I've Heard This One Time Too Many

Once and for all, if you believe that the Community Reinvestment Act, signed into law in 1977 by Jimmy Carter, is the cause or even a major cause of the housing collapse or credit crisis, then you are part of the problem. The same is true if you believe the cause is government regulation forcing banks to give out loans to people who couldn't afford the payments. Stop watching Fox News and listening to partisan pundits and do your own research for a change. If you got this from someone else then tell them to do the same.

Let's start at the beginning. The Community Reinvestment Act (the CRA) was created in 1977 to get banks and related organizations to offer loans to all segments of the communities they operate in. This was an attempt to blunt what is known as "redlining" or not offering these services to areas based often on race. The term comes from banks that would draw red lines on maps denoting where they would "draw the line" on offering their various services.

The CRA remained unchanged for twelve years doing what it was intended to do. Then in 1989 it was amended for the first time. This was in response to the infamous and expensive savings and loan scandal. The CRA's regulating power was increased and this was quickly signed into law by George H. W. Bush. Current Chairman of the Federal Reserve, Ben Bernake, has spoken very positively about the results of this expanded oversight.

In total the CRA has received legislative changes in 1989, 92, 94, 95, 99 and 2005. Note that at least half of those were modifications made by a Republican-controlled Congress. The one in 1989 was signed into law by a Republican President and the one in 2005 by George W. Bush under a Republican-controlled Congress.

The bottom line on this part of the debate is that it's ludicrous for people like Rush Limbaugh to blame Jimmy Carter and the Democratic Congress of 1977.

Now let's look at some numbers. The facts are that well over 50% of all subprime loans (which are just a percentage of the total loans out there) were provided by independent mortage companies (just like my own and most other people I know). Most people today do not get their mortgages from their local bank. These independents are not regulated by the CRA.

Another roughly 30% of subprime loans came from organizations only partially regulated by the CRA. For the few organizations that are fully regulated by the CRA (just 15% of the total) only 25% of their loans were subprime loans. A recent accounting found that nearly 85% of all subprime loans were made by organizations outside the control of the CRA.

Additionally, the vast majority of subprime loans given by CRA-regulated organizations have been sound. The Federal Reserve has noted that CRA loans have proven to be profitable and not overly-risky. They also pointed out that the vast majority of problem loans have come from organizations with the least federal oversight--in other words, organizations not under the oversight of the CRA.

So then, if only 15% of loans came from CRA-regulated banks and only 25% of those were subprime loans and not all of them have failed, how is it that this is the cause of the problem?

The real problem was caused by mortgage-backed securities known as Credit Default Swaps. These were unregulated insurance policies that AIG, Citigroup, Merrill-Lynch, Freddie Mac, Fannie Mae (all names that have dominated the headlines) and others, bought or sold to one another. When the value of homes dropped and Adjustable Rate Mortgages (ARM's) climbed to put borrowers into payments they couldn't handle they ended up in foreclosure. The value of their homes was under what they could sell them for. Many just walked away from them--literally. While this would be bad on its own, it was made far worse when it was discovered that the entities offering the CDS insurance hadn't actually put the money aside in the event of such an outcome. The feeling was that the market would always go up for homes. Thus the home owner lost a home and the lender ended up with a lien on a property below the value of the investment. Everyone lost.

The CRA had virtually nothing to do with this situation. The attempts of the Right to deflect blame here is nothing more than an attempt by partisan pundits to blame someone else. It's never their fault. If anything they bear the biggest burden here. The Bush administration allowed Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to meet their quotas by buying into these questionable insurance plans in the first place.

In the end it was lenders who approved questionable adjustable-rate mortages with little or no concern as to the ability of the borrower to afford them. The CRA in no way forced these organizations to offer these loans. The only thing that enticed them was the allure of potential profit and it blinded them to the risks involved and to doing their own due dilligence to investigate the soundness of the investments they were making.

Much is made about the lack of intelligence of the borrower taking out a loan that they couldn't afford to pay back. However, that ignores the bigger question of the organizations that are supposed to be the professionals here. What does it say about the intelligence of the organizations making those loans?

Do They Even Hear Themselves?

I decided to watch Hannity & Colmes tonight to see what Alan Colmes would say about his departure. The segments prior to that were quite challenging to get through.

We had Karl Rove continuing to impress me with this new persona that he's adopted regarding honesty. It's amazing what a turn-around this guy has gone through. Now that the election is over he's been nothing but forth-coming, direct, likable, intelligent. The sad part is it underscores just how full of crap the guy was for the last eight years. Phrases like, "Let's give the guy [Obama] the credit he's due" keep coming out of his mouth and it's a little scary right now. It's a bit like the feeling you'd get watching a freshly-enlightened Hitler hand a little Jewish girl a fresh apple. Can it be?

Then we had to endure some talking-head Congressman from Virginia go on for two minutes ripping everything Obama has done to date and then when Colmes asks him if it might not be a good idea to let the guy get into office before he starts this approach the Congressman tells Colmes that he's not criticizing him. Really? Could have fooled me.

