Even if you have questions from a libertarian perspective on the duration of intellectual property rights, during whatever term you think appropriate those rights still are property rights.  Enforceable property rights are at the bedrock of our free market.  And if the government is not the backstop for egregious—often criminal–violations of those rights, then what good are the rights in the first place?

During the Bush Administration, the Congress created the office of the Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator, a White House position that was first filled by President Obama but that will continue into the future regardless of the President’s party.  While the title sounds grandiose, the IPEC performs an important facilitating role to focus the resources of the Federal government on the stick part of IP rights.  If you are on the side—my side—that believes strongly both in a free market and also the property rights that are the basis of it, at some point you want the government to help level the playing field.  While I loathe the idea of government seizing private property for any reason, including eminent domain, I equally loathe the government essentially allowing—through a failure to enforce the laws–big corporations and pirates to seize private property.  Government should enforce these private property rights and reduce free-riding and negative externalities occurring due to piracy. 

As I watched Chairman Goodlatte’s recent hearing in the House IP subcommittee on the theft of America’s intellectual property assets, a fundamental question came to me that no one asked.  Few would argue that a creator has the right to call the police when their physical property is being stolen.  When it comes to IP, somehow it’s different to some people.  Opponents of intellectual property rights often think that creators should be forced to pay for private litigation against large corporate interests, or pursue transborder pirates in China, Russia or CatchMeIfYouCan-istan–even though these shadowy operators sell US IP in the US illegally. 

If a creator’s car is being stolen, they can call the police, but some would have the law say that if their life’s work is being stolen, creators have to spend a fortune on litigation or suck it up.  This is inconsistent with free market principles.  The IPEC’s recommendations are consistent with fundamental first principles and are a necessary back-fill to loop holes that have been exploited by parasitic free riders for far too long.

Most notably missing on the current subject of China’s human rights record is Richard Gere, a man who has championed the Tibetan people for years and one who I believe to be sincere in his cause. In 2008, Mr. Gere took to Washington and said this about the Bush administration and Tibet:

But the Bush administration was not silent on the subject and did more than just show the public where Tibet could be found on a map. In 2007 Bush hosted a very public event for the Dalai Lama (also a Nobel Peace Prize winner) and awarded him one of the highest U.S. honors and called on China to open talks with the exiled Tibetan spiritual leader whom Beijing reviles as a separatist.

In 2009 the current administration snubbed the Dalai Lama before Obama’s trip to Beijing, later holding a private meeting with the exiled leader in the Whitehouse Map Room away from the press and then sending his Holiness out the back door.

Hollywood activist like Richard Gere who only speak out on human rights when they’re able to position their cause through a prism of righteous indignation over a Republican administration and not governments in general, let more people die while they wait for their boogie man to return to the White House. What say you, Mr. Gere?

Hollywood myth-making on Valerie Plame controversy

We certainly hope that is not the case. In fact, “Fair Game,” based on books by Mr. Wilson and his wife, is full of distortions – not to mention outright inventions. To start with the most sensational: The movie portrays Ms. Plame as having cultivated a group of Iraqi scientists and arranged for them to leave the country, and it suggests that once her cover was blown, the operation was aborted and the scientists were abandoned. This is simply false. In reality, as The Post’s Walter Pincus and Richard Leiby reported, Ms. Plame did not work directly on the program, and it was not shut down because of her identification.

The movie portrays Mr. Wilson as a whistle-blower who debunked a Bush administration claim that Iraq had tried to purchase uranium from the African country of Niger. In fact, an investigation by the Senate intelligence committee found that Mr. Wilson’s reporting did not affect the intelligence community’s view on the matter, and an official British investigation found that President George W. Bush’s statement in a State of the Union address that Britain believed that Iraq had sought uranium in Niger was well-founded.

