–

Christian Toto:

“The new drama “The Blind Side” tells the story of a homeless black teen who is taken in by a Christian family led by Sandra Bullock.

“It’s a heartwarming story based on the life of NFL lineman Michael Oher.

“So why does the film feel the need to awkwardly squeeze in a slam at former president George W. Bush?”

Get the full details here.

The film’s first 45 minutes deals with the Iowa Caucus where Obama’s campaign begins. He spends eight months meeting people and working his bland charm, trying to convince everyone he’s just like them. An agreeable, prosaic kind of guy who looks good in a suit and grins a lot. There is no indication of his politics or past associations being radical. He seems a moderate. There are a few people interviewed who question his past, but it’s given little attention.

Obama coasts through his campaign like some kind of prom king who’s used to people throwing rose petals at his feet. Michelle is shown as being the supportive wife and the kids are along for the ride. It’s an image of the family that goes along with the narrative they created for themselves. The film makers said in interviews that they were impressed by how zen-like the Obama team seemed to be. My impression was they never seemed that emotionally engaged. Obama often smiled, but he was generally very detached, almost like he was coasting to victory on a wave of hubris. Robert Gibbs and David Axelrod were shown as two tired-looking, almost bored middle aged guys wrangling Obama’s scruffy young ideologues as they tried to get more voters on their side.

Obama’s “genius” as a politician is to be a blank slate for people who didn’t know him. They projected their own aspirations and expectations on his candidacy. He appeared at a time when people were afraid the economy was tanking and they didn’t see answers in the usual faces running for president. They were able to see Obama as someone calm and in control. An image he was able to maintain throughout the race.

Isn’t it funny how looks are often deceiving?

The film’s villain wasn’t so much John McCain but Hillary Clinton, who gave Obama his biggest fight. Yes, the revealing thing about this doc was how Obama seemed to be largely unaffected by the ups and downs of the race. Part of that comes from the fact that Obama was “selected and not elected.” He won caucuses, Hillary won elections. Obama was able to get enough delegates by caucuses to appear the leader in the race. Then momentum carried him home.

Obama’s career has been full of opportunities and awards handed to him on a platter. And when that doesn’t work, he uses underhanded tricks.

The film is a lot like Obama himself: bland, humorless and full of meaningless platitudes. But it looks nice.

And that’s the problem with ObamaMania. The Dems threw Hillary Clinton under the bus because many of them didn’t like her baggage, yet these same people, who screamed bloody murder about President Bush’s missing National Guard records, didn’t even blink at the fact that Obama has locked away so many things in his past and denied his associations with America-hating radicals. Yet his cabinet is full of those very same kind of people. Which brings us to the two most hilarious statements Obama made in the campaign, which were repeated in the film:

“People are tired of fear, distractions and diversions.” and “They (the people) don’t deserve four more years of failed economic policies.”

No wonder his poll numbers are dropping. He’s right!

The irony of this show was that it debuted on the night Obama was given a glimpse of his political future. Major losses were handed to the Dems. And over on ABC, a remake of the ’80s sci fi show “V” was aired, only this time it was a comment on ObamaMania. Attractive aliens come to earth and promise “universal health care” and hope and change in return for our trust and devotion. Little do the foolish earth people know, the aliens are here to destroy us.

Don’t you hate it when that happens?

Although many politicians from both political parties can be compared to the husband, played by Chris Noth, an obvious comparison springs up in the premiere episode as the lead character, Alicia Florrick who is played by Julianna Marguiles, returns to work as a lawyer. One of her supervisors, played by Christine Baranski, bluntly says to her, “Not only are you coming back to the workplace fairly late but you have some very prominent baggage.” She then adds, pointing to a picture of current Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, “But hey, if she can do it, so can you.” Furthering the perception that the lead couple can be compared to President Bill Clinton and his wife, a recent article about the program from The Hill quoted one of the creators of the show offering a “suggestion” to a director about the character of the cheating husband. That suggestion was “Imagine Bill Clinton in prison.”

Admittedly , The Hill article did point out another reason for Clinton’s inclusion in the premiere. That article noted the following:

Though Secretary Clinton might seem an easy (if not overused) target, the inclusion of her image in the first episode of “The Good Wife” is more than just a tongue-in-cheek lick at old wounds; the Kings said they wanted to depict “those who broke the glass ceiling and women who came afterward”  and, of course, “still have it be entertaining.”

