Much Ado...and Brent Musburger Too (Part 1)

(from http://www.aksarbenarc.org/main/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=132:ham-radio-in-the-the-news&catid=88&Itemid=435)

A ferry crashes into a pier critically injuring 85, two critically.  Vice President Biden discusses gun issues with survivors of mass shootings.  Day three of the Aurora Theatre Massacre pretrial continues. The Republicans in the House continues to threaten to use the debt ceiling to get what they want.  Two nominees for the cabinet are under close scrutiny by far right conservatives and far left liberals.  Two people are killed in shootings in Dallas Texas.  Some governors and mayors think arming teachers is a good idea.  Chris Christie is still unhappy about the delay in government aid for the survivors of hurricane Sandy.  AIG, subject of the bailout, considers suing the US Government for the bailout that saved them.  And the  story seemingly to get the most air time that has played consistently since Monday night?

It is the story of 73-year-old Brent Musburger was extremely complimentary of 23-year-old model and Miss Alabama, Katherine Webb who is the girlfriend of the Alabama quarterback.  What did he say besides she is very pretty? "Wow, I'm telling you quarterbacks: You get all the good-looking women." It was a boring game and commentators were no doubt looking for something to spice up the air time. 

And that has been a main story on every news program, local and national for now going on 48 hours.

We wonder why we have so many who are so poorly informed?

Much Ado...

The History Channel that Was...

Okay...so this is not really just about the History Channel.  It is about "themed" TV stations or the lack of what they used to be.  I used to watch the History Channel and Discovery and Biography.  I enjoyed looking and learning about the past, the universe and famous people.  I have to admit, I seldom watch The Learning Channel who I think wish now their call letters were  just TLC.  MTV many remark was once Music TeleVision.  They even went so far to start MTV 2 so they could play music videos and then when that became the alternate of MTV 1, they considered doing MTV 3. The fact is they don't do music much any more.

MTV has become the home of Jersey idiots show,  promiscuous and not overly bright teen mothers, and the original big brother of reality TV.  In other words MTV has become what REALITY TV wishes it was. It also has/had wondrous shows like Beavis and Butthead,  Jackass, and others,but again it is supposed to be MUSIC theme not COMEDY themed.  We have a station for that. It's called Comedy Central. One blogger I read went so far as to state that the channel that once promoted music has really ended up damaging it.

What about the History Channel and its History Channel 2?  Yes it still does have the occasional World War documentary and how the States Got Their Shapes.  But then they also have Pawn Stars, Axe Men, Ice Road Truckers, Modern Marvels, Life After People, The Nostradamus Effect,  UFO Hunters, Ancient Aliens, and a host of doomsday, aliens, and prophesy shows.  And so we have History without history.  In fact,we have a host of shows that are the opposite of history.  I once met a guy who told me that he had been to the store where Pawn Stars is shot.  It is a dump he told me. In short, he was not impressed and was surprised that anyone would be impressed by this show.

I've quit watching Biorgraphy.  I just don't get how people's near brush with death or the celebrity ghost stories give me insight into the human condition.  I've become as disappointed with this channel as I was when AMC decided it show colorized films and sell advertising.  (On a side note would someone tell me why the Independent Film Channel showing ads about itself helps pay the bills?  I miss watching movies uninterrupted there too.)

The point is, I miss channels that are actually about the theme they promoted.  I blame MTV for the glut of talentless non-reality shows the same as I blame American Idol for the glut of talent shows about judges. It bothers me that History panders to those who really think we are invaded by aliens and should spend money looking for ghosts and big foot.  Think I am wrong...Honey BooBoo apears on The Learning Channel.

The Vandalization of American Classics

The first colorized movie I recall ever seeing was Yankee Doodle Dandy starring Jimmy Cagney as song and dance man George M. Cohan.  I was appalled by what was done to the movie.  It wasn't just the muted colors of the process; it was also the fact that colors were often just wrong or left out.  Take the picture above and notice the background.  Yep, it's black and white. Even the boots and whites of the costumes retain a grey over-cast tone.  Don't get me wrong, I am in favor of saving and restoration of these classics.  Coloization is vandalization, not restoration.

I once saw one of these fiascos of colorization where a group was sitting around a table and a kitchen door opens showing clearly black and white activity in the kitchen through the door.  The server enters the room magically turning from black and white to semi-color as he crosses through the threshold. The walls of the room would also change color from black and white to a lovely rose depending on the camera angle.  I think it may have been one of the Thin Man movies, but I'm not sure.