Then we get the always-reliably-full-of-shit Dick Morris. This guy is like athlete's foot. There's just no way to get rid of him. He had this wonderful exchange with Sean Hannity:

Hannity: One of the things that's a little frustrating to me.... Now we've had tough economic times in this country. Economic systems, they go up, they go down. There's an ebb and flow to it. President Bush inherited a recession. Uh, but he got out of it through tax cuts. Uh, my frustration is, every time Barack Obama speaks he's trying to inst.... 'The worst economic times since the Great Depression'.

Morris: Right

Hannity: And I believe that's part of his strategy, to scare the livin' daylights out of the American people so they will buy, hook, line and sinker, whatever he proposes no matter how massive this new government spending is gonna be. Do you see this as a strategy on his part?

Morris: Absolute...absolutely true. First of all, the crisis is of a huge magnitude. Secondly, as I said, this has to be worked out by the capitalist system with creative destruction getting rid of the people that borrowed too much in the companies that are unsound. Meanwhile, you can't cause agony to the American people so you need to give them methadone and that's what this stimulus package is. Will it solve the problem? No. Will it ease the pain? While it's working itself out? Yes.

Are you kidding me? I don't even know where to start with the pile of total BS above. Hannity starts in with the garbage about George Bush inheriting a recession. The was no recession. The economy was slowing down but it never went into recession. He just loves to say it because it sounds so good. Also, he fails to mention who was in control of Congress at that point. In other words, whatever he inherited, as he's said many times before, is the entirely the fault of Bill Clinton.

He then wakes himself up and has a moment of clarity saying that the economy does ebb and flow. But he then gives us the wonderful line that Bush got out of it through tax cuts. Oh really? What you're missing above is a great piece of theater. Remember I mentioned Rove above? Well, during Rove's segment he agreed when Rove pointed out (surprisingly again) that they learned the hard way that tax cuts (using give-backs) don't help the economy--that their checks didn't go back in--that five out of six checks went to debt (as many of us all knew going in except the so-called experts in office). Here he is, minutes later stating that Bush got out of his imaginary recession using tax cuts.

He then does a hideous impression of Obama when quoting him saying it's the worst economic times since the Great Depression. His new bailiwick is this idea that Obama is trying to use scare tactics to get what he wants. Leave it to the King of Fear Tactics to point out this one... But that's not the funny part. The funny part is Morris' response--"...absolutely true."

It is? Then why, Dick, did you follow that smiling, head-nodding approval, "absolutely true" ejaculation with, "First of all, the crisis is of a huge magnitude."

So it's okay to admit that it's a huge crisis but Obama is to be faulted by referring to it as such?

My god men.... Get a clue. Listen to your own rhetoric as it leaves your mouth. THIS is why the Republicans are losing ground. THIS is why Fox News is losing viewers. THIS is why Republicans lost the election. People may be stupid at times but they're not this stupid.

Hannity followed up all this by once again predicting that he'll be wrongly audited for his attacks on the new administration. This is yet another Hannity prediction that I suspect will come to nothing.

He then again mentioned the morally unacceptable line that Al Franken is trying to steal the Minnesota election (all while Morris nods in agreement) while not mentioning a word about Norm Coleman doing exactly the same thing Franken is doing (except to a larger degree). However, it wasn't his goal to mention this. His goal was to once again open the floor for Dick Morris to plug his favorite action committee and beg the audience (as he's done countless times) to make a contribution. Now I haven't watched ahead but let's see what Dick Morris says.....

"And I've been pushing very, very hard for a group called....." and he's goes on to name them and praise them. I've watched this show for the last week at this is at least the third or fourth time I've seen Morris on and each time he mentions this group. Now we find out he's associated with them directly. Big surprise. He claims he's not associated with them while meanwhile admitting they bought ads on his personal website and equates it to them buying ads in the New York Times. Nice try Dick. He says people need to donate immediately and tells people their whole
future depends on it... Wow, I guess maybe we all should. I'd hate to think that the the sun won't come up any longer if Saxby Chambliss isn't re-elected in Georgia. Of course this is nothing new for people around Hannity. Hannity himself once told his radio audience that keeping Nancy Pelosi out of leadership was worth DYING FOR. I'm still waiting for him to go first on that one.

And these are the pinheads who have the audacity to ridicule Obama for calling this the worst economic times since the Great Depression? Puuuuhleeeeez.

Interesting prediction from Dick Morris worth noting. He said Obama will be at 20% approval in 2 years. Let's see. Of course this is from the guy who wrote the book, Condi vs. Hillary: The Next Great Presidential Race. I notice he doesn't attempt to talk that book up while doing these shows (but I have heard him continually say, "...just as I predicted in my book....." all the time).

Oh, and Alan did finally speak on the topic I wanted to see 58+ minutes into the show. In response to Sean saying that the Dems finally got full control and now Colmes is leaving, Alan said, "Sean, four words. My work is done." Nice.

Colmes Leaving. Will Anyone Notice?

News on the Right today includes an interesting tidbit that Alan Colmes is leaving Fox News' Hannity & Colmes show in the near future.