In the weeks since its premiere, the show has been smart in creating professional and personal realms for the main character to inhabit. At home, Alicia is trying to support her two children who have had to deal with the ramifications of their father’s actions with the assistance of her mother-in-law. At work, Alicia is trying to prove herself to her bosses while dealing with an inter-office rivalry with a young lawyer. Fortunately, for the audience, the lead character is very well-written. She is not a cold heroine bent on vengeance or driven by anger; nor is she a wronged victim trying to regain her self-esteem.  She is a strong woman who, when forced to emerge from the shadow of her husband, fights to prove herself inside the courtroom and outside of it where people often know her because of her husband’s well-publicized misdeeds. 

The program has not steered away from political discussions especially in the legal setting. In one episode, two of the top lawyers at Alicia’s firm argue over the case of a young rich kid accused of rape, which one of the lawyers compares to the Duke Lacrosse case. In the same episode that same lawyer is excited when he sees that the case is going before a judge known for his liberal tendencies — who after a hearing on the case casually asks for a moment of silence for mass killings in Darfur. The show is sharp in its ability to show how legal cases can often be viewed through a political lens by both lawyers and judges. The show can be political but it is not ideological, at least thus far, a quality that I admire about the program. 

One of the strengths of the program is also its strong cast. Julianna Marguiles is both sympathetic and engaging as the wronged spouse.  Additionally, there are several other solid television actors who play supporting roles on the series. That list includes Chris Noth (”Sex and the City”) as Alicia’s husband, Christine Baranski (”Cybill”) as one of Alicia’s supervisors, Josh Charles (”Sports Night”) as another supervisor, Mary Beth Peil (”Dawson’s Creek”) as Alicia’s mother-in-law and Matt Czuchry (”Gilmore Girls”) as Alicia’s work rival. All of those actors add to the quality of the program and it will be interesting to see how their characters develop.

It is a timely coincidence that this program started just a few weeks before The Shriver Report received a lot of attention for its analysis of the influence of women in this country. In many past political scandals about a husband cheating on his wife, the wife has often only been seen in a supporting role standing next to her husband after his flaws receive public scrutiny. In ”The Good Wife,” the wronged spouse is given a chance to prove herself apart from her husband’s political career and she fights to prove that she is more than just a victim. 

Since its premiere, the show has also been proving itself and succeeded in that task with an  engaging and entertaining program that should not be kept out of the spotlight.

In the meantime….

Who is Bosch Fawstin?

Note: No bears were actually harmed during the making of this video.  Some dry cleaning was required, but that is all.

(….and I approve of this mess. Um….uh….. I mean, I approve of these friends……..that is, until they become political liabilities)

Barack Obama inspires me.

True story:  As a young man just out of law school, I was consumed with politics.  I even went to work on the Hill (Capitol, that is, Washington, DC) and in journalism.  But at some point in the ’90s, my interest faded away.

Francis Fukuyama wrote a then-notorious book called The End of History, published in 1992, shortly after the Soviet Union’s collapse.  He argued that the age-old ideological struggles over what constitutes the best form of government were over, and the undisputed universal champion was Western liberal (in the classic, free-market sense) democracy.

I grew up during the latter stages of the Cold War, when the existential threat of nuclear war hung over and colored almost everything.  It made politics seem vital to one’s very survival.  And I found the debate between capitalism and communism hugely compelling.

After the fall of the Soviet Union and the (apparently) decisive victory of free markets over collectivism, politics lost its import and thus its grip on my attention.  But I didn’t miss it at all.  I was perfectly content to retreat to the status of a casual spectator, and to focus on more aesthetic matters.  I wrote screenplays instead of news commentary, gladly.

But Fukuyama and I were wrong.  9/11 proved it.

On that fateful morning, my phone rang a little after 6 AM.  A friend who’d recently moved to Boston insisted that I turn on the TV, despite the early hour.  The second plane had just hit the second tower.  And we were at war with a strange new foe.  (Which turned out to be an age-old foe, but I didn’t know it at the time.)

As for many others, my world changed that day.  I was dragged back, kicking and screaming, into the maelstrom of politics.  History had risen from the dead.

I knew the Internet well, but I’d largely avoided political websites.  That changed on 9/11.  I studied topics I wish I never needed to know about.  I got involved again.

I discovered another book that emerged in the ’90s, in part as a response to Fukuyama’s thesis.  It was called The Clash of Civilizations, by Samuel Huntington.  He agreed that the age of ideology was over, but argued that fault lines over culture and religion would deepen and become a greater source of conflict.  And he believed one of the principal fault lines of conflict would lie between Muslim and non-Muslim civilizations.

Huntington was remarkably prescient.  But I would add this:  I don’t think the struggle over ideology is over.

The collectivists are by no means through.  As wrong as they are, their message is too seductive to die forever.  They will always be around, in one form or another.  And I see them now joining forces, dangerously, with some of the West’s cultural adversaries.

