and other strategies fail, military action would be on the table because it is "unacceptable" to Iran to become a nuclear power. Gingrich agreed, saying that if "maximum covert operations" and other strategies failed there would be no other choice. 

Ron Paul strongly disagreed, stressing the need to go to Congress before military action and saying it isn't worthwhile to use military force against Iran. "I'm afraid what's going on right now is similar to the war propaganda that went on against Iraq," he said. 

(CBS News)

Sometimes Mr. Paul is the most sensible voice amongst the insensitive and unstable, although his sensibility tends to deteriorate the closer he gets to diagnosing a solution for economic problems. There are moments when you want to take components of each of the Republicans and yank out that one specific part, and meld it together with the other parts to make a more ideal Frankenstein monster candidate.

Eventual U.S. Reality Show Contestants

All these candidates have serious flaws that make them incomplete packages. Because of their inability to push forward with a cogent identity, they are reaching for anything that might push them forward and help them nail their own brand down in the public's mind. If necessary, bombing Iran is just the sort of positive pick me up that's needed to make it clear that they are in fact the man for the job.

But this sort of tough talk does nothing for solving issues and the underlying policy that assumes that no country should have what you have needs serious re-examination.  But it would take a truly bold candidate to try to redefine long assumed prerogatives.

Washington Post's Expert Misread of 2012 Election

The White House

The press is always behind the curve. When housing prices are rising, they are not writing articles warning you to back off from the frenzy. When things are at their worst, they are not encouraging you to be a buyer. When the sun is on the verge of rising, the press will usually be making the hard case for permanent inexplicable darkness. 

This applies no matter the subject. In this case we have the Washington Post warning that Obama may have a difficult and unlikely path to a second term. While that argument can seem plausible at various junctures of Republican stubbornness and confrontational stalling, we tend to be underwhelmed by the idea that Obama will actually lose in 2012. In fact, enough factors are piling up to suggest his win will be solid. 

The Post points out the "dark electorate mood," and the continued battered economy, quoting different political folks, including one representative of Romney who makes the false claim that Obama has worsened the economic situation (which is entirely plausible if we throw out measurable economic statistics and speak from our imagination). 

The truth of the matter is that the Republicans don't have a working candidate that can actually counter the truth of Obama's record. Perry, what with his job growth stories, can be compared to the man with a one person company, who hires a second person and brags of 100% job growth. Fast job growth can be particularly meaningless when your overall unemployment rate is high, or the jobs are meaningfully piddling in pay. 

Romney, the only Republican remotely capable of capturing a broad swathe of the voting public, cannot reliably counter the record of Obama. He can't critique the health care plan, and actually, as features of that plan kick in, it will not likely be the albatross the pundits imagine. The foreign policy can't be knocked, what with arms treaties, the death of dictators, the support of democracy (however selectively), and the killing of terrorist enemies. 

Romney is the numbers guy, but if you get into a real numbers debate on the economy, you lose. Job growth and GDP and corporate profits moved positive under Obama. You can even make an argument that the 10.1% unemployment peak was reduced due to Obama's stimulus package. That rate was already high when Obama walked into the office. If it drops another tenth of a point or two between now and 2012, Obama might even be able to argue that unemployment has not increased on his watch.

Which is why the Republicans have relentlessly focused on the debt issue. They know all too well that Obama has been quite successful in a number of areas, moving legislation and transforming parts of society while remaining solid in foreign policy execution. What better way to stop your opponent than to hang on him a problem created over many years, and a problem that defies instantaneous resolution. They know that. It was a brilliant pivot by the Republican strategists to get the masses (via the Tea Party structure) to focus on that which cannot be easily fixed, and blame it all on Obama for its mere existence. 

Thus when you are using your rare budget dollars to shore up the economy, you can be hit from the right by the accusation that you are spending frivolously, destroying the country and its future. 

That is the sole message that might resonate, red herring that it is, but unfortunately the Republicans lack a symbiotic relationship between their best candidates and their most activist voters. And by best candidates we mean Huntsman and Romney. They have a mountain of mistrust to overcome, and even then, the residue of distrust will spill over to the wider voter. The Mormon superstructure is not your average church, and its reach is vast. 

However benign and vague the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints hopes to be, it nevertheless is even now working toward creating an environment conducive to a Romney win with its advertising campaign. (That campaign centers on a bunch of non-stereotypical Mormon types proclaiming that they are exactly like you and I, but Mormon, which rather defies any distinctions of Mormon faith, and especially if "you and I" happen to be fornicators, killers, or coffee drinkers). 

No, in the end this campaign will be a lot easier in 2012 than it appears today. The economy is already sending numerous signals of improvement and the numbers will be better heading into 2012. Barring some entirely normal Republican with an exceedingly well thought out economic plan, Obama will have no trouble sparring against Romney or the many lesser aspirants out there. 

Obama Calls Iraq Bluff, Republicans Want More Groveling

"Rock on left, Hard Place on Right"

The title of this article in the Miami Herald, "As U.S.-Iraqi troop talks faltered, Obama didn't pick up the phone" is one of those tricky bits of wording that means a bit more than it says. It haphazardly alludes back to the time when Hillary Clinton was running against Obama in the Democratic primary. Way back then (we were so much older then, we are younger than that now) she suggested that Obama might have trouble picking up the phone at 3 A.M. when something major was happening... you know, like whether to send special forces to take out a Bin Laden, or deciding whether to back a haphazard revolution in places like Libya, or even merely hunting down killers in Central Africa. The wording of the piece is an implication and an allusion wrapped up together in one myopic piece of reporting.

It goes on to point out the general distance that Obama and Vice President Biden kept from the negotiating table for the past year.

A listing of direct conversations provided by the embassy - drawn, the embassy said, from the White House website - indicates that Obama had no direct contact with Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki between Feb. 13, when he telephoned the prime minister, until Friday, when he called al-Maliki to tell him U.S. troops would be withdrawn by Dec. 31. 