My big question is, will anyone even notice a difference? I'm not knocking Colmes here. It seemed clear from the outset that this show was always totally about Sean Hannity, period.

Al Franken jokes about this show often and in one of his books referred to it as Hannity & Colmes. That's pretty accurate in the final analysis.

Not surprising is Fox's response to this news stating that they'll likely not replace Colmes and just let it become what it really always was--The Sean Hannity Show.

Alan Colmes is a decent guy but he was always a token on this show. I'm glad this guy is finally getting away from the garbage across the desk but suspect he'll return to the obscurity he had prior to the show. I can't imagine bothering with this show after this move. It's already hard to get through when I watch it. Watching without some joke of an attempt at balance is at least preferable to no balance what-so-ever.

Ugh... I Feel Dirty

I've been watching Fox News for a bit of late and the entire experience makes me feel dirty. The channel is littered with people I wouldn't trust for five minutes with my child, my home or my wallet.

Bill O'Reilly ran a piece during his show about "San Francisco". I put that in quotes because what he showed made for wonderful theater. I've been to San Francisco many times including fairly recently. What he showed he represented as the everyday experience of the city and it was ridiculous. According to Bill's reporter you'd be inundated with pot smoke, gay antics, crime and homeless people. The only part of that that I can partially agree with is the explosion of homeless people walking the streets downtown. I've yet to see anyone smoking pot on the streets (they made it out like you couldn't avoid it) and the only gays I've seen were nice couples walking along like anyone else minding their own business. I also haven't seen any crimes unless you count allowing Fisherman's Wharf to fall apart.

On Hannity & Colmes I endured the always-annoying Dick Morris. This is one of the dirtiest, sleeziest pundits out there. The guy owes his success to the Clintons and yet can't do anything but rip these people at every turn. Asked about the possibility of Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State he, of course, had a litany of reasons why it was a horrible idea. The one I loved was when he said that Hillary is a master of getting deals done with anyone to get what she wanted. I guess he totally missed the parallel of that being a great asset for the job in question.

He then decided to continue on with the lunacy of calling the drop in stocks the "Obama Recession" and supported it by saying how smart the market is because when John McCain was showing a resurgence in the polls that the market was up. The problem was that the dates he gave (Friday, Monday and Election Day) were all dates when these same people were saying McCain was doomed and that it looked like it might be an Obama landslide! This guy's moral center is in hell. He has never had anything positive to say about a Democrat in any segment I've ever seen him in.

Sean Hannity, always a tool of the administration himself, won't stop saying that Barack Obama isn't for change because 31 of his appointments so far have some tie to the Clinton administration. What a surprise that the President-Elect would reach back to tap people from the last Democratic administration for insight on how to handle the transition. Where was Hannity when George W. Bush was appointing virtually all the key players from his father's administration? W. had tied himself to the "Change" phrasing as well.

Then later on the show they ran some footage of a dozen Obama voters answering questions incorrectly. This was put forth as indicative of the intelligence of Obama voters. Co-host Alan Colmes, thankfully, tried to point out that this could be done with any group and, of course, the guy responsible for the video wouldn't have any of it. Hannity chimed in supporting the view saying, "It's frustrating to me how ill-informed people are that can cancel out our well-educated, well-informed votes." Forget that I've seen this same approach done for voters of all parties. Forget the woman that said to McCain that Obama was an Arab.

More to the point Hannity then listed a poll that was a total joke. 56% couldn't say that Obama started his campaign in William Ayers house. 88% couldn't say that Obama wants to eliminate the coal industry. Sean, the reason so many couldn't say either of those is that they aren't true! That you want a majority of people to buy into your rhetoric is your own failing and it's the reason you belong on one of these very segments.

I want to put partisan politics behind me but this kind of experience just makes that impossible. You cannot allow people like this to rule the message. It's clear that they'll do whatever is necessary to distort the truth trying to keep everyone in fear so that they fall in line and keep the money train rolling along their routes.

Small Consolation In Quantum Of Solace

We saw the new James Bond movie, Quantum of Solace, on Friday. The last film, Casino Royale re-invigorated the James Bond franchise and gave us a surprisingly strong Bond in Daniel Craig.

This film is a complete mystery to me. In almost every area that Casino succeeded, this incarnation fails. The open credits are dull. The new Bond song is a rap song and it's entirely forgettable and looked to give the credit artists major headaches trying to sync it to their animations.

Once the movie started things didn't improve. The story is extremely thin, flat and dull. For a short movie it felt long. The action dominates and it's far too frenetic. Much of the action is shot in a way that you're not sure what's going on. The effects look cheesy and shoddily done. Some of the scenes are complete rip-offs from earlier films (some Bond, some not) and these fail too. There's one scene showing one of Bond's conquests dead in bed while covered entirely in petroleum that was done far better in Goldfinger.

Other elements that I like in Bond films are totally missing. They still can't seem to figure out what to do with Bond's martinis and his dialog is just not what you expect from this character. Where Bond has been measured and logical this one is brooding and emotional. The cutting humor was entirely excised. It feels to me like the creators were so concerned about keeping the character alive and in line with current films that they've essentially cut everything that we love about the character out.

