The Hurt Locker and Hollywood

Last night I watched my first Oscars telecast since at least 2004.  I will admit to having developed a profound distaste for the event during the Bush years, when poorly educated, overpaid actors professed their opinions (and feigned knowledge) of international politics and foreign policy.  These opinions -- from the likes of Sean (Jeff Spicoli) Penn, George (ER) Clooney and others -- were harsh, anti-Bush and, at a time when American is at war, anti-American.  And when coupled with the snarky comedy of David Letterman and Chris Rock was enough to make me ask repeatedly:"Where have you gone Billy Crystal"? The 2010 edition of the Academy Awards seemed to represent a change -- if not of political perspective, certainly of attitude.  Not only did "The Hurt Locker" -- a film about the U.S. military in Iraq -- run away with the evening, but it's victory was accompanied by an acceptance speech from the film's director that actually paid tribute to American soldiers in harm's way.  While in previous generations such a statement of support might not have been anything unusual, in today's leftist Hollywood the speech by Best Director recipient Kathryn Bigelow is significant, indeed.  Her words, greeted by polite applause by the audience, were not echoed by the film's producers who also accepted the Best Picture award, leaving Bigelow to again repeat her "thanks" to "those who serve" a second time, though this time she did seem a little sheepish (saying "sorry to reiterate") and then throwing firemen, hazmat teams and others who keep us safe.  In a telecast with admittedly very low expectations, and even with Bigelow's slight temporizing at the end, it was a significant moment for Hollywood.

But what does it really mean?  Bigelow herself has called the film "anti-war" -- which may have swayed some dovish voters to support it, though when I saw the movie I did not come away with that message at all.  The Academy may have been rewarding a female director who has gotten herself out of the outsized shadow of her ex (fellow Best Director nominee James Cameron), or it may have found a movie that allowed it to tell the rest of America that it is "pro troops" even as it remains anti-war.  Or maybe in a crowded field where Avatar and its computer generated characters took the air out of the room, the movie was simply "the best of the rest".

We will never know the collective reasoning of the Academy, of course.  But could it mean that Hollywood has begun to tire of the leftist diatribe it has been on for the past decade?  Roger Simon at Pajamas Media asks this question in a piece entitled: "Did the 2010 Academy Awards mark the end of liberal Hollywood"?

The 2010 Academy Awards may not have marked the end of “liberal Hollywood” as we know it, but they certainly put a solid dent in it. With the pro-military “The Hurt Locker” winning over the enviro-pabulum of “Avatar” and Sandra Bullock garnering the Best Actress Oscar for a Christian movie, the times are a-changin’ at least somewhat, maybe even a lot.

But one thing is now certain. It is time for conservative, center-right and libertarian filmmakers to stop feeling sorry for themselves and go out and just do it. Their “victocrat” days are over. No more excuses. “The Hurt Locker” and “The Blind Side” have proven that it can be done. Get out of the closet, guys and gals. If you want to make a film with themes you believe in, quit whining about Industry prejudice and start writing that script and trying to get it made. That’s not an easy thing, no matter what your politics.

Right siders can take inspiration too from Sunday’s Oscar ceremonies themselves. They weren’t defamed for a moment. Missing in action was the usual libo-babble, no extended hymns to the cause du jour or ritual Bush-bashing. And Barack Obama wasn’t even mentioned. Not once. But the troops were – several times by Kathryn Bigelow.

We are obviously long removed from the Hollywood of John Wayne, who embodied American patriotism in film, or of Jimmy Stewart, who heroically flew a B-17 in combat in the real war against Germany. But it is possible that we've turned a bit of corner in the vehement anti-Americanism that Hollywood has taken up since 9/11, though I certainly wouldn't call the success of the Hurt Locker last night a sea change.  As Donald Douglas has recently pointed out, there is an effort underway by Robert Greenwald's  Brave New Films to fund a series of "hardline leftist films on the Iraq and Afghanistan wars" that use U.S. veterans to pursue a very typical anti-American line of exploitation and imperialism.