(Miami Herald)

Let's think this through. Obama was against the war from the start. He ran for president saying he would bring troops home. Bush did the work for him by agreeing to a deadline this year, but failed to work out immunity for any remaining forces. If you are Obama, do you expend political capital, during domestic and worldwide economic disaster, to argue with Iraqi politicians that they should 1) let troops stay and 2) give them immunity, and for a war you never believed should have been launched? Do you really dance that ridiculous dance?

That's the dance Republicans wanted Obama to engage in. To push to keep troops on the ground, working around the Iraqi parliament (which Obama preferred a deal with) to form an agreement with the arguably shady Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki . What possible good comes out of that effort?

And related, what possible point comes out of the Herald's title, with its allusions to dithering and uncertainty. Obama has managed to have the most solid foreign policy of any recent leader. While washing his hands of the war he didn't want and allowing the troops to come home and rest, he has actively engaged other areas of trouble. He killed the man who justified our attack on Afghanistan, and arguably, we can leave that situation as well, revenge exacted. He took it on the chin for not leading the Libya effort, well aware that the United States is big enough, and strong enough, to lead in multiple ways. Different tact, better result: short war, no American loss of life, greater respect for American restraint and diplomacy, less cash out the door, and a Middle East that is closer to democracy if they choose to accept the gift.

Obama is a smart man, and the last thing he wants to do it prolong a policy he feels was inappropriate.

We here always supported the invasion of Iraq, not for WMD, but for the type of potential democracy we now see spreading. The revolutions in Tunisia, Egypt and Libya somehow simultaneously reaffirm the invasion of Iraq, and renounce it, since sourcing the variables that lead people to courage is near impossible. Who gets credit for the emerging democracies? It's not clear.

What is clear is that Obama does not want to expend effort on something he does not believe in, and further something he was elected to end. If you had wanted troops in Iraq indefinitely, you would have voted for the guy who wanted troops in Iraq indefinitely.

For Conservatives, Cain More Able Than Romney

It's a pretty much a forgone conclusion that we here will be voting for Obama come November 2012. He has done far too much, and with dignity, to let his efforts go for naught. Whether it's supporting Bush's saving of the American banking system, trying to find a reasonable approach to improving health care coverage, to beginning the process of bringing troops home from Iraq while handling international terrorists, the man has been firing on all cylinders. His detractors detract, because either they (the right) are caught believing or making lies about the man due to various versions of hate or they (the left) were never, and are not, clear on who he is.  He is his own man.

If Romney becomes the Republican candidate, and if he runs a clean campaign, we will not be overwhelmed in grief if he wins. He is capable. But we suspect he has his own burdens to overcome. Those most interested in Christianity are not easily swayed that Mormonism, with its additions, secrets, and collectivism, is that exact same thing that Christ laid out. Mormonism spirals in many directions, and no amount of commercials showing regular folks doing good will convince Christian conservatives that Joseph Smith didn't put a little something odd of himself into the theology. The unusual set of new Mormon commercials running now make people wonder about the scope and interconnected dealings between the Church of Latter Day Saints and those it supports. It's not a coincidence that the commercials are on now, laying the thought paths in 2011, so that they will be settled thought patterns later in 2012.

Ultimately Romney has to win the votes and we suspect it will be a tough battle, with activists of a conservative stripe leading the way. That's why someone like Herman Cain is having such a strong appeal at the moment. We  don't know if he can address all the issues that need to be addressed; Romney can. But Cain's his laser-like focus on economics in a year when economics is everything may prove hard to beat.

We actually like Herman Cain. We like the bigness of his economic plan which is wrapped in a seemingly simple package. "9-9-9" he reminds us over and over, referring to the tax rates for individuals and corporations, along with a tax on spending. We also think it's workable with a few tweaks. It may not be progressive, and it might force more people onto the tax rolls who currently can deduct their way out of taxes: that might be a good thing. I know people who actually don't marry to suppress reported income, seek help from the state and from federal tax credits, and thus live fairly well between the wife's paycheck, the "husband's" paycheck, and the additional government support.

It would be an oddball election if we ended up with Obama against Cain. It would be the only election where one race or another could be said to be voting based solely on race. That might be a good outcome, but don't hold your breath. You can only stir things up and raise cain so much, before forces sit you down.

Steve Jobs, the Rich Life, and Fresh & Easy

I was riding home when I got a brief announcement of His death via National Public Radio. I was on my way to Fresh & Easy for sausages and cranberry orange scones. "An icon. A modern day Edison," said the voice over the radio.

My mind drifted back. Back a few days. He was born on May 19th, 1964 and now he was dead. I remember the television being on late nights, flicking through channels,  and landing on the smiling, animated face of Don Lapre.  America produces great businessmen and entrepreneurs, and Lapre will not go down in history as one of them. He was a scam artist, preying on people's hopes of making outsized amounts of money with little effort. But oh his enthusiasm as he urged people that the road to great riches could be had by placing tiny little advertisements in newspapers.

Jump back to today. The reverent voice on the radio announced that Steve Jobs was dead. He was a man of unique vision who managed to transform the way society entertains itself and communicates. By all accounts he was a difficult person, but brilliance is often like that, lest some scully of a soul come along and mess up your vision. He created Apple Computer and Pixar Studios, among other endeavors, but will be known for his creativity.

In this great country we often have multiple paths we can choose. We are all gifted in certain ways, and we can use our gifts, our powers, toward transformation or destruction. Don Lapre was a man of talent, in that he could pitch a product enthusiastically, even though the products were junk. According to Wikipedia, he bilked over 200,000 people out of some $50 million plus dollars. He had an ability to make people--likely desperate or gullible or hopeful folks--perk up in the middle of the night and think that they too could live the good life. He could make people believe, but trashed their faith.

Steven Jobs literally gave us the good life. I've never had an Apple product and avoid them in part because of the trendy factor and not wanting to join "the cult." But my android touch screen is a derivative of his genius. And despite my fickle posturing, his products have rolled across society transforming how we listen to music, learn, read, watch video, talk, and process data. He lead in so many areas, leaving his competitors to follow in haphazard, not quite Apple, fashion. We are blessed by his focused vision, and by those who worked with him to carry out, refine, enhance, and build those ideas into physical products.