Penn didn’t simply jump the shark with Fair Game, he looks to have gone full-Fonzi with a jacket and shades. Sadly, such a lack of integrity and appreciation for truth isn’t limited to Hollywood these days. Lies, like mistakes, reverberate and should have consequences when they are this dishonest and glaring. But don’t look for a currently mostly liberal Washington to hold Penn, or Hollywood, to account for what amounts to blatant dishonesty when it comes to America’s recent political history.

Fair Game isn’t truth, or history, it isn’t even an exercise in mild revisionism. It’s the perpetuation of a Big Lie more suitable for a Politburo, than a Hollywood studio. Hopefully there are still enough Americans grounded in reality to know that Penn’s latest endeavor in agitprop doesn’t belong under some allegedly big political tent spanning from Hollywood to DC. Given the Post’s editorial, Fair Game has more in common with a Pee Wee Herman big adventure, than anything reality-based, or the least bit politically truthful. 

“Fair Game” also resells the couple’s story that Ms. Plame’s exposure was the result of a White House conspiracy. A lengthy and wasteful investigation by a special prosecutor found no such conspiracy – but it did confirm that the prime source of a newspaper column identifying Ms. Plame was a State Department official, not a White House political operative.

Hollywood has a habit of making movies about historical events without regard for the truth; “Fair Game” is just one more example. But the film’s reception illustrates a more troubling trend of political debates in Washington in which established facts are willfully ignored.

Yes, political bias is the main reason conservative films don’t get distribution; there are a ton of crappy liberal films that get distribution.  But that doesn’t change the fact that some of the most highly publicized conservative modern entrees into the field of film have been total artistic and popular bombs.

Filmmaker Michael Pack

When a conservative film gets made that is actually high quality, it’s a surprise.  So when I saw new documentary, The Last 600 Meters, I was shocked.  It’s gripping, engrossing, enthralling.  It’s a movie every American should see.

The Last 600 Meters tells the story of the two deadliest battles of the Iraq war — the Battles of Fallujah and Najaf — from the perspective of the soldiers who fought in them.  We see through their eyes – the footage and stills were taken during the actual battle.  We meet the strong, resilient, sensitive and brave men and women of the armed services who do the fighting and the killing and the dying that we won’t do.

The images are stunning.

We watch a firefight in a magnificently archaic and overbuilt cemetery outside Najaf.  We learn about a terrorist-created deathtrap known as the “Hell House” in Fallujah, where our troops demonstrated their heroism and creative thinking while taking heavy casualties.  We observe as our troops invade the house of Shia Islamic leader Muqtada al Sadr – and find, in his bedroom, framed photographs of American tough-guy action stars Arnold Schwarzenegger, Sylvester Stallone, and Clint Eastwood.  We follow our troops as they go house to house finding huge weapons caches and terrorists.  And yes, there is an actual scene with American soldiers walking through the smoking ruins of Fallujah while singing the Mickey Mouse Club song, a la Full Metal Jacket.

What’s just as stunning is the take from ground level on the geopolitical decisions being made by politicians at the highest level

We’re one day from taking Fallujah in April 2004 when Al Jazeera begins hijacking CBS’s satellite feed from a Fallujah hospital, then adding their own spin – and the resulting media furor causes the Bush Administration to end the action.  The result: terrorists from across the globe come to Fallujah to establish a base, and we have to re-enter a few months later to wipe them out.

In Najaf, our troops fight their way through city streets and converge around the central Imam Ali Mosque, where al Sadr and his terrorist followers are holed up.  They meticulously avoid firing their weapons around the mosque.  They train Iraqi special operations units to make the final entry into the mosque.  And then, just as they’re about to finish off al Sadr and his men once and for all, al Sadr, in a deal brokered by the Iraqi government, turns over the keys to the mosque to Ayatollah Sistani, the highest ranking Shia figure in Iraq.  And our troops pull out of Najaf, handing the city back over to the insurgents.

If this film has any political content, it’s a pro-troops content.  Yes, our troops are pro-war – one of the officers makes an impassioned speech about the value of fighting terrorism and spreading liberty in Iraq.  But the film is just as critical of the top-down decision making that led the coalition forces to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory over and over again.