This is the first film that has no Ian Fleming touch in it and it shows--heavily so. The only positive I can point to is that some of the later Bond movies turned the main antagonist into a goofy comic book character with some unnecessary flaw--often physical. Casino avoided this for the better. Its main antagonist was effective in his own right on the merits of his actions and his acting without the need for some ridiculous defect. Yes, his eye bled but that was minor. This film followed that lead but picked a villain we could barely believe in. He seemed small, acted small and came across small.

There's nothing in this movie I can recommend. Even the Bond women come across as Bond-lite. When even that fails then it's time to re-think the path you're on with this stuff. You had us with Casino Royale and you can have us again but please get back on track with who Bond is and what made this character work.

I Remember 2000

Many of the pundits on the Right seem to think everyone was born yesterday. Their ability to sit on air and with a straight face or steady voice spew out complete bullshit is just amazing.

The idea that the current stock market is currently being affected mainly by something they call the "Obama Recession" is ludicrous and, frankly, insulting.

Many of these same people were the very same people who, back in 2000, blamed Bill Clinton for the downturn that happened as George W. Bush took office. These people seem to think no one can remember any of this. They also love to forget that the Congress of that era was Republican.

So in 2000 when the economy started to turn, that was Bill Clinton's fault. Now, in 2008 with the economy down (and it's been down for a long while now) that is the fault of Barack Obama? Give me a break....

No Second Term For Obama?

Remember this one. Rush Limbaugh today told listeners that he wouldn't be surprised if Barack Obama didn't run for a second term (has anyone told this guy that Obama hasn't even started his first term yet?) if Obama, get this, achieves everything he "really" intends to do.

What???

He seems to think that Obama will move to implement a long series of sinister plans that will so turn off everyone, including his own party, that no one will want him to run. It'll supposedly be so bad that even he will come to realize it's better for him to just step aside.

I had a hard time stopping the laughing. This from a guy that supported one of the worst Presidents in our history and worked endlessly to get him elected to a second disasterous term.

Someone needs to start a website that just tracks all these comments and then posts the results. I have no doubt that 90% of the predictions these people make never come to pass.

What a complete charlatan.

He's now going on about how Obama will create his own collapse by infringing on liberty. He stated that if there's one thing Americans won't stand for is changing the parameters of freedom. What a crock. Where was this guy (and Americans) when George W. Bush was gutting our freedoms (the one thing he takes an oath to protect)? He stood by and supported that but now Obama will be hung out to dry if he tries to do anything?

In the next breath he says Obama will fail but that he can't fail. He means the press won't report any failures as he represents Camelot. People will make excuses for him. Boy does that sound like the pot calling the kettle black. Oh boy....

Chris Mattthews Calls It Right

On Hardball tonight (I was bouncing between all three cable news networks--Karl Rove was on Hannity & Colmes talking about how Bush was successful and we all didn't get it) Chris Matthews was asking how Barack Obama was going to govern. Mainly he was trying to get to the bottom of whether we should expect a left or center approach in the near future.

In the main segment he had on a Democrat source and also Todd Harris, a Republican strategist who has been on all the channels of late. At one point Todd responded to a question by grabbing one of the new talking points of Republicans by trying to state that this election was historic but that it wasn't any kind of mandate.

What a load of crap. Thankfully Matthews unloaded on Harris and told him flat-out that he was talking with a forked tongue. He pointed out that no matter how a Republican won they immediately would call it a mandate from the electorate even when Ronald Reagan won with just 51% of the vote and George W. Bush won without getting the most votes!

The Right's latest angle is to try and defuse Obama by convincing all of us that he barely squeaked by and, thus, should govern from the center. Of course other pundits tie into this lark by following it up with the equally false position that the country is most center-right in its politics. It's only that way if you plan to give the vote to empty square miles owned by Republicans in the middle of the country.

For what it's worth, not only was the last election historic, it was a mandate. Obama won by 7% with 53% of the vote and won by more than 8 million votes. All of that in an election that had only 1.1% more voters than in 2004. What that tells you given the increases in youth voters and the minority voting is that Republicans were so disappointed that they didn't turn out. They would rather risk Obama than vote for John McCain.

In 2004 Bush won with only 286 electoral votes, 3 million less votes and a much closer percentage and he called it a mandate.

This clearly qualifies as a mandate.

Revisiting Some Friends In Madagascar

The family headed out to see Madagascar: Escape 2 Africa which is, of course, the sequel to 2005's animated success Madagascar.

The original was a surprisingly funny film with some fresh material that impressed many. It tells the story of four main characters--a lion, zebra, giraffe and hippo, that live in a zoo in New York and manage to get outside those confines into the outside world.

The sequel picks up where the original left off--with the characters marooned in Madagascar. All the important characters are back and each are voiced by the same talent as the original. The four main characters are voiced by Ben Stiller, Chris Rock, David Schwimmer and Jada Pinkett Smith. Also back are the great "minor" characters in the form of mob-like penguins, delusional lemurs and very strange chimps.