Lapre was indicted this year, and arrested in a gym in Tempe with wounds from suicide attempts. When he died earlier this week on October 2nd, it was from a suicide in police custody.  Steve Jobs died today, three days after Dupre, from pancreatic cancer. Lapre took himself out in a cowardly desperate act, avoiding responsibility. Circumstances beyond his control took Steve Jobs out, and away. But he leaves us with the example and products of his unique vision, and every area of life is left with his handprint.

Oddly I am saddened by both deaths. Between the two men is the spectrum of American life and achievement. We all have daily choices we can make where we can ask ourselves about the quality of our pursuit of happiness, and whether that pursuit is inclusive of those around us. Are we in it just to transform our own personal situation and get the rich life quick, or, are we in it because we believe in a vision that can bring a rich life to everyone else.

Life is so short. So short. Then we fade. "What are you doing?" I thought to myself again, as that thought pops into my head whenever someone dies. "Well, I am coming home from work, driving down a street in Phoenix, headed to Fresh & Easy for sausages and some cranberry and orange scones, and maybe some Coke Zero, and I don't know that I've touched anyone at all."

Would that we all bless someone while we have the time. Thank you Steve Jobs, and may heaven and grace exist for all.

No Gold or Silver Bullets for Anyone's Gun

Rock, Fiat Paper, Scissors, Gold

It's September and the first day of fall just happened, at least here in Arizona, and I assume that our seasons work normally in relationship to the rest of the country, unlike our clocks which neither spring forward or fall back. Arizona is heat, then no heat, and unlike other places, Arizonan's move life outdoors right about now, doing their book sales and block parties and fairs when the rest of the country has begun shopping for scarves and mittens and breathing a chilled air filled with fragrance: wood burning, sweets, precipitation, roasted nuts, hot fowl drifting from homes and restaurants.

There is little good news anywhere. 30 year home loans can be got for 4%, or rather, the pricing has fallen (thanks Fed Chair Bernanke with your magic twists), but there is no market for the product. The Fed is still imagining it can do something, but with rates as low as they are, and with our do-nothing Congress, there is nothing that the Federal Reserve can do from a money manipulation standpoint that could help our economy.

I would argue that what we now need is a major bailout for homeowners. Not that I think they deserve it, but it's the housing drag that will sink us, with people worried about having a place to lay their heads each night. You will not spend an extra unnecessary dime if you are struggling just to hit your mortgage payment. That fear, that burden, has to be reduced. Otherwise, the whole country, the irresponsible and responsible alike, will get dragged knee deep into the quicksand.

There are no silver bullets anymore. Even the run-up in gold prices seems suspect, with gold ETF GLD falling about 20 points in two weeks, and hitting it's first Thursday to Friday period in a long time with a move that was statistically major. If you can't earn money via interest from your bank, or protect your stash via gold or silver, then what? Where is the safety zone? Swiss currency perhaps? And where will the actual wealthy park their cash in order to preserve it, all things looking shaky? Hard cheap assets like real estate perhaps? (And didn't billionaire hedge funder John Paulson shift into buy cheap real assets mode, only to get burned when we didn't bounce right back to our feet?)

I am starting to see more "safety zone" type questioning, and that's bad. We've seen the almost comical protests down around Wall Street in New York, largely by people who don't really know what Wall Street firms do day to day, and while this is not a true uprising, I can envision a point when people morph from recreational protests to more focused and angry displays of disaffection.

The Fed has no power, having done all it can. President Obama has little power, boxed in or flummoxed by his political opponents. Congress has no power, even this weekend failing to agree on short term spending agreements to keep the government rolling through November.

We are very nearly at a point where people HAVE to work together to fix things, or we will roll over into a period of extended stagnation. Not disaster, but like Japan's long period of asset deflation and malaise. Except, without the savings and general stoic sensibleness of the Japanese people.

Shamefully, our economy would be on the verge of chugging along if Republicans had not taken such a genial delight in sabotaging people's respect and trust in federal institutions. They preach that government cannot be trusted, that it is the beast, the great inhibitor of freedom. This, when a unified and aggressive government confidence is necessary.

Ineffectual Black People: Dick Cheney Edition

Dick Hardens Toward Condi

Dick Cheney, who we used to respect for his competent toughness, has been out pushing his new book In My Time, and trashing Colin Powell and Condozleeza Rice along the way. Among other roles, they served as the 65th and 66th Secretaries of State under George Bush. The were often the voices of moderation in the (Bush) administration, pushing for broader, non-military engagement in places like Iraq. That set them at odds from people like Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld who were relatively sure that all the correct answers to world difficulties were inside their own noggins. Today both Powell and Rice would be considered "RINO's", or Republican In Name Only, by the activists in Republican and conservative circles.

It is no surprise that they have come under attack at the precise moment when conservatives are attempting to lay blame for everything wrong at the feet of Obama. Republicans are scrambling for the control of the American mental narrative at a point in time where they don't have the power to force their own policy initiatives. The process is in part a retroactive one, where you calibrate history according to your own best light. Dick Cheney is doing this, with Powell and Rice being collateral damage.

Cheney has unkind words for both, as well as for President Obama, and we can only wonder what the defining thread between all three individuals is that makes each worthy of being undermined. In a Fox News interview he suggests that Obama's Secretary of State, the once hated-by-conservatives Hillary Clinton, would be able to work with Republicans and should consider a run in 2012.  But much of the attention has focused on his characterizations of Powell and Rice.

Meanwhile, Cheney defended his account of the Bush administration from his new memoir, "In My Time." Cheney criticized several Bush administration officials in his book, including former secretaries of state Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice -- both of whom have taken umbrage at Cheney's account.  

Cheney, responding specifically to Powell's recent comment that Cheney just fired "cheap shots" at his former colleagues, said he takes nothing back. 