If past is prelude, I'd say that Greenwald will need a big star or some gratuitous nudity to find a large audience for his leftist fare: previous anti-American films on Iraq have fared badly at the box office, and have failed to find an audience -- let alone win mainstream cinema awards.  The Hurt Locker's appeal stems in part from its avoidance of policy and its gritty, realistic portrayal of young American soldiers in battle.  In fact, I found the Hurt Locker to be a patriotic film -- not in the "Flying Tigers" or "Hellcats of the Navy" genre, but rather in it's portrayal of American kids showing courage, ambivalence and even fear under fire.   These are things that ordinary Americans can relate to, and that is in part why the film has been so well received.

Obama & Socialism: You Decide

Editor: Here is the third and final installment of Graham's bill of particulars on socialist attributes of President Obama's goals and methods. Here's Part 1. And here's Part 2. As he says at the close of Part 3, with all this evidence now spelled out, it's up to each of us to decide: Do we have an actual socialist in the Oval Office for the first time ever? Tom Graham, Part 3

Interference leading to control of finance is a hallmark of a move toward Communism. Healthy economies allow failing businesses to dissolve, although bankruptcy affords much protection and opportunity for salvage. The bailout program becomes more unpopular as publicity about non-productive loans and grants increases. Bonds issued by the government to prevent defaults are an equity acquisition, or nationalization. Now, an additional $1.9 trillion, along with increase of the national debt to $14.3 trillion, is being requested by Senate Democrats.

Timothy Geithner, appointed Secretary of the Treasury, under Obama, is under fire for questionable bailout decisions. Geithner was President of the Federal Reserve when $350 billion went to TARP (Troubled Assets Relief Program). Years earlier he had directed the Ford Foundation’s swing to the left. In December our Democrat Congressman Ed Perlmuter, with Obama’s encouragement, submitted a bill to assess a tax of up to a quarter percent on securities transactions. Many TARP recipients are borrowing money at 0.025% and paying off debts rather than lending to businesses. The mortgage market remains sluggish and job creation remains close to zero. After a year of taxpayer-funded economic stimulus, almost all new jobs created are in government or public education.

Here’s a typical local example of stimulus jobs: A $150,000 Westminster street project generated two full-time jobs. As money is taken out of the economy for government expansion, everyone recognizes the net loss of productive jobs. According to the Washington Examiner, after a few months of the stimulus, 90,489 of the reported stimulus-created jobs are fake, while unproductive pork runs rampant. The new Obama method of counting assigns an arbitrary number of new jobs if a company gets bailout money, whether or not there have actually been any. Investment banks, formerly separated because of potential conflicts of interest, are buying savings banks. TARP money was intended for the purchase of the assets but was used for bailouts and an all-purpose slush fund. Meanwhile the treasury bill business is abused. Stimulus funds have a distinct porcine odor and the next ineffective 12-digit stimulus package is coming. Obama hoped that TARP would nationalize banking, another cog in the takeover.

Obama demanded that the House Financial Services Committee seize financial firms large enough to harm the economy if they failed. The Federal Reserve then could dismantle firms that “had grown too large” Costs of such actions would be paid by taxing financial companies with more than $10 billion in assets. We learned that no one at the Fed knows who has received loans, how funds are used or what the total is. It appears to be about two trillion of our money. Always a target of the right, the Fed didn’t evoke confidence when also admitting they had no handle on a figure for purchase of assets.

The Credit Card Accountability, Responsibility and Disclosure Act (CARD) relieves consumers of the need to make their own decisions regarding credit by having the government do it for them. In addition to the seven current consumer protection agencies, the House recently passed the Consumer Financial Protection Agency. This promises to control businesses that have little to do with consumer finance. It will restrict access to the much needed consumer credit and further stifle the economy. Other controls of individuals in the Marxist tradition are the minimum wage law, which harms the poorest, and executive maximum pay to be slashed by as much as 50%, as dictated by dictated by the executive pay czar.

Trillions must be borrowed or printed, and taxed, all of which grind down the economy. Who can visualize such figures? Business managers cannot expand with the fear of such taxes, and loss of their customers’ purchasing power in mind. Where is the short-term memory of the massive federal revenue increases resulting from the reduction of marginal tax rates by Presidents Reagan and Kennedy? Progressives obsessed with Bush-blame fail to mention that more money has been taken out of the economy during three years of Democrat control, and that almost all of the problem was caused by the Democrat-led sub-prime debacle.

