POP & POLITICS

Revenge of the writer's guild

You cannot miss the hype over Episode II of the Star Wars series, Revenge of the Sith.  One of the first stories to surface addressed the possible political overtones of the movie.  I couldn't believe it was possible.  A conversation I had with two friends the night before the movie went something like this; I thought that there was no possible way that George Lucas would inject temporal politics into a movie that will be watched for decades to come.  Besides, Lucas came up with the idea for this movie in the 1970's.  My friend pointed out that the political preaching would come in the form of nuance, details filled in over the past few years.  I regret that my friend was right. 

The political rhetoric is both unmistakable and contained in individual lines from the movie.  These are direct quotes from the movie, and may vary only slightly depending on my recollection. 

Annakin: "If you're not with me, then you are my enemy."
Obi Wan: "Jedi do not believe in absolutes."

This exchange was custom made for the movie; the Jedi have a long, non-negotiable code that regulates their belief and conduct.  Remember George Bush in the aftermath of 9/11?  "If you're not with us, then you're against us." Apparently that's wrong.  Do we need more gray and less clarity in the war on international terrorism? 

Padme: "So this is the sound of liberty dying?  To thunderous applause." I'd give this one the benefit of the doubt in another context.  In this context, Lucas is telling us we're a bunch of rubes who are smiling as our liberty wanes. 

Palpatine: "The attack has left me scarred, but my resolve is firm."
This is vintage George Bush language.  He often refers to the events of 9/11 as "attacks," the effects of which left the country "scarred," but always maintains that his "resolve is firm."

Forget that the evil capitalist trade federation is led by two aliens named "Nute Gunray" and "Lott." The movie's political overtones take away from an otherwise excellent movie (easily the best of the newer three, perhaps as good as Return of the Jedi).  I read enough about modern day politics; I don't need to get it a long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away. 

American dreaming

I really like this story. 

Charles Fredes-Williams  is putting his life in order.

Over the years, the 40-year-old former janitor manicured hedges at Valley golf courses, sorted mail at a state office and repaired aging refrigerators from the back of a recreational vehicle.

He also swept and polished floors as a custodian until 2003 at Phoenix Elementary's Garfield School, a school he attended as a child.

Through a Phoenix Elementary District program, he started school at Phoenix College in 1997, keeping the Garfield campus clean by day and attending classes at night.

I have no doubt that he'll be an excellent teacher. 

The changing Electoral College

Ron Brownstein of the Los Angeles Times discusses a study on demographic trends.  Bad news for Democrats. 

...the tilt toward the Sunbelt continuing decade by decade. By 2030, he forecasts, the Democratic strongholds of New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Massachusetts and Michigan would lose a combined 17 electoral college votes. Over that same period, Florida (up nine, to 36) and Texas (up eight, to 42) could gain that many votes alone. Arizona (up five, to 15), which has voted Democratic for president once since 1952, would be the other big winner.

The only Democratic bastion likely to increase in strength is California, which Frey projects would gain one electoral college vote (to 56) after 2010, and another after 2030.

Predicting party affiliation

Both parties are the parties of the rich, the poor, and the middle class.  Per the Washington Post:

Pew divided the electorate into nine groups. Three are Republican-leaning: Enterprisers, Social Conservatives and Pro-Government Conservatives -- the one GOP group with significant numbers of lower-income people. Three are Democratic-leaning: Liberals, Disadvantaged Democrats and Conservative Democrats. Two are neither clearly Republican nor clearly Democrat: Upbeats and Disaffecteds. Finally there are the Bystanders, so named because they play little active role in politics.

The Pew study found that, in terms of personal income, the Republican Enterprisers and the Democratic Liberals look almost identical. About four in 10 in each group said they have household incomes of $75,000 or more. The same held for one of the groups in the middle, the Upbeats. Enterprisers are the most likely to own or trade stocks (53 percent), followed by the Upbeats (42 percent), Liberals (38 percent) and Social Conservatives (35 percent).

Looked at from the other end of the income scale, nearly half of Pro-Government Conservatives have incomes of $30,000 or below, about the same as the Disadvantaged Democrats.

Both parties are the parties of the well educated and the dropouts: 

Enterprisers and Liberals look very much alike: 49 percent of Liberals and 46 percent of Enterprisers are college graduates.

At the other end, 13 percent of Disadvantaged Democrats graduated from college, while in the Republican coalition, 15 percent of Pro-Government Conservatives graduated from college. In the cluster of groups that form the middle of the electorate, 11 percent of Disaffecteds finished college, while 37 percent of Upbeats are college graduates.

Both parties, however, are not the parties of the religious:

...almost half of Enterprisers attend religious services at least weekly, while just a fifth of Liberals go to religious services that often. A fifth of Liberals are classified in the Pew study as secular -- defined as atheists, agnostics or those who say they have no religious affiliation -- compared with about one in 20 of the Enterprisers.

The chasm also widened around issues of optimism (financially strapped Republicans believed that they would make it someday), and the use of the military in the War on Terror.  Could we be looking at cliffhanger national elections well into the future? 

Where to hide the body?

A perfect murder, besides the confession part. 