The main plot involves a plan by the characters to get off Madagascar and back to the zoo. Of course it's all quite fantastical and rather beyond the limits of any rationalization but this is an animated movie so anything is possible.

The bottom line is that, while this movie doesn't have the originality of the first entry, it's extremely funny in its own right. The jokes are pretty good and come quite often. It's not the best animated movie around but it's still well worth the experience.

Socialism

The pundits are still on the "socialism" rant regarding President-Elect Barack Obama. Someone needs to shove a dictionary in the face of these guys.

Socialism:

An economic system in which the basic means of production are primarily owned and controlled collectively, usually by government under some system of central planning.

An economic, social and political doctrine which expresses the struggle for the equal distribution of wealth by eliminating private property and the exploitative ruling class.

Economic system centered on the belief that the means of production (such as land) should be collectively owned and that market exchange should be replaced by collectively controlled distribution based on social needs.

When Obama starts taking away our private property and moves to redistributing wealth equally then give me a call.

The entire argument around the term, "spread the wealth" is a bogus one. The government already does this. The question is where that money goes. The Right only has an issue with "spreading the wealth" when that wealth is away from their pocketbooks instead of towards them. When it's heading in their direction you don't hear anything about this issue.

Collecting taxes and putting it towards services is redistribution. If redistribution equals socialism then we're all already living in a socialist government. Case closed.

I'm With Bill

Bill Maher has a section at the end of his HBO show, Real Time With Bill Maher, called New Rules. It's a short comedic section where he points out things that bug him and asks that they be put to rest. The final entry is one that he jokes about and then delves into for a much deeper look to end the show.

Last night's entry was one I entirely agree with. He talked about the need to move beyond the message that is daily put forth by the likes of Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and others of their type.

What he reminded the viewers about is the fact that from the absolute instant Bill Clinton became the President-Elect, these same pundits were on the attack. It didn't matter what the issues were. It didn't matter what the decisions were. All that mattered was that a Democrat was in the White House and that person had to be crushed from every possible angle every possible way every single day. It worked so well that the populace completely forgot what the role of President is all about and elected a buffoon to office--twice. Note, I didn't feel this way about the last two Republicans in office and voted for one of them so don't try to levy the same tag on me.

For those that weren't around Maher is dead-on. These guys invented more crap to try and bring Clinton down that it turned Hillary Clinton into the anti-Christ that the Right views her as.

Barack Obama has been the President-Elect for less than a week. The entire world is rejoicing at this choice like never before. Months before he takes a step into the White House as it's primary occupant the dividends of this selection are already being felt. Meanwhile the harbingers of hate and fear are already engaged in an all-out offensive against him.

I want to make it clear that absolutely NOTHING this mans says or does will garner positive support from these people. He could say that the sky is blue and they'd pilary him for a week over using such a blatant stereotype. The guy has appointed one person to his staff and already they view this as clear evidence that he's the devil. When word leaked that he might choose Robert Gibbs as his Press Secretary the radio lit up like a Christmas tree. Why? Because Gibbs took on Sean Hannity and totally undressed him on his own show. For these cretins there can be no worse offense. Gibbs is informed and able to call these hypocrits for what they truly are and they cannot accept that. Their only retort is to call this partisan. What it is has nothing to do with partisanship and everything to do with no longer standing for these types of negative messages being put forth, wrongly, as fact.

These guys will say whatever they feel they have to in order to draw attention to their own shows for their own best interests and those interests have absolutely nothing to do with what's good for the country or us. It has everything to do with what's best for their own wallets and ego. Their credibility can be exposed by anyone who isn't biased within moments. Do not forget that Sean Hannity, for example, opened his own show for weeks telling the world that if we elected the likes of Nancy Pelosi to the House that the entire remainder of George W. Bush's term would be dominated entirely by impeachment proceedings. Most of his rhetoric is just as inaccurate as this and the same goes for the rest of these messengers.

Dick Morris, Hannity and Limbaugh all tried to make the case that the stock market dropped on Wednesday because Obama got elected. Really? And why did it drop 777 points a few weeks ago? You've got to be kidding me. The markets have been bouncing around like a roller coaster and they pick this one data point to try to tie it to their cause? How do they explain it going up so much on Friday? These people simply have no credibility. None.

We have a new opportunity to move on and the best thing that can happen here would be to judge the new President on the merits, or lack-thereof, of the RESULTS of the choices he makes. Who his Chief of Staff selection is should not be fodder for discussion at this point. It exposes the bias of the messenger. Until we see tangible, measurable results from any choice Obama makes then these people should stand down on the rhetoric. To do anything else is to do nothing but continue on down the path of fear and hate.

Eastwood Does It Again With Changeling

Clint Eastwood has always amazed me. Here's a guy that has re-invented himself so many times over the years. He starts out in spaghetti westerns and moves on to better westerns, then becomes a top action hero followed by a solid drama actor and finally one of the very best directors the industry has to offer. You've got to admire a guy that can be that successful for that long while also changing roles to boot.

His current film as director is Changeling. It's a surprising story about a real event that started in 1928. To tell you about the plot is to expose a bit too much. Suffice to say that the event is an emotional one involving a mother and her son and the truly infamous interactions with the corrupt and inept Los Angeles police department.