(Fox)

In addition to seeing everyone on the right playing by the same script in using every moment and event to question Obama's worthiness and leadership, we also see a willingness to degrade black authority and independence across the political spectrum. That is, a Condi or Colin is worthy of respect to the extent they are useful, and to the extent they are not coming into conflict with the nearest true authority. The  minute any independence of thought is exercised, then the smack down begins. Which is why the most respected black authorities whose achievements are well defined happen to be pretty much dead.

Obama is getting the hard slam because there are are components of what he is doing that would in a short time reshape the political landscape. What you can't have is the benefits of health care reform kicking in  at the same time that more Hispanics come into political arena, and at the same time that the economy is finally ready to revive, and at the same time the wars and adventures have come to an end. Obama's success in policy will bear fruit, so expediency dictates that you chop the tree down now, lest the Democratic Party does the harvesting down the road.

Chaz Bono Changes the Nature of Dancing On TV

I went to school with Chaz Bono. That was in Manhattan, at LaGuardia High School of Music and the Arts across from Lincoln Center. Back then she was Chastity. She she was chubby and schlubby, and not too far from my own chubby and shlubby appearance. She was also very unhappy looking. My fellow students whispered about her those first few days in the class we shared, commenting on the contrast between Chastity and her mom. They seemed disappointed. People would point in her general direction saying, "There, there she is" and the other person would be confused, saying, "Where? Where?", expecting a younger version of Cher. When someone has a flamboyant mom like Cher, you imagine the offspring to be well on their way to matching that spark in their own way. She was quiet, and looked miserable, friendless even. (But I never talked to her, so who knows what was really going on. In high school I liked to imagine that everyone was as socially inept as I was).

Now Chastity has retrofitted herself to a male personae in the form of Chaz. She will appear on "Dancing with the Stars," dancing with a female, and people have taken sides. If you are not in favor, and highly supportive, then you are invariably some variation of bigot. That's the going line. Even if you have religious reasons, and you are religious by virtue of really believing that God is alive and watches these things we do, you are still expected to chuck all aside and come to the conclusion that she is a he, and a brave he at that.

Kiri Blackeley in Forbes casually scolds the critics, asking them why they are critiquing Chaz's alterations of a supposed God's inspired natural order, when so many others have made basic changes to themselves without an outcry. She writes:

The typical argument is framed like this one, which was posted on the show’s board: “I choose not to endorse ABC’s decision to have Chaz Bono dancing on the show. We will no longer be watching ABC. For Chaz Bono to change her sex is her saying that God made a mistake by creating her female and God does NOT make mistakes.” Fair enough. 

But this reasoning leaves me wondering where the furor was when Pamela Anderson was on the show last year. Anderson, for instance, was not born blonde, nor was she born with size 38 double D breasts. The same could be said for former cast members and Playboy mansion habitués Holly Madison and Kendra Wilkinson.  

Jennifer Grey, who won the 2010 season, was by her own admission not born with the nose you see on her face. I do not recall any ruckus about her. In fact, she was an audience favorite.

(Forbes)

This is probably not the most convincing critique of the critics. Changing your body even in small ways is often frowned upon in Christian circles, the mass sheepish herd of people--religious or otherwise-getting tattoos notwithstanding. When Jesus talks of the body as a temple or house of God, we hardly imagine that it begins with knocking down the house, ripping up the moorings, and installing some marble counter tops and stainless steel appliances. The premise of Jesus, and Christianity, is not necessarily changing the physical, or governments, but changing hearts.

Then too, transgendering yourself goes way beyond merely getting some casual physical surgery, which is why doctors and psychologists prep you for your many transitions. Even after it's done, and you have your new better self, there is no assurance that you will function or feel better. It's an assumption backed by not a shred of deep, long term scientific study.

Kiri manages to frame the entire issue in the most idiotic manner, ignoring any number of important issues in an effort to be supportive. And while some liberals actively applaud these social changes, supporting them in film and the media, the other side actively dumps their energy and effort into the political process. The mechanics of how this works is that you end up with everything your liberal heart desires on the telly, while ruled from Washington by people much farther to the right of that little heart.

That's how you end up with the Palins and the Bachmanns garnering more support than reasonable people like Jon Huntsman.

The higher that the monkey can climb

The more he shows his tail

Call no man happy 'til he dies

There's no milk at the bottom of the pail

God builds a church

The devil builds a chapel

Like the thistles that are growing

'round the thrunk of a tree

All the good in the world

You can put inside a thimble

And still have room for you and me

If there's one thing you can say

About Mankind

There's nothing kind about man

You can drive out nature with a pitch fork

But it always comes roaring back again

(Tom Waits)

Iraqis Warn Libyans Saying, "Don't Do What We Had Imposed On Us"

It's through a tangled web of non-linear thought that Republicans and their candidates are able to to question the productivity and ability of the Obama administration. The big question during the campaign many moons back was "Who do you want picking up the phone at 3 A.M.?" Since then we have seen Obama implicated in any number of things having nothing to do with the answer to that question. Foreign policy has been eclipsed by our little economic hurricane, and what is out of sight is best left that way as far as Republicans are concerned, and especially when the reality defies your prophecy of events.

 The faint praise for our victory in Libya is thus expected. The approach there was the complete opposite of what was undertaken under Bush with our invasion of Iraq. In Bush's Gulf War we mustered every ounce of our strength (except the diplomatic State Department cerebral portion), and thought to remake Iraq in our image. I don't fault Bush that goal or doubt that Iraq's disregard of U.N. resolutions resulting from our first war could be ignored. Nevertheless the undertaking was badly staged and managed, and we were not welcomed in the manner we expected. It was a long-term mess, with a lot of unnecessary chaos and dying.

 With Libya, Obama took the prudent approach. He let our allies be allies, loaning our expertise in the background, but not needing to take the credit for "the win". That's probably a good thing. In this complicated world, there is no such thing as a "win", or an easy win. Often what looks like an obvious win--tanks rolling into the capital--turns out to be more complicated as time goes on.