Obama and his people, although lacking qualifications, arrogantly believe that they have been granted the right to direct the lives of others. Nothing in the Constitution authorizes these government Socialist and Communist activities. Notwithstanding this, they consider the Constitution to be an archaic annoyance, subject to change to conform to the progressive dictates in vogue. Historians recall Woodrow Wilson’s advocacy of such, whereby a “living constitution” would not be constrained by protection of the individual. About 42% of US expenditures are expected to be financed by inflationary money creation this year. A figure of 40%, unavoidable with huge deficits, is considered by many economists to be the point of hyperinflation, along with the resulting fall in exchange rates.

Of course this must be accompanied by central control of the complete economy. In this behalf, we see the “The Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act” emerge from the House despite unanimous Republican rejection. Provided for in its 1,500 pages are new controls over financial institutions, including banks and credit unions a federal insurance office, derivatives market control, and executive salary regulation. A Consumer Financial Protection Agency will oversee mortgages and small business loans. We don’t know if it’s in this bill, but Obama is having reimbursements withheld from mortgage companies that don’t modify loans for those who welch on repayment.

The Financial Services Oversight Council can take over firms determined by a bureaucrat to be large enough to undermine financial stability if experiencing difficulty. This is an assault on fundamental economic liberties of the citizen. A bill by our congressman Ed Perlmutter, self-avowed Keynsian economist, calls for every purchase of stocks, options, and futures to be taxed 0.25%. This would affect half of all Americans, for the establishment of a permanent $150 billion for bureaucrats to bail out favored private business at their discretion.

Congress is discussing ways to raise the national debt to $14.3 trillion. Some conservative Democrats are campaigning to hold it to a picayune $12.4 trillion, but what’s a few trillion among friends? According to the credible Peter G. Peterson Foundation, unfunded liabilities totaled $56.4 trillion at the end of fiscal 2008. Obama added to the burden with the $787 billion “stimulus,” of which most went to long-term pork projects, stimulating nothing, and as of recently, 78% was unspent.

The Obama progressive blitz will try to destroy the stability of the bond market, an escape route for investors, by having the Fed manipulate rates. $400 billion has been invested in the bond market in the last year, driving prices up including those of the U.S. Treasury. Instability in both Treasury and corporate bonds is anticipated to further the Obama agenda.

Spending last year was $3.5 trillion with a deficit of $1.42 trillion. The national debt is $12. 3 trillion and the Obama plan calls for it to reach $18.5 trillion by year 2020, with no way to retire it. Entitlements approaching $50 trillion are in unfunded notes. We owe about 30 times what we make each year. Can anybody visualize such amounts? It won’t take much more of Obama before we’re ready to default and declare capitalism dead.

“You never want to let a serious crisis go to waste.” This also refers to opportunity for some swindles to accompany socialization. When we heard of the closing of auto dealerships as part of the government takeover, we naturally thought that the prosperous ones would be awarded to big Democrat contributors at discounts. We weren’t far off. With Car Czar Steve Rattner in charge, the “Automotive Task Force” closed 788 Chrysler dealerships who had donated exclusively to the Republican Party. Only one closed business was a Democrat supporter, but their small donations were to Hillary’s and John Edwards’ campaigns. Rattner’s wife is former finance chair of the D.N.C. Ex-Bill Clinton Chief of Staff, Mack McClarty owns six Chrysler dealerships, all remaining in business. All eight competing Chrysler dealerships were closed. Rattner is under investigation for a multi-million dollar investment bank scandal. Sound familiar? Obama’s Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner says of Rattner, “I hope he takes another opportunity to bring his unique skills to government service in the future.”

More goodies moving us toward Obama’s Socialist or Communist state: A bill to tax on-line purchases, a move to outlaw loans for private education, attempts to renew the Fairness Doctrine, whereby radio stations would be required to broadcast leftist material to offset conservative radio, as determined by an appointed bureaucrat, provision for your computer to become government property if you access certain programs. Don’t forget Obama’s announcement of participation in a U.N. arms control treaty, which a congressman warns could be a “slippery slope to gun confiscation.” Is it paranoia to recall the history of such becoming a precursor to loss of sovereignty?