The main character is Christine Collins played by Angelina Jolie. Jolie has become a lightning rod for criticism mainly as a result of her own choices in life. She chooses paths that beg attention and many reviewers just can't get around that. Her portrayal here is excellent and yet half the reviews I see mock her handling of the role. It's just not warranted. She plays it wonderfully.

Another prime character is played by the always-dependable John Malkovich. He plays a local religious icon determined to expose the injustice and extremes of the police. Malkovich is one of those actors that seemed timeless to me but not now. Here he clearly looks much older and it's going to be hard to adjust to seeing him playing old men from here on out. Of course this effort is no different than the rest of his work.

The story is a bit detailed and can demand at times that the viewer pay attention without drifting too far. For me that doesn't mean it was slow. Some have said that. It was long but it always had my attention.

A few of the scenes are downright gut-wrenching. Do not see this if you're not able to handle serious pulls at your heart and mind.

The most amazing thing to me about the movie is that, while other movies often just paste on the label, "True Story", this one deserves to trumpet it loudly. Clint Eastwood took the actual events and almost always simply tightened them up. I found only a few instances of dramatic license. The true events just didn't need very much in the way of added flourishes.

His attention-to-detail for the main plot points is excellent. It's a story you won't soon forget and even the most implausible points are simply a re-telling of what happened. Reviewers who questioned this without checking their facts should be ashamed.

The biggest criticism I can levy is that it felt a bit too much like Eastwood's previous movie, Mystic River, for much of the movie and that might distract some viewers.

Regardless, I was haunted by this movie and for me that means it was a good experience. Many in the theater sat motionless after the film ended. It's a powerful film telling a powerful story by a director who knows what he's doing.

Another interesting thought is that Eastwood has now amassed enough winning material in his career as to finally be one of the few stars that you think of with the intent of seeing all their work. Alfred Hitchcock is the classic example of this. You know that if a film has either of their names on it you're very likely to enjoy the investment.

The Radicals Don't Get It

The conservative radicals of the party simply are not understanding what happened on Tuesday.

Rush Limbaugh is suggesting it's all about race. Sean Hannity has a litany of things the Right has to do to get the party back on track and they're all pretty off-base.

The problem is not race. It's not the force of the message. The problem is the approach of people like those above.

Take race. Blacks have not had equal treatment in this country no matter how you look at it. Sure we've tossed some bones their way but almost out of a sense of guilt more than anything else. They've had to live the life of racism. Simply enough, as famous as someone like Will Smith is, I know a lot of white people who wouldn't willingly change places with him and have to trade being white for being black. That says a lot.

So we've mistreated this entire segment of our population for generations and while things are improving it's still not a retired problem. So along comes someone who they relate to. Is it any wonder that they'd support this person? That's not about race--it's about HOPE. Hope is a grand thing that needs to be fostered whenever possible. It's now possible for many who thought it might never be.

For Rush Limbaugh and the rest of the pundits to try to reduce this to a matter of race is insulting. It's also hypocritical. Why is it wrong for a black voter to feel a kinship to Barack Obama but it's totally fine for these same pundits to talk of the power of that same connection their voters get from Sarah Palin or George W. Bush? It's fine that you can vote for Bush because he's someone you want to have a beer with but it's wrong to vote for Obama because he's someone who understands what it's like to be in your skin? This makes no sense and speaks to the double-standard that we're also fed up with. You can't pontificate about the value of "hockey mom's", "Joe Six-packs" and feed us "Joe the Plumber" and then complain when the other side does the same thing with Barack Obama.

The bottom line is that the electorate is fed up with the bullshit that comes out of the Right. Yes, both parties have their problems but the Right comes at us with the volume of it turned up to 10.

During the entire election process, for example, how many times did someone call John McCain anything that didn't fit his situation? Did anyone call him a dirty kike or anything of the sort? No. Why? Because the Left doesn't put out that kind of hateful message. When that misguided woman at the McCain rally said that Obama was an Arab (and couldn't be trusted) it said it all. You have people calling him every name in the book and even turning his own middle name into a slur. He's a muslim. He's named Hussein. He's a dirty socialist. He's black!

That is what we're fed up with. Stop arming your followers with garbage that we then have to clean up when things go "wrong". If you gave a damn about your country and your fellow man you'd inform your listeners that these stereotypes are negative and have no place here. Stick to the issues.

We're also fed up with a group of people who tell us they know the answers but who blindly support one of the worst Presidents in history and cannot admit their fault. Why should we listen to you at all? You told us this guy was brilliant. You told us his path was the right one. You told us goofy crap like Bush's second term equated to a mandate when he barely won while now screaming that Obama's much larger victory doesn't qualify.

Many of your own listeners may not care or have the ability to remember all these things you toss out there but that doesn't make it right. The rest of us do hear you and can contrast.

Obama isn't even a week into his President-elect status and already the radical pundits are braced for the worst and telling their listeners that it's all downhill from here.