What comes across throughout The Last 600 Meters is the incredible value of the men and women of our armed services.  They know that their job isn’t to make the political decisions – it’s to implement them.  They’re there to take those policies “the last 600 meters.”  And they get the job done, no matter what the obstacles.

I spoke with Michael Pack, producer of the film.  It will be shown on PBS in a few months, but he is looking for a distributor to get it shown as a mainstream feature.  If ever a conservative film deserved that sort of support, this is the one.  It is a tremendous demonstration of the fact that conservative films can be more than just conservative – they can be truly great.

[An interview with filmmaker Michael Pack and producer Stephen K. Bannon can be seen here: Part 2 -- Part 3.]

“Basterds,” misspelled the way Brad Pitt’s moonshining Lt. Aldo Raine character carved it into his rifle, takes place in German-occupied France from 1941 to 1944.  Tarantino makes a point of specifying “Nazi-occupied France,” justifying to the film watcher the extreme measures needed to deal with this particular type of human evil.  That National Socialist German Workers’ Party membership never numbered more than about 20 percent of the adult German population is beside the point; the Nazi Party in the guise of Hitler (played by Martin Wuttke) controlled the Wehrmacht from the top.  

“Basterds” follows three characters.  ”Chapter 1″ introduces Shosanna Dreyfus (Mélanie Laurent) a young Frenchwoman whose dairy farmer family is wiped out in 1941 by the Germans and Col. Hans Landa (Christoph Waltz), who directs the killing.  Landa is a member of the Sicherheitsdienst (SD), the intelligence service of the SS and the Nazi Party, who considers himself a detective asked by his government to find every last Jewish person in France.  In “Chapter 2″ we meet U.S. Army Lt. Aldo Raine. Raine’s crossed arrows insignia on his collar identifies him as a member of the First Special Service Force, a U.S.-Canadian commando force called the Devil’s Brigade.  Lt. Raine leads a small band of soldiers, all of whom happen to be Jewish, on a mission of retribution, mayhem and terror behind enemy lines, the goal: take 100 “Nazi scalps” each. 

While “Basterds” is pure fiction, it does trace historical actions depicted in “Bodyguard of Lies” by Anthony Cave Brown.  “Bodyguard” details the deadly cloak-and-dagger action surrounding the effort to return Allied forces to the Continent on D-Day.  The scene with Mike Myers’ as British spymaster General Ed Fenech and Rod Taylor as Churchill suggests Major General Sir Stewart Menzies, Britain’s WWII head of the Secret Intelligence Service, as the basis for Myers’ character.  “Bodyguard’s” riveting accounts, such as the German capture and interrogation of British agent Princess Noor Inayat Khan (she was killed in Dachau, her last words being “liberty”), echo parts of “Basterds” – reminding one that “Basterds” may not be real, but it’s true – which brings up an inconvenient truth for some enthusiasts of Mr. Tarantino’s latest work. 

The theme of “Basterds” is revenge.  But revenge in this case takes place in occupied France in 1944.  In this context, Lt. Raine and his encouragement of scalping and other torture methods, violate the Hague Conventions (the forerunner to the Geneva Conventions) to which both the U.S. and Germany agreed.  The Hague’s Article 23 specifically prohibited the “treacherous” killing of an enemy, or harming enemies who had surrendered, or “declar(ing) that no quarter will be given.”  Of course, Raine’s men, usually operating sans uniform, were in violation of The Hague’s Chapter I, The Qualifications of Belligerents, Article 1, reading in part, that proper belligerents must, “have a fixed distinctive emblem recognizable at a distance” and “conduct their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.”  Executing prisoners is, unfortunately, an unspoken reality of swift-moving commando forces operating behind enemy lines.  Beating enemy prisoners of war to death with a baseball bat while not wearing a uniform is an even more obvious violation of the law of war.  Under rules then in effect, if Raines’ men were captured while operating outside of these rules, they could be treated very harshly – even summarily executed. 