This move toward the far left has the fingerprint of the Obama’s guru, Saul Alinsky, who instructs how to tear down local governments, then the U.S., from the inside. New York City’s 1970s disaster is an example. All of this headlong decline into third world status is made possible by contrived ignorance in public education. To quote another Hitlerism, “The broad masses are more amenable to rhetoric than any other force.”

You decide. Socialist, Communist? All Obama actions fit one or the other. After a few months of Obama, we have 17% real unemployment, a quarter of homeowners facing “underwater mortgages,” doubling of the national debt, tripling of the deficit. How’s hope and change working for you?

He painted the true Colorado

[photopress:allen_true_fm_rotunda.jpg,thumb,pp_image] (Denver Post, Mar. 7) “Isn’t it pretty to think so?” mutters a world-weary American to his paramour at the end of a Hemingway novel. The acid dismissal of love typifies suspicion of idealism in any form, a timeless temptation for humankind. Hemingway gave his story a modern setting but borrowed its title, “The Sun Also Rises,” from Ecclesiastes, a world-weary classic of 2200 years ago. Since the novel’s publication in 1926, Americans have gone on to conquer the Depression, defeat Hitler and Tojo, end segregation and polio, win the Cold War, computerize earth and explore space. Still the stance of cynicism toward nobility and goodness is widely fashionable.

To enter the new wing of the Denver Art Museum, for example, you walk past a huge whiskbroom-and-dustpan sculpture and make your way into a jarring, angular Daniel Liebeskind structure that resembles a glass skyscraper felled by an 8.8 earthquake. Don’t assume you know what beauty is, the objects seem to say. Not so fast with your delight in the human spirit and your pride in our civilization.

After running this gauntlet of the unpretty on a recent afternoon, however, I was more than rewarded by the DAM’s enthralling exhibit of the works of Colorado painter and muralist Allen True, 1881-1955. His heroic depiction of man and nature in the older and newer West may not tell the whole story, but it immortalizes a proud part of it that we should gratefully cherish. You need to see our state’s past through True’s eyes.

Trappers, prospectors, pioneers, cowboys and Indians, builders and aviators come to life under his imagination and brush in a way that celebrates their “men to match my mountains” vision and purpose while escaping Hollywood cliché. And equally striking as the art itself is the self-confidence of an era that could give it a public place of honor all across the city and region, not so very long ago.

“More people, more scars upon the land,” the gate-closing grumble of John Denver in “Rocky Mountain High” (named an official state song in 2007), was not the way Allen True’s generation viewed the human settlement and beautification of this vast territory previously written off as the Great American Desert. A good example is the specimen of his art most familiar to Coloradans, the water saga with True’s murals and Thomas Hornsby Ferril’s verse in our State Capitol rotunda. The theme is people flourishing as modernity advances – rather than the depopulation grimly sought by leftist scolds.

Under the painted, silent gaze of True heroes and heroines, lawmakers not only in our capitol but also in those of Wyoming and Missouri (from which Lewis and Clark, Pike and Fremont started west) make decisions for this new century. You’d like to think the vitality, generosity, and optimism of his art – and of Ferril’s poetry, sure that “beyond the sundown is tomorrow’s wisdom” – would guide them more than the cramped and gloomy green ideology now ascendant.

“Poets are the unacknowledged legislators of the world,” said Shelley. The way we visualize and verbalize our sense of possibilities has more power to limit or liberate us than any government. Sentimentality is no substitute for reason and reality, of course, as Hemingway’s scorn for “pretty” thought reminds us. But there is a realism in the American success story, captured by the painter True and the poet Ferril, superior to the sentimentalism of frightened Gaia-worship. Let’s embrace it.

The West portrayed in old songs, an open range and Front Range with never a discouraging word, mountain majesties near gleaming cities undimmed by tears, may lack practicality. Yet it’s a better ideal to strive for than anything in Al Gore’s lugubrious poetry – and Allen True depicts it gloriously. The True exhibit runs through March 28, not to be missed.