 The New York Times includes a piece today where Iraqi citizens are interviewed and asked to give advice to their Libyan neighbors. What is notable is that much of the advice runs opposite what was actually done in Iraq, including this major, major gem: "And do not ostracize members of the former regime, as happened in Iraq under the so-called de-Baathification policy."

 While conservatives here lean on Iraq as an example of what Bush did right (and we do believe he gets credit for the act but criticism for the method), it is interesting to contrast that full blown war with what Obama accomplished. The result of Obama's Libyan policy--the creation of a moment in time where people can choose to be free--was accomplished without putting the full faith and credit of the United States on the line.

 Obama is smart enough to realize that a revolution does not necessarily bring democracy. It brings a moment where democracy can be born. Where Bush tried to guarantee an outcome and impose a result, it seems Obama is much more inclined to let the Libyans find their own way and learn as they go. And without the ongoing loss of American lives as they muddle through. They will muddle. We are not obligated to unmuddle them, since we didn't light the fire.

 The handling of the Libyan Revolution defies the story-line that both Republicans and Hillary Clinton presented about Obama. They projected that he would be weak, unaccomplished, naive, and not quite ready to handle situations. And yet, internationally, he is handling it. We managed to kill Osama. We managed to flip a government away from a dictator. We've killed any number of Al Queda operatives, while remaining aware that foreign commitments must end soon. We've NOT created new points of damage or friction. Mostly, we've not been hit with the type of terrorism that happened to us under Bush. Indeed it's ironic that Bush almost gets absolved for responsibility for the September 11th situation, as though it didn't happen on his watch. But nevermind all of this.

The political class is focused on the domestic problems, which is why all the candidates are pontificating over the economy and jobs, without offering confidence that they have the answers to shock a collapsed economy back to responsiveness.

Pawlenty Out, Perry In, Romney Likely OK With That

Romney Counts Remaining Candidates

Obama can breath a bit easier today, given the recent news of former Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty dropping out of the race.  Pawlenty failed to reach his own target level of support during the shenanigustic Iowa straw poll this weekend, and the announcement by Texas Governor Rick Perry to enter the race probably did not help the calculus.

This is not good news for Republicans, generally, while it works for Romney specifically. While Pawlenty had no real shot at the presidency given his decided lack of flair, he still represented a sensible wing of the Republican Party, and that sensible group has dropped from three to two, leaving Romney and Huntsman.

This weekend the sensible (and dull) was replaced by the more flamboyant Governor Perry. Perry is not your middle of the road Republican; he duplicates a lot of the qualities that can be found in Michelle Bachmann, but with a touch more experience in getting things done. We imagine that Romney is quite okay with candidates to his right, and the more extreme the better, so long as they don't drift to the middle. You don't want guys like Pawlenty around siphoning off that voter who is unhappy with Obama but still wants a reasonable, mainstream candidate.

To the extent that any candidate is hard core Christian on social issues, and without a substantive record of achievement (Palin, Bachmann), we see a palpable advantage for people like Obama or Romney in running against them.

Volatility

Don't let the volatility in the market spoil your game!

U.S. Gets Bad Report Card From Teacher: AAA to AA+, Spankings to Follow

S&P notices US debt yesterday for 1st time

It looks like fiscal and monetary policy are dead, almost worldwide, but especially here in the U.S. now that the rating agency S&P has stepped in to wipe away the Triple-A credit rating of the Federal government. This would be the same Standard and Poors that missed a pre-2008 opportunity  to accurately assess the risk of numerous asset classes, putting a positive imprimatur on some very shaky financial products and thus playing a massive part in the world's 2008 financial meltdown.

I guess better late than never when it comes to doing your homework. This downgrade comes on Obama's watch and his enemies will use it to baste him like a turkey in dubious sauces. We can see more clearly that this would in fact be primarily or mostly Obama's fault if, A) the entire world was not now struggling with the same issues (Hello Italy, Greece and Spain) and B) so much of the economic policy limitations of today were not the direct product of slutticatory policy during times predating Obama.

We fully expect people to draw the wrong conclusions from all of this. Or, we expect that the people with the power to make things worse to in fact draw the wrong conclusions and... make things worse. It's like those people who hate Obama's bailing out the banks, failing to realize that it was Bush's TARP policy and further, that financial firms like Bank of America are still struggling with residue from the mortgage crisis (lending credence to the idea that bailing out the banks was necessary despite the seeming populist position that killing your bankers is the first step toward greater capitalism and financial solidity).  There are a lot of folks who cannot properly locate the problem or define the solution.

Monday should be a blizzard of a day, with some people making a ton of money going forward, and the majority of average persons (with money managed in pension funds and retirement plans) taking a huge hammering that will probably continue for several months. It's not just us. Europe has to get its junk together before there is enough room for people to relax and breath and imagine that things can improve.

Until then, we can thank S&P for picking exactly the wrong moment to get all hyper about due diligence and accurate debt ratings.

Dubious Hedge Fund Closing Theories with CNBC's John Carney

Oy vey. A piece by CNBC Senior Editor John Carney in The Christian Science Monitor manages to make the absurd argument that regulation is forcing hedge funds to operate in a manner that increases systemic risk. The suggestion is that there is a mad dash to dump outside investors to avoid regulatory oversight by the SEC.

Does bad journalism rife with political propaganda never cease?

Based on a sample of three large hedge funds closing to outside investors (non family), Carney manufactures a trend and  leaps to conclusions that are not justified by fact.

Years of concern about giant pools of investment capital that were said to be under-regulated and under-taxed concluded in Dodd-Frank’s hedge fund regulation requirements and gave rise to new plans to end capital gains treatment for the profits of hedge fund managers.

But instead of kneeling down before the regulators and the tax collectors, some of the largest hedge funds are avoiding the regulation by shutting themselves off to outside investors

First, we had Stanley Druckenmiller who shuttered his $12 billion Duquesne Capital Management hedge fund just a month after the passage of Dodd-Frank. Druckenmiller cited his inability to meet his own performance expectations and the personal toll of working as a fund manager, rather than Dodd-Frank. But between 30 percent and 40 percent of the funds assets belonged to Druckenmiller or his associates, and he continues to manage that money. The fund didn’t shut down so much as go private—and escape the grasp of regulators.