In 1949, the Geneva Conventions updated the Hague Conventions. The Third Geneva Convention, Part I, Article 4, parallels The Hague’s Article 23 in specifying the attributes of a legitimate prisoner of war who is deserving of protection by his captor.  It is this part of the law of war that the Bush Administration cited when justifying their treatment of men captured as part of the Global War on Terror (now called “overseas contingency operations”), i.e. al-Qaeda didn’t fight with “a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance” or carry “arms openly” or conduct “their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war” therefore they were “unlawful combatants.” 

It is interesting indeed to see those who applaud Tarantino’s latest, admittedly excellent work, revel in the unbridled revenge against Nazis who get what’s coming to them.  Many of whom, without batting an eye, view al-Qaeda killers as deserving of respect, protection, and the benefit of civilian law.  Since all that separates al-Qaeda from the Nazis is the means – industrial power, modern education, and an organized national base – one wonders why a certain amount of cognitive dissonance wouldn’t kick in after a liberal enjoyed screening “Basterds.” 

To the point, what would a liberal think of the scene where Lt. Raine interrogates a captured German sergeant, demanding the location of a German outpost and its supporting artillery?  As the German NCO refuses to talk, Raine orders one of his men to kill the prisoner with a baseball bat.  When the two remaining German prisoners see this, one runs in horror and is shot down, while the other is brought over and threatened with the same deadly treatment.  He talks, saving the lives of the American commandos.  For the prisoner’s troubles, Raines carves a swastika into his forehead.  By comparison, the waterboarding of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed during interrogation seems rather pedestrian. 

Were Lt. Aldo Raine unleashed in Waziristan today, he and his men (all from New York City to provide the needed element of justifiable revenge) would no doubt relish taking al-Qaeda and Taliban scalps.  Alas, were Tarantino to make this flick, it would end prematurely just as Osama bin Laden was about to be relieved of his wavy locks by Raine’s massive knife.  The unsatisfying closing sequence would have a shocked Raine arrested by FBI agents after the Basterds’ cover was blown by the New York Times.  The credits would roll on Raine’s trial by Attorney General Holder’s Department of Justice with bin Laden in protective custody as a witness to Raine’s heinous war crimes. 

I don’t see Tarantino making that film – it might not be real, but it’s too true for Hollywood.

Anyone with a rudimentary understanding of economics knows that what he is saying is patently false.  The moment the government nationalizes medical insurance, it will undercut all other insurers since the Government doesn’t need to make a profit, whereas insurers do.  Employers, always mindful of their bottom line, will immediately transfer over to the Government plan and all ability of the insured to choose their provider will be lost.  The resultant overload of the government system will force the rationing of health care services.  Soon, the other insurers will be forced out of business and Voilà!, we will have arrived at the goal, previously stated by the President and others like Barney Frank, of a single-payer, Government-run system–just like the failing, overburdened socialized medicine systems of Canada and England.

Now, since facts are stubborn things, the only way the Obama Administration and Congressional Democrats can contend with facts that contradict their unfounded assertions is to demonize their opponents.  Nancy Pelosi makes bizarre and fantastic claims that opponents of the Health Care Industry takeover arrive at Town hall meetings displaying Swastikas!  Barbara Boxer makes up wondrous tales of “well-dressed” yet angry “mobs” who must (obviously) be paid by nefarious rabble-rousers to undermine the saintly agenda of the President.  Instead of their concerns being addressed, these eloquent common folk, fired by the passion of their convictions and legitimately dismayed by the direction our country is going in, are dismissed across the board by Democrat legislators as mere rabble.  Is this what our Founders envisioned as a representative form of government?

Still, one can easily write off the flailing response of legislators who see their unbridled quest for power being undermined by a populace informed of the stubborn facts.  Much more frightening, is what is written next on that White House blog:

There is a lot of disinformation about health insurance reform out there, spanning from control of personal finances to end of life care.  These rumors often travel just below the surface via chain emails or through casual conversation.  Since we can’t keep track of all of them here at the White House, we’re asking for your help. If you get an email or see something on the web about health insurance reform that seems fishy, send it to flag@whitehouse.gov.