History will never end.  We were fools ever to think so.  One evil perishes; another rises in its place.  That’s what 9/11 taught me.

One of my artistic heroes is J.R.R. Tolkien, whom I believe has much to say, albeit obliquely, about our present state.  I close with a quote from one of his letters that I oddly find somehow comforting:

“Actually, I am a Christian, and indeed a Roman Catholic, so that I do not expect ‘history’ to be anything but a ‘long defeat’ – though it contains (and in a legend may contain more clearly and movingly) some samples or glimpses of final victory.”

Yesterday, the Los Angeles Times ran an article entitled, “Obama is Fast Losing White Voters’ Support.”  In that article, the Times states that, “strategists in both parties blame Obama’s decline on growing discontent with his policy agenda, particularly after a month of often-rowdy debate over his proposed healthcare overhaul, in which some conservatives accused him of socialism.”  What else can this plan be called?  I have torn apart HR 3200 in many ways.  And, above all else, when the plan is carefully reviewed it is socialist. 

In his speech, Obama will make a plea to the people of America that the plan is necessary and should be supported by all.  It should not be a Republican and/or Democratic issue.  It is an American problem that needs to be addressed.  As I have said before, we all agree on that.  However, we cannot agree to the President and Congress’ current plan. 

In the last few days, a couple of new proposals have been introduced.  One is that the President is willing to take the public option off of the table.  This is a good start.   But, to have some sort of trigger in the bill which would initiate a public option if some level of events happen or do not happen is ridiculous.  Who is going to judge whether the trigger has occurred?  Which Presidential Czar will be in charge of that?  (I am just assuming there will be another Czar since that seems to be Obama’s answer to everything despite recent problems.) 

Another option being put on the table is to tax so called “Cadillac” plans which are the crème of the crop in medical plans.  These are usually plans held by top executives at major corporations.  Taxing these may make a lot of sense if we must tax something to pay for this onslaught on taxpayer money.  However, will that include taxing Congress’ plan as well?  I do not know how else to describe Congress’ plan other than to say it is a true Cadillac plan.  If Congress agrees to such a tax, I am sure top executives would agree as well.  Are not the Democrats the ones wanting to make the playing field level all the time? 

The Senate Finance Committee is working on what would be the first true bipartisan plan right now.  As reported by Fox.com, the plan would include penalties for those who do not get insurance depending on income level and family size.  It would also be the first mandatory plan in the same vein that Auto Insurance is mandatory in many states.  However, it would not include a public option at all.  In its place, the plan would include non-profit cooperatives (whatever the hell they are).

If this plan addresses all of the issues I addressed in my prior article I can see it being something that that Republican Party can get behind.  Let’s just hope so. 

Van Jones!  Now, there’s a name I am sure President Obama would like to soon forget.  Talk about a major screw up on the Administration’s part.  Here is a man that is a self-avowed Communist; signed a petition which alleged that that Bush Administration was behind 9/11; referred to Republican’s as “assholes” within the last six months; and stated that “Black Students would never do a Columbine.”  I wonder what vetting process the Obama Administration did on Mr. Jones.  It took all of about ten days for Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity to out this guy. 

The result of Beck and Hannity’s research was obvious.  Van Jones had to go.  But, he resigned and was not fired.  Why?  The Obama Administration is still standing behind him even though all the evidence showed this man should have never even been appointed.  His resignation letter cited a “vicious smear campaign against me” as his major reason for resigning.  Come on.  Who is he kidding? 

Did the Obama Administration vet him at all?  Did they know about his past?  Did they agree with his past?  Or, was it just extreme ineptitude on the Administration’s part?  All of these choices have scary consequences?  I guess admitting they screwed up was the least damaging. 

But, what about Obama’s other Czars?  Have they all been properly vetted?  Or, are there other potential problems lurking in the background to haunt the Administration?  Are the potential problems with John Holdrum and Cass Sunstein enough to have them resign as well?  Holdrum seems to advocate certain population control policies that would be opposed to a majority of the American populace.  And, Sunstein believes that animals should be permitted to sue humans.  (I admit this is a bit ridiculous, but do we want this guy that close to the President of the United States). 

This all brings to mind major problems with the whole process of appointing Presidential Advisors.  Should these advisors who obviously have the President’s ear be required to be approved by the Senate?  Thus far, the answer has been no as only Cabinet Posts and other higher government positions require the “advise and consent” of the Senate.  Maybe, that should be changed.  Maybe, all of the Czars should be approved by the Senate.  I am sure the Senate’s vetting process would have discovered the problems with Van Jones and possibly John Holdrum and Cass Sunstein as well.  The Senate process did put an end to a few of Obama’s earlier nominees, including those nominated for a few Cabinet posts. 