(Christian Science Monitor)

In the case of all three of the funds--run by an 80 plus year old Soros, an aging Carl Ichan and a retiring Drukenmiller--he clearly ignores the stated reasons given to their investor,s in order to go with a manufactured reason off the top of his ideological head.

The regulation in question requires that hedge funds with assets over $100 million register with the SEC, unless it's personal money being managed. In a time when the number of new hedge funds is still proliferating, and where nearly every major fund depends on money from outside investors save for a few highly profitable and long running funds, it's ridiculous to assert that legislation is having any discernible impact at all. (We won't even count the thousands of funds that voluntarily already register).

But what we are seeing frequently in the business press is journalists with an opinion or ideology constructing thought pieces to fit with their.

Carney goes on to suggest that this is a method of closing to outside money is in response to a theoretical possibility that Obama might end the carried interest exemption, where a manager's portion of capital gains from the funds of others is taxed at capital gains rate instead of as income. Under this logic, a manager would give up all the income from management fees and capital gains on vast portions of money in the billions, in order to avoid paying slightly more taxes.

It's the argument here from people who say,"Well if my income doubled I would have all those extra taxes to pay and that would be awful." Uhm, yea, but bottom dollar, more money in your pocket right? Right?

Nobody is going to shut down a hedge fund or turn away investors to avoid regulation or paying more in taxes.

Correlation, Causation, Confusion: Obama's Bane

Correlations. Miscorrelations. The central problem that the Obama administration has had to deal with is the average person's inability to line up events in proper order and correctly deal with correlation and causation.

The glaring example of this is the general assumption by the President's least informed (or most stubborn) critics that our current economic crisis has been caused by Obama's policies. He is frequently taunted as the destroyer of the American economic system; his motives are alternately accidental because he is an empty suited, affirmative action moron, or deliberate because he is diabolically evil, and because, well, he is a socialist. (His oppositional stance to conservative economic theory of tax reduction alone correlating, naturally, with a support for socialism). We won't comment on who really is suffering from a type of oppositional defiant disorder (you publicans in the House know who you are).

Even something so simple as an unemployment number is subject to confusion. George Bush began with unemployment at 4.2%, and in his last year in office (2008), we saw that rate jump from 5% to 7.3%.  2008 was a calamitous year and conservatives go through all sorts of contortions to absolve themselves of any responsibility for those problems. Where convenient, they will give credit to their own president, and where inconvenient, they will point out that, "well, during this period to that period," like 2006-2008, their man was hampered by Democrat majorities in the Congress. This allows all dogs to go to heaven, except Democratic ones, who carry all the blame, all the time, no matter who controls the presidency.

In any case, and on Bush's watch, unemployment went from 4.2% to 7.3%, a 3.1 point rise. Contrast this with rates under Obama. In January of 2009, unemployment stood at 7.8%, rose on momentum (that began in the previous year) to a peak of 10.1% in October 2009, only to drift downward to settle at 9.2% as of now. The Obama increase is 1.4 points and even that number is arguable, since his first six months or so would not likely reflect the results of any of his economic actions.

Do people realize this? Of course not. They correlate the rise in unemployment solely with the rise of Obama, and mostly because it's what they want to believe. If they chose to really reflect on the numbers, or when events occurred and how, they might also have to reflect on why they have such a hostility to Obama. But because high unemployment correlates (in concurrency fashion) with Obama as president, they are happy to run with this notion, despite the fact that the cause of the high unemployment was obviously triggered by events much earlier; the huge spike in unemployment rates in 2008 indicate that obvious point.

Nor do people give causal credit for actions that Obama actively took, as in stimulus. That $787 billion package was passed by Congress in 2009, and signed by Obama on February 17th of that year. Fully $288 billion of that package went to tax relief (see Wikipedia). Another $330 billion or so went toward education, aid to the states and unemployed, to Medicaid and veterans.

Despite the claims that the stimulus did not work, we eventually saw a reverse in the unemployment rate. In most cases the average anti-Obama enthusiast is not connecting the dots between stimulus and decreases in unemployment, because they are too busy trying to set up false correlations between Obama and other dubious factoids. (Those would include, "Obama is weak on terror" though we don't hear that one so often now, Osama being dead and Obama clearly no dove).

The way it works now, anything bad correlates with Obama, and regardless of the true cause which might have happened years earlier. Causation is crushed and yanked out of a historical time frame. Which is also how people who didn't care when the national debt hit $10 trillion can suddenly and violently care when it hits $14 trillion (and with cause).

We get another good look at this correlation and causation confusion in this Talking Points Memo piece that tracks the Romney campaign. He is out on the stump, visiting places that reflect our stumbling economy. He is trying to make a connection, a correlation, between failing businesses and Obama policy. Never you mind the details of why a given business might have failed. Don't pay any attention to the fact that a given business might have been struggling pre-Obama, thus severing any comparative causal relationships.

Romney does not have to be careful on this because the people he is speaking to don't really care about the details or any truth that conflicts with their own innate feelings about truth.

The latest example is in California, where the presidential candidate held a press conference in North Hollywood at Valley Plaza, an empty shopping center where multiple attempts to reverse its fortunes have failed to get off the ground. Romney admitted its problems predated Obama, but nonetheless blamed him for making the recession "worse" and thus helping squash development plans at the site.

(TPM)

Just link it all together across the space time continuum, call it bad, blame Obama, repeat.

Rupert Murdoch: Humbled or Humiliated or Carefully Cunning

Other news:

Where is the sacrificial lamb?