Okay.. how about the recent colorization of The Three Stooges? Look at Moe's pants, the checkered floor in the background the items on the walls, the table leg sitting on the floor even the eyes of the performers, all still in the grey shades of black and white. Except for Larry's eyes and I am not sure what is up there.  They look like a bad job that was done using one of those red-eye reduction programs.  It is a distortion and for the most part badly done.

The first film ever digitized to color was done in the 1980's.  It was the Cary Grant. Grant was said to be delighted with the results who even convinced Frank Capra to allow it to be done to It's a Wonderful Life.  Capra originally agreed and invested but when it was thought the film was in the public domain, the investment was returned and control of the colorization take away from Capra.  Jimmy Stewart who testified before congress about the vandalization of these films reported that Capra, who was ill called him and told him that he had just seen what they had done to his film. According to Stewart, Capra told them they had to prevent this from happening to any other film.

Those who favor the process swear that it will capture the nuances of the grey shades and correctly translate the colors correctly.  Not so, said screen star diva, Bette Davis.  She remarked that the famous red dress from Jezebel was not actually red but in the colorized movie certainly made it so. According to Davis the costumer was well aware of what black and white would do so he costumed  to correct for it.  If I recall correctly Davis said the dress was actually deep black and metalic while on IMDB it is noted the dress was actually a bronze color.  Both would read better than red on black and white film.                                                          

              

Every year, around the holidays, an number of these films show up and it is appalling to see AMC who once touted the purity of classic movies decide to shoe Miracle on 34th Street in its colorized form knowing how so many classic film makers and modern film makers feel about it.  There was even an attempt to colorize Citizen Kane until it was discovered that Orson Welles and his estate still control the film and could stop them.  As public domain films, Roger Ebert notes that they could be cut up and made into guitar picks.  Little can be done to stop this distruction of classic work, except for public demand that it stop and refusal to watch these vandalized films.

A House Divided

(from http://www.sodahead.com/united-states/red-states-have-gotten-redder-blue-states-have-gotten-bluer do-see-this-as-a-good-thing-or-a-bad-t/question-3363519/?page=2&link=ibaf&q=&imgurl=http://images.sodahead.com/profiles/0/0/2/7/9/1/5/1/5/pppppppp-94494564905.png)

Perhaps, and solely in my belief, one of the great conservative minds among the news pundits is George Wills.  That is unless he suddenly goes off on one of those extreme points that he some times does.  Nevertheless, he is one very smart, well versed man and few understand history as he does.  I would never presume to match brains with him. There is something that he has stated a number of times about the current state of congress.

On  any number of occasions he has stated that Congress was purposely designed to be divided -- adversarial in nature.  While I have little doubt that it was to supposed to be adversarial by nature, I don't think that our framers ever intended it to become inoperative.  First off, the division was by setting up three distinct sections of government: executive, legislative and judicial.  Then dividing the legislative into two houses for the purpose of debate.   Both houses are clearly set like the houses of Parliament - House of Lords and House of Commons. Our two houses were also designed so that no state could rule by evenly dividing the Senate into only two representatives each and giving them the longest term.  The idea of adversarial houses and branches were to ensure checks and balances.  At no point, however, does the Constitution  discuss that any branch should be divided by political parties.

The nature of the adversarial debate in either of the houses or between the branches was never intended to be more than that which would cause our leaders to think about what they  were doing and compromise as needed.  At no point did our founding fathers intend for congress to become so dysfunctional that they can barely operate.  They've signed non-constitutional pledges, they've gerrymandered, they've done just about everything they can and did it not for the people, but so they can keep their jobs, become the most powerful at any cost, even to the point of suppressing the vote.  Our founding fathers, in fact, worried about the dangers of having a two party system rather than a multiple or single one.

John Adams wrote in a letter to Jonathan Jackson:,"There is nothing which I dread so much as a division of the republic into two great parties, each arranged under its leader, and concerting measures in opposition to each other. This, in my humble apprehension, is to be dreaded as the greatest political evil under our Constitution." George Washington said, "However [political parties] may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion."

I part ways with Mr. Wills on his belief that the houses are operating the way they were intended.  They were never intended not to operate, not to allow compromise, to become more about whose in power than why they are in power.  Ronald Reagan once said that the founding fathers did not conceive of those in congress becoming a profession. They "envisioned a fellow serving a couple of hitches and then eagerly looking forward to getting back to the farm." So no, the house is not operating as it should.  The adversarial idea does not mean absolute, obstinate unwillingness to work together.