Responsibility Might Have Saved Us from Govt.-run Healthcare

We don't know yet whether Washington politicians will be able to force complete take-over of our health care delivery system or not.  One day the media slants toward a collapse of Obama's plans to transform our current system and the next day, word of the ongoing back room deals and arm-twisting in spite of our will hint that a massive change in how, when and where we receive health care services is inevitable.  As Congress and the Oval Office continue their political posturing and theater, as individuals, some of us may have been able to prevent what may be coming our way.  Just before the '08 election, an acquaintance of mine told me she was voting for Obama.  This woman has always vowed allegiance to the Republican Party and conservative values.  She told me the reason she was voting for him was because of his health care reform platform.  She and her husband retired  several years ago and they have selected a health insurance policy that requires a $2000  annual deductible, per insured, which allows them a lower cost premium schedule.  In the year leading up to the '08 election, this woman found herself in need of 2 biopsies, several ultrasound exams, 2 different mammography exams and several visits to a number of physicians because of a suspicion of breast cancer.   Happily she did not have breast cancer.   Her out of pocket expenses included the $2000 deductible, and 20% of other costs, per her insurance coverage.  She noted that she was able to negotiate a portion of that 20% with the different providers and in the end, she probably only paid between 12 and 15% of her share.  This is a person that enjoys a comfortable lifestyle, has money to travel extensively, drives a new luxury vehicle every 2-3 years and would, from all appearances, be a person able to bear some cost for her treatment during this incident.  Thinking she would be so grateful and relieved at her benign diagnosis, I asked why her story translated into support for the government to impose the public option.  She explained that she does not believe it should cost her anything to access and receive health care services.  During that conversation in August '08, she was completely serious in telling me that she lives in the richest country in the world, has paid taxes all her life and in exchange, she should not have to spend any of her retirement income on doctors and hospitals.  It is her right to receive the best care possible  on demand.  To this day, she believes she is entitled to a system that is completely cost free to her.  I recently pointed out to her that we are quickly moving away from being the richest country in the world.    I further explained that we will all experience a reduction in services and will be forced to start paying for the proposed plan years before a single person realizes a benefit.  I told her that when she is moved into the government system, the HHS Secretary will actually determine whether or not, at her age, if it's a good investment to allow my friend those 2 biopsies, several ultrasounds and many office visits, or if such an intensive diagnostic plan is simply too expensive for the system.  She thinks I'm ill-informed on the issue.

Another friend of mine is an ER nurse in California with nearly 40 years experience in her field.  She recently did an intake evaluation on a man presenting with a minor stab wound.  A Spanish interpreter was called in as he could not speak English.  As his story unfolded, she learned that he had entered California illegally several years ago, had been able to get a Social Security number although he added he had done so without ever having completed immigration paperwork.  He has a long history of drug addiction and heavy alcohol use along with serving some time off and on in California prisons.  As his medical and social history continued to emerge, he smiled broadly at my friend when he relayed to the interpreter that he has enjoyed all of the 'goodies America has to offer him'.  The 'goodies' he was referring to were assistance with housing, the WIC program for his 2 girlfriends and the children he has with them, food stamps, and of course, free health care anytime he so requires.

In our family, we have a number of elderly relatives in their mid to late 80's.  One in particular is a person that consumes health care services as a way to socialize and reach out for human contact.  This individual lives alone and rather than volunteer at the local schools, churches, library, hospitals or nursing homes, she chooses instead to visit several different doctors on a regular basis as a way to interact with people and have someone inquire as to how she is doing.  Every twinge or slightest pain sends her to a doctor.  A mild case of dermatitis caused by dry winter air doesn't prompt her to try an over the counter cream that her pharmacist believes will solve the problem.  She sees her primary care physician and insists on a referral to a dermatologist.  And so it goes.  Each visit to each physician amounts to a claim filed with Medicare and her supplemental insurance carrier.  After each entity has processed her claim, she ends up paying a few dollars of the many hundreds of dollars that each imagined medical crisis costs.  This individual is also a person that if means testing were put in place, it would be determined that she certainly could cover a greater load of the costs she imposes each month on our system.  The assistance she receives as a result of Pres. Bush's drug benefit legislation for seniors, along with Medicare and other supplemental coverage keeps her out of pocket expenses  for drugs, testing and office visits to about $1000 per year, which is a bargain compared to the 10's of thousands charged and written off under her specific coverage plans.  In her mind, she, too is entitled to no-cost health care after contributing to society for years as a taxpayer.  At the same time, as a taxpayer she also feels as most of us do that our taxes should also pay for good schools, nice smooth roads, safe bridges, ample police and fire protection and other civil services.  She hears the news and knows there are budget deficits across the entire spectrum of government and that cuts must be made.  She believes, however, that cuts should affect every one but her and she has no qualms about piling on debt that her grandchildren and great-grandchildren will soon inherit.  Along the same mindset, another aging relative decided he needed a cane just in case at some point he had some difficulty walking.  He priced out the canes available at his local pharmacy and didn't want to pay $25, so instead, he scheduled a visit to his primary care doctor and asked for a prescription for a cane.  The doctor questioned why it was needed, but after the patient persisted, the script was written and filled by a medical supply facility at a cost to the Medicare system of over $100.   Again, this person is also financially able to buy the cane for himself rather than shift the cost to our bankrupt government system and those that will bear the debt for decades to come.