This sort of thinking goes only one way--negative. Some of you may recall Bernie Goetz. Goetz aggressively shot four guys on a train in New York that were intent on robbing him. When asked about why he did it, he said that he felt like a rat living in a rat hole and he thus responded like a cornered rat. He was a victim of his environment. If you spend hours each day listening to garbage on the radio you're going to likewise become jaded over the subjects being put forth and therein lies the problem with these pundits. All they are doing is perpetualizing the hatred. It's why we saw sheer invective coming out of the McCain rallies and I firmly believe it's what kept John McCain up at nights and why he wouldn't go to the lengths such pundits wanted him to go to. McCain is decent and has morals and chose not to go over a set line. I also believe he's sorry for how far he did choose to push that line.

This is a time when we should all be resetting the scales. We should all be at zero right now looking to see what the President-elect has in store and then respond. If you're going into it expecting the worst then you're likely going to only see what you want to see and, in my view, it's because you've chosen to fill your day surrounded by a message of fear and hate. The majority of the country has shown that they've moved on. Until the Right figures that out they're going to be lost and that's a shame.

While much of the rest of the WORLD is celebrating our amazing evolution we've got this entire segment spitting on yet another huge opportunity all because they simply cannot or will not see the light. It's a shame and it has to stop.

Obama Just Got The Call

Barack Obama has been projected as the 44th President by CNN and it's something to behold. For better or worse (and I think it can only be better) we've made major history with this choice.

I hope this quiets the radicals on the Right for a while as their rhetoric is very much at the heart of this decisive victory for the Democrats. Just this morning Rush Limbaugh was talking about Obama "stealing" an election (which is so ridiculous as to be sad). Sean Hannity was his typical self throwing every possible insult Obama's way.

What these people do not understand is the cry of the call, "Enough" from the voters. This is a mandate-level victory unlike the fictional ones claimed by the prior administration. The total expelling of Republicans in every corner speaks volumes. Understand that I am an Independent. I voted for Republicans and Democrats both today. It's essential that the Republicans wake up and re-aquaint themselves with their core platform. It's time for them to keep the Democrats in check with regard to spending and core conservative values.

This is a monumental moment and it's now time to get behind President Elect Obama to see if he can address many of the poor choices of the last eight years. We have an opportunity here to either continue to move forward with our ill-informed hate or to embrace this amazing change. Barack Obama has shown the world that America is the land of diversity and has engergized a world population with this victory.

It is the moment to get behind him to show the world that we believe in that message and that we, as a country, will move forward and not just look back at our mistakes by compounding them further.

John McCain needs to take the first step in this journey and show what a leader he really is by accepting his fate with grace and vision. I expect he will do exactly that. I firmly believe that what we saw of this man for the last year did not represent his core personality and that, in a way, he will gain solace in the fact that this race is over.

I am also heartened by the race issue which appears to have been so minimal in this election. Blacks have had a rough ride in this country over its history and this historic victory will go a long way towards healing many of those wounds. It's about time. I can't wait to see what happens next.

FOX News Having A Crisis

Well, here we are on election eve and FOX News is having a real tizzy. It's endless railing on Jeremiah Wright and the Barack Obama quote from 11 months ago regarding coal plants. This is their Hail Mary pass?

Dick Morris should just be given a show on FOX News. How this guy has any remaining credibility is a total mystery. He makes one incorrect prediction after another and yet he gets endless time all over FOX News to be able to attack all things Left. His latest bit is in endlessly hawking a PAC group to directly help it raise money to run a final slew of Jeremiah Wright ads. Been there. Done that. Don't care.

The other item they're pushing is a snippet, totally out-of-context, where Obama stated that anyone could try to open a NEW coal plant but they'd be bankrupted due to taxes he'd place on them for dirty emissions vented into the atmosphere. First, they're playing this as if he stated that he'd bankrupt all coal plants. Second, this interview has been around since January and it just comes out NOW? Are you kidding me?

What Obama is saying is that his plans would push coal plants to move to clean coal technologies which everyone wants. Furthermore, John McCain has said pretty much the same exact thing and when his proposal on the issue came to the floor on 2005 Republican Senator George Voinvich said, "Mr. President, the McCain Amendment will put coal out of business by forcing fuel-switching to natural gas."

These guys are unbelievably desperate. They know there are idiots out there scattered all across the battleground states, just like the moronic woman at the McCain rally that mistakenly called Obama an Arab. They also know that several of those same states are big coal suppliers who would not take this news well. Thankfully it's FOX News where most of their viewers have long ago cast their lot for John McCain.

So Much For Rush On Polling

For some time now Rush Limbaugh has been telling his listeners that polling is a bunch of garbage because it's all a tool of the liberal media to dissuade conservatives by giving them the impression that they might as well stay home on election day as the race is already over.

He then suggested that the polls tighten (as they do in many races just before the election) because the pollsters ultimately want to get it right. They don't want to have egg on their face when it's all over as they'd lose credibility.

What a bunch of ridiculous nonsense.

This suggests that independent organizations are willing to have egg on their faces for months by taking in all the data they get and simply lying about it. Don't you think that someone at these polling companies would have exposed this as a scam long ago if it were actually the case?