In closing, let us see how the President’s performance today is viewed by the American public.  Is this the D-Day for health care or just the beginning of what will be a long, hard debate?

Q: How could such a law as the Honor In Office Act be enforced?

JERROL: There are some legislators who will perjure themselves day in and day out. There is no hope for them, unless someone reports the violation. However, we are dealing with partisanship. That means that 45-55% are Democrats and 45-55% are Republicans, typically. The Honor In Office Act plays very nicely into that. Newly elected lawmakers might be far more conscious of the new rules. There are other lawmakers in office who have lost their way, because they have had no way to protect themselves from the less scrupulous.

Those lawmakers, can now say, “I won’t perjure myself. If that vote is today, I will have to either abstain or vote ‘no’ because I haven’t had the opportunity to read it.” Because of partisanship and majority vote, we only need a very small percentage of those lawmakers to follow the rules. Now, all of a sudden this small percentage on either side of the aisle is actively reading the bill, and they will find problems with the bills and seek to get them fixed and it will force others to read it too. Just from this one simple common sense law, we could totally change the political landscape.

Q: Is the Honor In Office campaign focusing only on the California legislature?

JERROL: We are starting with California and doing this at the state level. However, we have volunteers from just about every state in the nation, and we plan to get this law passed at the state level nationwide.

Q: Those proposed measures would not affect federal lawmakers. What about Congress?

JERROL: Congress makes its own rules of conduct in the same way as state legislatures. Fat chance we would ever get Congress to pass a law that factually keeps them in line. However, consider this. Almost all of our members of Congress were state lawmakers first. It is at the state level where they learn most of their bad habits, which they then carry with them when they become members of Congress. What we are doing at the state level is teaching them some good habits, which will hopefully carry through at the Congressional level. But by passing this law at the state level, we make it possible at some time in the future for a similar law to be passed by Congress.

Q: How has being involved with Honor In Office affected your ability to run InkTip? In other words, has this campaign affected your business any? Are there any Hollywood pros or others looking unfavorably on your efforts? Or do most in the biz support you?

JERROL: It’s a non-issue, really. Just about everyone can agree on the fact that lawmakers who pass laws that affect the lives of millions of people, even hundreds of millions for generations to come, should know exactly what he or she is signing into law. We all expect due diligence from those we elect to look out for us. That’s just common sense. And I have found that this is the way the entertainment community feels. So InkTip is doing just fine. Producers continue to use our site to find the writer or script they need.

Q: How far along are you with the Honor In Office Act? Fundraising? Signatures? How far do you still have to go to make a real impact? Do you feel you are making one now?

JERROL: I’m routinely in 4-8 publications and radio shows a week, so I am most definitely making progress. However, there is still a long way to go. I haven’t pursued getting the signatures yet, because I have to get 700,000 valid signatures correctly categorized by county and submitted within the space of 5 months of beginning the process. Also, not every signature will be valid. That means in order to get the 700,000 valid signatures I need, I have to obtain a total of 1.2 million signatures in the space of about 100 days. That comes to about 12,000 signatures a day.

As far as I know, in the history of California no initiative that has made it to the state ballot has ever been able to do this based upon volunteer support only. So that means I have to hire a company to get those signatures, and that requires a couple million dollars. I have plenty of volunteer grassroots support, but getting 6000 volunteers to each get 200 signatures is a logistical nightmare, and extremely unreliable if they aren’t professionals in getting signatures and doing the paperwork.

While the grassroots campaign is getting larger and larger, we need some heroes to step forward and finance it. It would be a selfless act in the extreme. There are no financial gains or tax deductions. I am doing this because I believe our country and our state need this, if for no other reason than self-preservation. But once our signature campaign is financed, the odds of it not getting on the ballot are remote.

Who doesn’t want their lawmakers to do their jobs? Who doesn’t want their legislators to honestly represent them? Who doesn’t want their representatives to read, understand and perform due diligence before passing any law? Who can’t see how these corrupt practices have decimated California when we should be thriving? Or how they continue to decimate California today?

In that regard, I believe it is time to go back to the high moral and ethical standards our Founding Fathers respected while conducting the most crucial business in America there is: the passing of critical legislation that affects us all in every possible way.

For those of you who would like more information on Honor In Office, you can visit the website at www.honorinoffice.org You’ll find a wealth of information on Mr. LeBaron’s proposed Honor In Office Act, as well as detailed assessments of what Mr. Lebaron sees as both advantages and disadvantages to the Honor In Office Act itself. Mr. LeBaron has given due diligence to every aspect of his proposed ballot measure. All he asks that you review his proposed measure in its entirety, then make an educated decision of your own. Is the same really too much to ask of our lawmakers?