So, let me get this straight: the same people who went ballistic over a supposed “invasion of privacy” because the Bush Administration dared to use computerized (read, mechanical) monitoring of phone lines to ferret out domestic terrorists, are now asking that personal e-mails and “casual conversation(s)” that disagree with the Party Line be reported to the Feds?  If I dare to send my friends an e-mail that contains some stubborn facts – leave aside this highly public article – will I be visited by the “men in black”?  Maybe I should get my tax records in order for the coming IRS audit.

Anyone who has read Jonah Goldberg’s seminal history book Liberal Fascism will immediately recognize what is going on here.  Leftist ideology, to the large extent that it is indistinguishable today from Fascist ideals, depends largely upon shutting down the free flow of information.  Furthermore, as the supposed “Health Care Crisis” and the “Climate Change Crisis” so aptly illustrate, the modern Left (a far cry from classic Liberalism) needs to manufacture crises to get it’s agenda passed before anyone can understand or object.   After all, it’s all those stubborn facts that keep getting in the way of “transformation,” and one way to insure that a crisis remains a crisis is to limit public access to those doggone stubborn facts.

There was a huge “crisis” that needed Congress to immediately pass the “Stimulus” bill.  Over a thousand pages long, it couldn’t wait long enough for the members of Congress to read it.  Forget the Obama campaign promise to have a five-day period for public comment before any bill is passed.  No, the “crisis” was too great to spare even a moment’s delay.  Of course, once it was passed, the Obama Administration took several days to arrange a wastefully expensive photo-op bill-signing in Denver.  So much for urgency.

As it is, we as a people, are already deep into uncharted territory when it comes to the effects of an unprecedented expansion of Government spending and control of our personal lives.  Everyone–Left, Right, or Center–should be very alarmed by the kind of rhetoric coming from the White House that I quoted above.  The White House is now explicitly asking us to snitch on our neighbors.  In this great country, the foundation of our freedom depends upon our ability to know and disseminate the stubborn facts and then debate their consequences.  Let’s all make sure that those pesky, stubborn facts can continue to be freely spoken.

Mama’s in the factory, she ain’t got no shoes. Daddy’s in the alley, he’s lookin’ for food; I’m in the kitchen with the tombstone blues. “Tombstone Blues” – Bob Dylan

Perhaps the sudden death of pop icon Michael Jackson had many Hollywood stars contemplating their own future obituaries. But the industry, which has been strongly committed to promoting the dangers of man-made global warming, was strangely silent on the Waxman-Markey bill which squeaked though the House last week. The United States economy, i.e., actual real human beings who live in America, continues to suffer from the enormous Obama-lead government’s allocation of resources by massive deficit spending and taxes. The axis of deception changes with each specific fiscal proposal.

The latest comedy of abominations, named–with its usual Orwellian precision–The American Clean Energy and Security Act, was passed Friday by the House of Representatives. The Pelosi/Waxman/Markey trio lead this charge. The winners, in this latest travesty, are that new breed of Obama entrepreneur, the mega wealthy looking for Government handouts. But the Country “has no need to be nervous.” After all, they are simply fixing the “failed policies of the Bush Administration.” But as legislation goes, this Energy Act really takes the cake. As Arnold Kling so succinctly put it, “The cap and trade legislation maximizes rent-seeking (favoritism toward particular businesses) and minimizes carbon reduction.”

This bill was resisted both by Greenpeace and those growing numbers who realize the whole premise of this Act of Congress, “man-made global warming,” is a farce. I have written about global warming before: James Hansen: Man of Science » , Al Gore’s Animal Farm and “Red Flags,” and Short Update on Squealer Al and a Compliant Brokaw. The Global Warming Petition Project has 31,000 signatories from scientists in the US who oppose the so-called climate crisis “consensus.” Their work is summarized in this this paper. The EPA’s own suppressed report skeptical of global warming can be read here CEI Releases Global Warming Study Censored by EPA . And the Senate Minority Report, with 650 signatories, can be read here US Senate Minority Report on Global Warming.