I believe our president and his Democrat controlled Congress will impose health care reform on our country, of one form or another.  Can a cleaning of the House and Senate in November be enough for us to turn it back?  We don't know that as yet.  One thing is for certain, however.  If individual Americans along the way toward this end had taken some personal responsibility and used some common sense in their individual utilization of health care, our costs would be lower today. 

As a society, many Americans have lost sight of their own individual contribution to sky rocketing health care costs.  For each person that receives an entitlement, others must bear the cost.  It's been easy to ignore that fact.  We forget that when an insurance company or Medicare or Medicaid "writes off" a charge, that dollar amount simply doesn't just go away.  It must be paid and that happens by passing along those costs to insurance companies and their clients and private payers.  There will always be citizens that cannot afford to pay for health care, and as a benevolent nation we've done a fairly decent job in caring for those people.   Others that do have the financial means to care for themselves have decided free and reduced cost care would allow them more money for other luxuries.  Persons here illegally have also been able to come to the trough and get care, often without paying anything. 

Many have climbed aboard the train, demanding a window seat and first class accommodations.  There are too many passengers stuffed into fewer and fewer cars and the train is now so overburdened, it is slowing to a stop.  There is no longer enough money to shovel into the engine to carry the huge load.  If some of us had jumped off along the way, making room for our legal citizens that truly needed subsidized care, maybe government-run, unfunded, limited access healthcare wouldn't be headed toward us now at light rail speed.

No to corporate welfare in Aurora

As the Aurora City Council prepares to vote on a highly questionable real estate subsidy Monday night, I have lent my voice to a robo-call opposing the deal. Citizens for Responsible Aurora Government paid for the recorded message to 67,000 households on Thursday. Here is the text of that message, along with a more detailed statement from the citizens group. ROBO-CALL MESSAGE: This is former Senate President John Andrews. Like you, I’m concerned when government at any level spends tax dollars recklessly and overreaches its proper functions. The Aurora City Council is about to do just that, subsidizing a private real estate development with an urban blight designation on ranch land to the tune of millions of dollars the city doesn’t have. This has been labeled a bad risk by the city’s own consultants. It could be a disaster for taxpayers. Please urge the city council to vote down the Lend Lease Project on March 8. Paid for Citizens for Responsible Aurora Government. Statement by Citizens for Responsible Aurora Government Contact: Greg Golyansky 720.201.8789 or Almaz9713@aol.com

On Monday, March 8th, at 7:30 PM, the Aurora City council will be voting on a measure that would approve a Tax Increment Financing designation for the Lend Lease Horizon Uptown development, in east Aurora.

This vote will decide whether the raw ranch land will be "blighted" under the "urban renewal" state statutes. In addition our group of small government activist is trying to stop the Aurora City Government from subsidizing a private real estate development. If the Aurora Government is allowed to get away with this, then in due time they will be forced to increase taxes on all of the city's residents or face a major economic calamity.

According to the report written by the city’s BBC consultants, the project is not economically viable, risky and is based on overly optimistic assumptions. The new properties, if built, will, therefore, have to be sold/rented at a deep discount, thus producing minimal tax revenue. If you take into consideration the high cost of additional City services that will be required in these new areas, the City of Aurora will be loosing money on this "deal" for decades to come!

We must ask the members of the Aurora City Council how is it that our city administration that claims to be short of money for libraries, police and city parks - does have millions of dollars to subsidize a private company's real estate development.