Sadly, when the elections roll around, people will return these folks back because too many think it's not their representative who is the problem, but someone else's problem.  With the new gerrymandering, the days of swing districts are gone, as well.  Add to this primaries which allow only the loyal base following to put forward a candidate, it is unlikely much in Washington will change.  Adding to this is the idea of equity in the press.  Until the press starts calling the baloney and lies that politicians use for their base and the other stories they use for those of us who are not on the fringe, it will also continue.

"A house divided cannot stand," said Abraham Lincoln. Our house needs a good cleaning and we need to send more than a few back home to the farm.

It is time we remember that “it is the people who control the Government, not the Government the people.” - Winston Churchill

The Real JFK

So I did a post on the icon and myth of the Right, Ronald Reagan, but what about the icon and myth of the one on the Left?

Who was the real JFK? I don't really recall that much about John Kennedy.  He died when I was six years old.  Like everyone else, though I remember where I was the day they announced his assassination...I was on the playground when other kids started saying that the president had been shot.  I think one actually told me that President Lincoln had been shot but that was probably because we had studied two presidents: Lincoln and Washington.  Lincoln freed the slaves and grew a beard because a little girl told him in a letter she thought it was a good idea, and Washington who never told a lie were who we had heard of.  While this may seem like a digression to you, you may also begin to see how these myths grow and take on lives of their own.

The fact is that Kennedy didn't live long enough as president to really see what his legacy might be, but when you look at the progressives of today, you would think he was a crusading civil rights supporter who would have kept us out of Vietnam and whose strong stance against the USSR on the Cuban missiles and stellar foreign affairs would lead us into a new age.

What I've actually been able to find was the new "Camelot," as this time has been referred to, is something of a myth as well.  It was Kennedy that started the Peace Corp and called to America's youth.  It was JFK who wanted us to go to the moon by decade's end and insisted on emphasis on math and science. If you think about this, the students in school at the time of this push would hardly be the great scientists and mathematicians ready to lead us to the moon, since they would barely be out of school by decade's end if at all.

Kennedy won the Pulitzer prize for his book Profiles in Courage. Most agree now that while the idea was Kennedy's the true style of the book was by his speech writer, Ted Sorenson. There is much debate as to how much writing Kennedy did on the book or whether Sorenson was actually the ghost writer of the book.

Kennedy was a long ways from the "middle class" guy the progressives used to attack Romney.  Kennedy, like Romney, was a child of privilege too.  He was, however, a consummate politician. He was also something of a playboy having had affairs with the likes of Marilyn Monroe. He was a strong Catholic and was, as many of that generation, anti-Communist and most likely anti-Semitic.  As President, Kennedy was frequently attacked for his tepid stance on Civil Rights.  As a member of Congress, he strongly supported the anti-Communism policies of Truman.  As a senator, he supported Joe McCarthy's extremist hunt for the Red Stain.  Brother Bobby worked on McCarthy's staff and Dad Joe viewed McCarthy as an ally.

To raise his own polling points, John and Bobby, went after Union corruption.  This brought about a round of hearings on Unions and resulted in several Federal laws controlling Union activity.  During his time, as Representative and Senator, Kennedy knew Richard Nixon and despite the myth that he hated him, he actually respected the man.  It was fellow liberal Democrat, Adlai Stevenson, that he did not trust.

As President, his foreign policy was far from successful.  It was because of his seemingly weakness in the area that Khrushchev believed he could put missiles into Cuba and it was possibly the US strong dislike of Castro that caused Castro to allow the missiles.  Few realized at the time how close we came to a nuclear war.  Kennedy also used a completely fictitious "missile gap" that he blamed on the Eisenhower administration to start a new round of building ballistic missile in a race with the Russians.

He barely won his first bid for the White House.  It was not some popular land side.  He actually won by just 100,000 votes of the 69 million cast.  There was some talk of voter fraud at the time.  His famous quote of "Ask not what your country can do for you but what you can do for your country" wasn't just a reminder of the Peace Corp, but just as likely a reminder that the government wasn't going to be expanding the social welfare program.

While he was alive, many pundits of the time considered his presidency as mediocre at best which was largely a series of crisis.  Kennedy committed to getting rid of Castro.  This led to  the Bay of Pigs fiasco followed by the Missiles of October.