There is no consensus on “man-made” global warming. There are no demonstrated falsifiable theories that support this concept. It started out as an ideological movement and has gradually morphed into a game of crony-capitalism. Much of the world has already moved on. The two fastest growing economies, India and China, don’t even pretend they will participate. This bill will only add further costs to our already over burdened economy. I clearly don’t expect any reasoned argument to persuade those who have chosen to believe in “man-made” global warming. That would be too much to wish for. But what one should expect proponents of that view to be true to their principles. Greenpeace Opposes Waxman-Markey because, in their view, it “sets emission reduction targets far lower than science demands, then undermines even those targets with massive offsets. The giveaways and preferences in the bill will actually spur a new generation of nuclear and coal-fired power plants to the detriment of real energy solutions. To support such a bill is to abandon the real leadership that is called for at this pivotal moment in history.  We simply no longer have the time for legislation this weak.” While I obviously disagree, at least they know a pig when they see one. They know this bill does little to eliminate greenhouse gasses.

Where do those Hollywood promoters of the catastrophic dangers of global warming stand on this bill? Are they on the same side as Greenpeace? Not from what I can tell. The Hollywood eco-establishment are those guys who made hundreds of millions trying to terrify the public into action. Given this bill will reduce global warming by “seven percent in 40 years,” according to those who believe in this “science,” one would think these highly visible committed Hollywood activists would be in a state of outrage. But then one would be wrong. Let’s start with “An Inconvenient Truth” Academy Award winning Director Davis Guggenheim and his star Nobel Prize winning docu-hero, Al Gore.

Guggenheim, who said upon first meeting with Al Gore, “I left after an hour and a half thinking that global warming is the most important issue, and if I do one thing in my life it’s to help more people see Al Gore do this. I had no idea how you’d make a film out of it, but I wanted to try.” Al Gore gave a speech in DC on July 17, 2008 and called on Americans to completely abandon electricity generated by fossil fuels within 10 years, and replace them with carbon-free renewables like solar, wind and geothermal. He said “the survival of the United States of America as we know it is at risk….{and} the future of human civilization is at stake.”

What does this bill propose? That in ten years, 15%, not the 100% Gore says is needed, of the United States energy (not global energy) needs must come from “renewable” sources. By 2020, “greenhouse gas emissions” must be reduced by 17%.  However, “offsets” can be purchased that permits no reduction at all in CO2 emissions. These offsets include “activities such as protecting rain forests in Brazil — that are deemed climate-friendly.” Who will decide when an “offset” is appropriate? How much do you think those offset decisions will be worth? These are mere details that no one knows the answer to–but we can easily guess. This bill will also tax imports from countries that do not have the same standards as the US, which is a direct sales tax on the US consumer. This is absurd beyond belief. It is no wonder people who care strongly about this issue oppose it, regardless of which side they are on.

The entire premise of “An Inconvenient Truth” is the need for radical action now. So Al Gore must oppose this bill, correct? No. Instead Al Gore is the leading “rent seeker,” heavily lobbying Congress to pass this bill calling it “as important to our time as the Civil Rights legislation was to the minorities of the 1960’s and the Marshall Plan of was to America during the 1940’s.” Coincidentally, his venture capital firm is heavily invested in…….Global warming money making schemes. Guggenheim is onto other projects and has been silent on this bill. Davis Guggenheim documents Jimmy Page. But Guggenheim and Gore do not stand alone.