• Conservatives worst fears: Obama supports gang warfare.
• When faced with being criminal or incompetent, billionaire Murdoch chooses incompetence.
• There is no anonymity when it comes to the FBI, who are hitting corporate evildoers hard, or as this person who commented on the LA Times story states:

mr. gittesat 10:46 PM July 19, 2011

the Big Banksters nearly bring down the entire global economy; get Congress to shakedown the American people for TRILLIONS in bailouts, and yet we have the FBI rounding up anti-corporate cyber geeks that cost...what was it?....$5000 of damage to A-frickin' T&T??? "Law enforcement agencies tend to target -hackers- based on the amount of FINANCIAL HAVOC WREAKED or their POTENTIAL RISK TO NATIONAL SECURITY" Sweet mother of god this HAS to be an Onion story.....

• Hot summer, toddlers in rebellion, wrecking house.
• Question: If you state, "This is the most humble day of my life," does that actually reflect humility, or is it like saying, "I am so humble" and by way of being the opposite of that. Yea. 

Finn Talks Super 8 and Tree of Life

I finally got around to seeing Super 8, which was well worth the $5 I spent to see it, and in part because I also saw Horrible Bosses on the same budget; the erratic quality of both films combined to create a sum greater than my expenditure, if we leave out the cost of popcorn and beverage. (I like to pretend that snacks are off budget, and fungible, and that the snacks eaten at the movies would have been eaten elsewhere in another form anyway, and thus, no net increase in costs).

My main thoughts center around Super 8, a predictably retro alien movie, but let me just drop a pet peeve before continuing.

Horrible Bosses had a good premise, but was ultimately ruined by the outlandishness of the script, which called for multiple attempted murders, thus leaving a great cast to wallow in absurdities.  And when not also wallowing in a certain amount of deviance. Like Cedar Rapids, which I caught via Amazon stream, Horrible Bosses attempted to amuse us with certain bizarre sexual acts, and I've grown really tired of Hollywood writers who think that shock value can substitute for true humor. How many times do we have to see the otherwise straight laced main characters accidentally get snozzed with coke, provoking frenzy and mayhem? Lacking the courage to make a character an actual drug enthusiast, with all the life cratering sludge that would follow, we are left with the accidental dope usage and asked to laugh at the hi-jinks. It's tired and boring. But I digress in the wrong direction.

Super 8 was entertaining but left me feeling like I had seen it all before. Which, I probably have. It seemed to borrow from every alien movie of the past, giving us an alien who wants to eat us, but only some of us, and only as a snack while rebuilding his aircraft and figuring a way back home.  Set back in the 1980's, we get a bunch of kids who are into filmmaking, though lacking the conveniences of our current era where you can turn out a masterpiece that nobody wants to see on YouTube via your Android or Apple.

The story itself is pretty toss-able. Alien arrives, government somehow captures and captivates (literally) super strong and highly advanced alien, alien frees itself via scripted unlikelihood, alien gets chased and kills a few unworthies, kids run around without parents, parents run around somewhat oblivious as to where kids are until scripted moment of reflection, kids encounter alien, two species communicate via meaningful eye contact, alien creates spaceship out of crap and scriptural magic, spaceship flies off, humans look up in awe, credits.

But it was a captivating film, meaning, I didn't start feeling sleepy, or sit thinking, "Uhm, okay" like I did through certain parts of another film I saw recently. The Tree of Life was playing at my local arsty theater in Scottsdale and darned if I was not going to see it on opening day. While it carried big name stars, like Brad Pitt and a muted Sean Penn, I was more interested in whatever pretensions the director was trying to pull off. For that first half hour I sat watching an almost silent film that was infused with flecks of prehistoric imagery: volcanoes, flashes, stuff rushing around, dinosaurs, the stars of the film not actually saying anything we could hear.

I stared at the screen and stayed awake through that opening onslaught because I knew it was supposed to be some deep foundation upon which the rest of the film would build, and if you are asleep, how deep and intellectual can you appear to your fellow moviegoers? It's just not proper to fall asleep during moments like this, so you put on your introspective face and just stare at the screen like you are taking it all in and getting every nuance. (Sometimes you bring your hand up to your chin and finger your beard so that people down the row will think you are totally understanding some hidden modality they are missing). Thankfully my patience was rewarded with a heartwarming and carefully scripted and acted film that tracked the life of a family, and the relationship of a son with his father.

Which brings me back to J. J. Abram's Super 8. (Thought I got off point, didn't you?)  Super 8 is less a film about aliens than it is a study of kids and it is their interaction with each other that carries us forward and keeps it interesting.  That works out well enough, but the kids we are given strike that deja vu spot in the brain where you imagine that you have seen them before, maybe in Goonies or E.T. or some other Hollywood kid concoction from years gone by. That is, each kid is a type. We have a fat kid, we have a timid kid, we have the primary kid (as usual missing a parent) who gets the girl, we have the blond girl, we have the crazy kid who likes explosives. Each is a stereotype made to fit together in a motley crew upon which the director can hang plot points.

Heck, without the blond female, with lovingly long hair, are you really gonna run off after a creature from another planet who you have just seen kill and eat people? Of course not. In the Hollywood way of lensing the world, only a blond girl in trouble is gonna motivate you to do stupid stuff like confront aliens, or encourage your mousy explosives loving friend to create a decoy to "distract" the alien. (Apparently this was pre-bros before ho's).

While the acting was sufficient, and the faces relatively new and authentic, you still got the feeling that this was a Hollywood construct. There were moments of overacting, or moments of predictability that were glaring. They didn't seem so much to be real kids, as real kids acting in a movie, and with all that implies.  You imagined some stage mother saying, "You need to be better than the fat kid in Stand By Me".

Which is also why I loved The Tree of Life, and offer it as contrast. You will sleep or curse through whole elements of the film because director Terrence Malick sometimes assumes that visuals in themselves convey deep meaning. Often they don't, and sticking such visuals into a family drama is a risky endeavor. Not that it can't be done, it's just that he does not do it exceedingly well. If God created the world in six days, certainly Malick could have created his more philosophical imagery in mere minutes of time, instead of long moments that caused extra popcorn indulgence.