It also doesn't fit with the current situation. Limbaugh gets a pass for a period as pretty much all polls fluctuate up and down. However, all the final polling that's been done is showing Barack Obama opening up a bigger lead than a week ago putting all the polling entities right back in the same situation Limbaugh says they move to avoid.

How do people listen to this discredited windbag in such numbers? I can listen to anything the guy says for 10 minutes and find something blatantly fictional every time. Rush rarely goes "off-message" in my book.

Slip-up or Insight?

A quick thought before I forget it. John McCain was in Pennsylvania this weekend and was making a comment that stuck out pretty strongly for me. He basically said, "Senator Joe Biden has a habit of going off-message and telling the truth."

He was speaking about the goof-up Biden fell into when he was candid about his thoughts regarding what would likely happen if Obama is elected (that some country or group is apt to want to test him).

The latter part doesn't bother me one bit. Any president is likely to be tested sooner or later. What bothers me is the initial comment--"going off-message and telling the truth".

I heard that and immediately thought, "Gee John, are you telling us that when you're on message that all we're getting is bullshit?" It certainly sounds like he's suggesting that anything on-message is just BS. I know people are thinking, "Well, he just meant the Dems" but I don't buy that. I think this speaks to a subconscious truth. McCain knows what "on-message" means more than anyone else around and to screw that up would be pretty tough.

Zack And Miri Make A Porno For W.

Another double movie weekend this week. On Friday we saw the latest in yet another "Apatow-like" string of movies-- "Zach And Miri Make A Porno". It again has nothing to do with Judd Apatow but has the many of the same actors in it that show up here and there in the others of the group.

This one stars Seth Rogen (a major force in these movies) and Elizabeth Banks who seems to be in every other movie over the last year or so. This time the movie is from Kevin Smith of "Clerks" fame. I should tell you right out that I thought "Clerks" was pretty interesting for an indie movie but haven't liked anything else the guy has done. I especially disliked the campy "Dogma" that so many of his fans love.

This, I'm pretty sure, goes down as his most mainstream movie for the time being. There was a big bunch of idiotic press about the title of the movie. Of course the title was there for the shock value but if you think you're going to go see a porno then you miss the entire point.

Zach and Miri are life-long friends who live together and struggle to make ends meet. When things get desperate they decide they could make some fast money by making a porno. The story revolves around the silliness of trying to pull that off and the ramifications that this choice has on their friendship.

It has some funny moments but it's also campy in the style of other Kevin Smith movies. There are some interesting bit parts played by past Smith staples along with past porn queen Traci Lords and current porn star Katie Morgan. Yes, I know some porn stars. Get over it. There's also a surprising performance from Brandon Routh playing a gay friend of Miri's. It's surprising because Routh is most known for being the current squeaky-clean Superman. I can't imagine the studio is too happy with his choice in roles here.

Overall it's a decently fun time with some mildly titilating moments (it's hard not to notice Katie Morgan's heavily enhanced physique). The jokes are all pretty obvious but it's still cute. The stink over the title has only drawn more attention to the movie for no good reason.

On Saturday we saw the Oliver Stone biopic on George W. Bush called simply, "W."

There really isn't a whole lot to like here. Stone knows how to make a riviting movie and this is not one of them. It does a great job of presenting the facts (which he's had a past tendancy to play very loose with) and the acting is pretty solid across a very large cast. Josh Brolin does a nice job as Bush. Richard Dreyfuss does an eerily good job as Dick Cheney and Jeffrey Wright plays a spot-on Colin Powell.

There are some miscues with the cast. Elizabeth Banks doesn't work for me as Laura Bush. In scenes where they're supposed to be older she makes it look like Bush is robbing the cradle. Ellen Burstyn as Barbara Bush was a bust for me. She played Barbara as a complete curmudgeon lacking all the charisma that Barbara does have. Scott Glenn was very disappointing as Donald Rumsfeld. It was as if he payed no attention to anything Rumsfeldian. The worst was Thandie Newton as Condolezza Rice. This portrayal seemed like some really bizarre impression instead of a portrayal.

As far as the story, Stone tells it pretty straight though he does take some famous elements and tosses them into scenes they really don't belong to. Then there's the chocking-on-a-pretzel scene that seems like something thrown in just for the hell of it. One moment the story is following a plotline and then next we get him choking on a pretzel and then back to the storyline.

In the end it fails for me in the biggest possible way a biopic can fail. You really learn nothing you didn't already know about the person. "Nixon" had this same problem, for example. Maybe it'll be of use for someone 20 years from now that wasn't old enough to have lived through this administration but for now it's like watching old news. It has its moments. There's a scene where Cheney, in a closed-door meeting, makes the case for war in Iraq against the resistance of Colin Powell that just really pulls you out of your seat. Sadly this is the only such high point I can recall. I wanted insight into the inner workings of this guy beyond what everyone already knows and I just didn't get it here.

Worst of all this movie succeeds at doing something I didn't think was possible. It turns the worst president in our history into a sympathetic caricature. You want to give the guy the pass given all the so-called "challenges" he had to "overcome" to get as far as he did. Save me.....