Leonardo DiCaprio has also been a very visible proponent of the dangers of global warming.  He was honored by Mikhael Gorbachev earlier this year when he received the International Green Film Award in Berlin. His website is dedicated to various “green” causes and has even written columns in Time Magazine in support of Van Jones, Obama’s advisor on “green jobs.” Congress is debating the most important pieces of legislation on global warming to date, yet he is silent on his website about its passage. Keanu Reeves and Alanis Morrisette narrated The Great Warming, an absurd ideological screed based on the book by Lydia Dotto. Where do they stand and Waxman-Markey? They, too, are silent. How about Oprah Winfrey, Laurie David , and Bill Maher? The list is endless. If they have spoken out, I have not seen it. These people are always at the forefront of appearing morally superior. So why aren’t they publicly involved in arguably the most important political Energy debate this country has had? Why aren’t they on their megaphones urging true reform?

But this is not really surprising. Being green in Hollywood has usually been about moral preening and self-aggrandizement, not actual legislative change. They are no different than Al Gore. This is a promotional device designed to advance their careers by being both visible on these causes yet indifferent to actual legislation. In fact, they may even have a direct interest in no serious legislation passing. This way, they can keep themselves relevant. Eventually, I hope and believe, this issue will die a deserving death.

Like modern day Leni Riefenstahls, Hollywood has been at the ideological forefront in support of the dangers of man-made global warming. But few change their lifestyles. Oprah bragged openly about her private jet at a graduation speech at Duke University. Like Al Gore, they give every indication of being in on the con. It does not really affect them. Paying a few thousand more a year in fuel costs is irrelevant. So what if we have another tax on the rest of the country?

The good news, if one can possibly call it that, is this bill has smoked out the fakes, who many of us have known were there all along. Plus the Senate may finally put the final stake in this vampire’s heart. If so, perhaps the Obama honeymoon can be declared officially over.

Tonight’s drinking game: Jack Head Twitches!

Make sure to use the new live-blog software.

Sometimes I just don’t get the Republican Party.

Back in 2004, a smart, good-looking moderate Republican Hispanic ran for Congress. At the time Victor Elizalde was just under 40 years old and working as an executive at a big-time Hollywood studio. As an ethnic minority, a family man and a rare open conservative in an industry dominated by liberals, Mr. Elizalde represented hope and change for the Republican Party.

Yet because he was running for Henry A. Waxman´s safe seat, Mr. Elizalde got no support from the Republican Party . In fact, no one in the party´s leadership took notice of him. As a result Mr. Waxman trounced Mr. Elizalde with 71 percent of the vote.

Mr. Elizalde has since moved on with his life and is no longer pursuing a political career. What a major waste of talent. Yet again, I blame the conservative movement and the Republican Party for writing off Hollywood completely.

Mr. Waxman has run virtually uncontested for 35 years now. And he causes nothing but  problems for Republicans. To hear him speak, you´d think the Grand Old Party is the No. 1 scourge in the world. Yet Republicans are nice to him and do nothing to hold him accountable for his miserable failure as Hollywood’s key congressional representative in Washington.

In 2006, Time magazine dubbed him “The Scariest Guy in Washington,” touting that Mr. Waxman has spent the previous “eight years churning out some 2,000 headline-grabbing reports, blasting the Bush administration and the Republican Congress on everything from faulty
prewar intelligence and flaws in missile defense to the flu-vaccine shortage and arsenic in drinking water.” Two years later, Britain’s Guardian newspaper similarly described him as “the scariest politician in Washington.”

Since Mr. Waxman was first elected to office in 1974 to represent much of the entertainment business’s core working population, many of the industry´s rank-and-file jobs have flown the coop. Film and television production have gone to places like Canada, Mexico, Australia, New Zealand, Romania and beyond – because California is no longer hospitable for doing business.

According to a recent report from the Center for Entertainment Industry Data and Research, Hollywood has been rocked by lost feature-film production. Despite a 30 percent rise in overall
production, the value of productions in the U.S. has declined from $3.93 billion in 1998 to $3.38 billion in 2005, a statistic that when ripple effects throughout the economy are added in, the Center estimated has cost 47,000 jobs per year and $23 billion.

Where was Henry?

You can read the column in full here.