That said, Malick nails it with his choice of child actors and their direction. There are entire scenes between brothers, between father and son(s), between friends, that thoroughly pull you in and make you feel like you are watching real lives and real relatives. The child actors don't seem to be acting, or overacting, or even aware of what they are doing. They don't pop out of the context of the script in words, actions, visuals or deed. Even the way they walk strikes authentic.

The Tree of Life has probably some of the best acting by young people I've seen on screen. There is one scene where the brothers and their friends are walking through the neighborhood, drifting aimlessly, pausing here and there to poke at this, look at that, and culminating in the breaking of a window. It's entirely authentic and reminds me of my own wanderings with friends, no destination in sight, nothing to do, nothing that had to be done, just drifting, walking, seeing what might turn up around the next corner.

That's what you want in a movie, the unexpected around the corner.

Hmmm

Murdoch, the Old Fox, Gets Hounded

Gotta wonder if Rupert Murdoch's journalistic practices in the United Kingdom extend to the United States. I've not been hearing a lot of Fox employees reflecting on the ethics of their supreme leader, consciences whistling past the graveyard of mayhem he Old Rup has created in Britain.

The United States has far too many pressing issues, and is far too important a country, and too special a place, for the likes of people who would seek to manipulate the public and foster malice and ill will. No media outlet has gone quite as far to create a misguided patriotism that masks darker, un-American sentiments. In light of the controversies in the U.K., where employees of the Fox have shown a complete disrespect for honest dealing and privacy, we can only wonder how low people are willing to go, and whether those faulty choices extend far and wide.

The fallout threatened to spread to the United States, homebase of Murdoch's News Corp media empire which owns a clutch of prominent U.S. media properties including The Wall Street Journal, the New York Post and Fox Broadcasting. 

U.S. Senator John Rockefeller, chairman of the committee on commerce, science and transportation, called for an investigation to determine if News Corp had broken any U.S. laws.

Rockefeller said he was concerned that the phone hacking acknowledged in London by News Corp "may have extended to 9/11 victims or other Americans," in which case he said "the consequences will be
severe."

(Reuters)

None of this is entirely a surprise. British papers have long had a freewheeling nature, and Rupert's properties here in the States have shown an ability to be quite crass and unreliable themselves. One thinks of Fox News, which started out with a noble idea--that of being fair and balanced and offering a conservative perspective on issues that the other press outlets often pretended didn't exist. But Fox took the ball and ran, eventually deciding to be a dishonest political player rather than an honest broker of news and multiple perspectives.

Let us hope that this is the day the old fox has met his hound, and receives his comeuppance.

Myspacing the United States Economy, Failing to Google the Pluses

Megan at the Atlantic worries about the long term unemployed, and the Atlantic seems to be pushing this theme in an additional long thought piece that spans four pages and incorporates a number of academic studies about the effects of joblessness on men, families, and communities. Here Megan wonders what to do with these people.

That is what these numbers mean: millions of people, staring into the abyss of an empty future.  We don't know how to re-employ them.  The last time this happened, in the Great Depression, World War II eventually came along and soaked up everyone in the labor force who could breathe and carry a toolbag. I hope to God we're not going to do that again, so what are we going to do with all these people?

(The Atlantic.com)

Well yes, we will see many long term unemployed people, especially in sectors like construction that were bubble-ized. We will also see it in education and a few other sectors getting hit for shortsighted or ideological reasons.  If we had a housing bubble from roughly 2006 or so forward, anything approaching those levels, whether in housing employment, general employment or prices, should be seen as abnormal. And until the banking industry fully swallows its losses, we also shouldn't expect to see much new hiring on the part of businesses or any new employment innovation. Basically the economy is like a body that overindulged and has regurgitated the excess onto the floor. Cleaning that up will take a while.

But, in the same way that people hyperventilated over Wall Street in 2007 and 2008, and imagined the industry forever chastened and changed, we should not overstate the problem here when it comes to unemployment and not imagine that something, some sector, will arise to somewhat normalize (not idealize) the work situation.  That is, if we let it. There has to be a fundamental "looking forward" where we attempt to foster and support new industries, rather than trying to recreate the past and return to some unsustainable work structure. We saw this twice, both in the dot.com boom, and recently in the housing boom, where the essential drivers of job growth were somewhat chimerical. We suffered for it, later and now.

Don Peck in the longer Atlantic piece wonders if this down period will make us all humbler, kinder, and move us away from our lusts for riches and large homes.

Journalists in particular always make the same mistakes over and over, and assume that what is here today is perpetually normative. It's what we can call Myspacing the economy, where the social network we see today is the one we assume will always be here.

The right stance is one of realistic optimism, and where we look outward and start adopting some of the policies that are working for some of our competitors, whether in Germany or China or elsewhere.

Obama Urged to Use Superpowers to Fight Economic Saboteurs

A few voices on the left are urging Obama to use his constitutional superpowers to invoke the 14th Amendment, thus affirming his right to direct the Treasury to continue paying American debts. We highly doubt he will go this far, nor do we doubt that his critics won't use such an act as opportunity to tag him as whatever evil villain (like Lucifer) happens to be on their minds that day.

So says the Washington Post:

In theory, this is unthinkable, and it will be remedied by reasonable political parties making reasonable concessions across the negotiating table. But Republicans have been negotiating in bad faith, unwilling to compromise even an inch on their extremist and absolutist positions.Some are no longer willing to come to the table at all.

With that backdrop, President Obama may find that there is only one course left to avoid a global economic calamity: Invoke Section 4 of the 14th Amendment, which says that “the validity of the public debt of the United States … shall not be questioned.” This constitutional option is one that the president alone may exercise.

If the Aug. 2 deadline arrives and no deal has been made, Obama could use a plain reading of that text to conclude — statutory debt ceiling or not — that he is constitutionally required to order the Treasury to continue paying America’s bills. In that sense, this is not just a constitutional option, it is a constitutional obligation, one even the Tea Party will have trouble denying.

Obama going that route seems a wee bit aspirational, since he also seems inclined to do everything "by the book" no matter what the opposition tosses his way.