We're sorry

Newsweek reported that American interrogators at Guantanamo Bay desecrated the Quran.  Needless to say, Muslims worldwide were a little bit perturbed.  How would America react if POWs in Muslim countries were forced to watch a Bible burning? 

In Afghanistan, at this very moment, U.S. soldiers are dying to support the new government.  Here's what happened there in response to this report:

Fifteen people died and scores were injured in violence between protesters and security forces, prompting U.S. promises to investigate the allegations.

Some people will say that reporters should print anything for it's own sake, and that the media should focus on the bottom line.  I certainly don't condone the writing of this story, given the damage that resulted to our reputation and the direct threat that it created to our troops.  I have no idea if desecrating the Quran is an effective way of getting information; what would you do if it were between that, and preventing a terrorist attack against Americans? 

Here's the worst part of all of this: Newsweek was WRONG. 

"...the magazine's original source later said he could not be sure he read about the alleged Quran incident in the report Newsweek cited, and that it might have been in another document."

Newsweek used anonymous sources that aren't standing by their stories.

No harm no foul, right Newsweek?

Following the report, demonstrations spread across Afghanistan, and Islamic leaders gathered to pass a resolution calling for anyone found to have abused the Quran to be punished. Many of the 520 inmates at Guantanamo are Muslims arrested in the U.S.-led war against the Taliban and its al-Qaida allies in Afghanistan.

Is 'sorry' enough? 

Pablo the coward

Is this what passes for heroism nowadays?

A sailor turned anti-war activist was convicted Wednesday in a special court-martial of refusing to board the USS Bonhomme Richard as it deployed to the Persian Gulf in December.

A military judge found Petty Officer 3rd Class Pablo Paredes guilty of missing his ship's movement, but dismissed a second count of unauthorized absence, ruling it duplicative.

The proceeding then moved into the sentencing phase. The 23-year-old New Yorker could receive a year in jail, a forfeiture of pay, reduction in rank and a bad-conduct discharge.

Military justice has such a reputation for being harsh.  First the Abu Gharib criminals get a slap on the wrist, now this traitor is looking at a year in jail (worst case scenario)?  He accepted all the benefits of military service until the time came to do what the military had spent six figures training him to do.  When you sign up for military service, everyone knows that you don't get to pick and choose where you go and what you do.  He should, at a minimum, be ordered to repay the military for the costs of training him, and, at a minimum, spend all of the time he was AWOL plus the balance of his service commitment in Leavenworth (Guantanamo Bay if I had my druthers, but hey).  What does he say for himself?

At the time, Paredes told reporters he did not want to be part of a war he views as illegal and immoral. He said his military training has taught him to avoid what he views as a war crime.

Civilians are in charge of the military in the United States.  Decisions are made at the highest levels, not by individual sailors.  When did enlisted sailors get such rigorous training in international law?  I'm curious to see how he came to that conclusion, considering that the wars legality has been debated by the leading legal experts of most every nation.  In many countries that still maintain the death penalty (such as Mexico), it is reserved for only one crime, that of military desertion in a time of war.  And if one crime is heinous enough to merit the ultimate punishment, I think it's fair to say that a man, who of his own free will and volition, agrees to join the military, accepts the benefits of the military, and leaves when he decides it's convenient for him (I have serious trouble taking him at his word), couldn't that be it? 

Ohio is King

Ted Strickland has made it official in the 2006 Ohio governor's race.  If he's successful, he automatically makes the short list for Vice President in 2008. 

Strickland was first elected to Congress in 1992, after several failed attempts.  He was beaten after his first term, but made a comeback two years later.  He's been re-elected since 1996.  In addition to addressing the Democrats' Ohio Problem, he could also help the party "find religion." Strickland is a former Methodist minister.  At age 63, he can't look too far down the road.  But 60 is the new 50 when it comes to politics.  Ronald Reagan was 69 when elected President, Bob Dole won the 1996 nomination at age 72, and John McCain is poised to do the same thing.  Strickland would be 67 in 2008, and 71 in 2012.  Ohio has given us more Presidents than any other state save Virginia, and both parties have the strongest incentives to seek their national candidates there. 

McCain starring in Garden State

John McCain raised $300,000 last night for the New Jersey Republican party, which previously had $10,000 on hand.  McCain raised 66 million dollars in his last race for President, and this is further proof that nobody can touch him when it comes to fundraising. 

Can we just skip the primaries?

Another good poll for John McCain. 

Of the 352 Republicans and GOP-leaning voters reached, Giuliani was the favorite of 27 percent and McCain the pick of 20 percent.

No other potential GOP presidential candidate got more than 10 percent support in the poll, which had a margin of error of plus or minus 5.5 percentage points.

McCain also has the best chance of winning the general election. 

McCain bests both Democratic New York Sen. Hillary Clinton (50 percent to 42 percent); and Democratic Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry (51-41) among a total of 1,007 Republican, Democrat and independent voters surveyed.

If this becomes a Giuliani/McCain primary, McCain will actually be the conservative candidate.  Giuliani is at odds with most Republican primary voters over abortion (he was against a partial birth ban), guns, and marriage.  McCain is in the best position to be the next president.