One of the more recent speculations is that Kennedy would have kept us out of Vietnam.  It is exactly that, however, a speculation.  The fact is though that he increased our involvement in that particular war and it was his former vice president, Johnson, that built on that expansion.  One of the largest myths about Kennedy getting us out of Vietnam is probably this idea.  It was Kennedy's desire to regain some credibility following the Bay of Pigs that led him to sending "military advisers" to Vietnam.  It has been reported that he said to one of his advisers, "Now we have a problem in making our power credible, and Vietnam is the place." So Kennedy escalated to the point where we were essentially fighting a ground war in Vietnam.  His few hundred advisers, quickly became 15,000 in 1963.  There in no evidence that he would have pulled out of Vietnam had he lived.

I like both Reagan and Kennedy.  Both did great things too, but the myth has grown around the two to make them icons for the Right and the Left even though it is unlikely that either would now fit into the extremes of the Left or the Right.  There is an effect that occurs after the presidency is over and that is a rising in the polls of approval for most presidents. Even Richard Nixon who resigned rather than face the likely first successful impeachment of a President,  enjoyed a rise in approval years later.  We forget the politics and deal making that a man like Lincoln was forced to make to pass an amendment or heal a torn nation. It is clear that presidents are men and good ones may reach beyond their actual accomplishments.

The Real Ronald Reagan

An old friend put up the simple words of  "Ronald Reagan" in his Facebook timeline the other day.  When someone asked him why, my friend put up the words we need someone like him.  It got me to thinking.  In the past few months Ronald Reagan's name has been bandied about as if he was the ultraconservative that the ultraconservative wing of the GOP remember.  He is the patron saint, but was he really the ultimate conservative, tax cutting, morality fighting, super hero that they believe he was.  His own son, Ronald Reagan Jr. has stated that his father would not have made the cut of the current GOP, but is he right?

Ronald Reagan, was often called the "Great Communicator."  He was an actor, after all.  His speaking skills should be pretty good, at least I would think they would be.  He was an actor, a governor of California, and president of the Screen Actor's Guild.  He had made his reputation on westerns in the 1950's and a series of bad movie comedies involving a monkey named Bonzo.  He also was well known for his portrayal of football  star earning him the nickname, The Gipper.  All in all, he made over 50 films and was actually fairly famous.  He was also a Democrat until the 1960's.

While a strong supporter of the 2nd amendment, he also supported background checks, the 7 day waiting period, assault weapons ban and the Brady Bill after leaving office.  As governor he signed a bill which banned the carrying of guns on your person, vehicle or any public place and also required a 15 day waiting period.  In 1991 he said "With the right to bear arms comes a great responsibility to use caution and common sense on handgun purchases. And it's just plain common sense that there be a waiting period to allow local law-enforcement officials to conduct background checks on those who wish to purchase handguns." He also supported the fire arms owner protection act which repealed parts of the 1968 gun bill which many experts had deemed unconstitutional and at the same time he banned fully automatic weapons.  His gun stance may have changed though because of the attempted assassination of him which left his press secretary Jim Brady wounded and disabled.

In 1980, he ran for President against Jimmy Carter, the incumbent.  He ran for a second term winning against Walter Mondale.  He was though above all a pragmatist.  He did what needed to be done and if that meant making deals, he did.  He was willing to make compromises and in fact did.  His compromises would be heresies by today's Republican standards.

 Stuart Spencer, a Reagan adviser who was there from the beginning says "He had a strong set of core values and operated off of those, but when push came to shove, he did various things he didn't like doing, because he knew it was in the best interests of the state or country at the time." He continues in an article in the LA Times about today's conservatives, "A lot of those people running out there don't really understand what he did. It's just a matter of attaching themselves to a winner."

Reagan did a number of things like raised the nation's self-confidence, and his strong stance and understanding that Gorbachev was not the typical Soviet president of the past, helped to tear down the Berlin wall which lead ultimately to the end of the USSR and the Cold War.  As today, Reagan's first term was marked by recession, high interest rates, a soaring budget deficit, and strong anti-American feelings in the Middle East.

That all said, Reagan also held the belief that compromise was good policy.  He believed that government needed to invest in things during the tough times.  He was unafraid to raise taxes and did so for seven of the eight years he was in office.  He raised taxes eleven times in total.  He gave amnesty to three million undocumented immigrants.  He increased the size of government.  He tripled the national debt.  He did try to cut taxes on the rich and adding to the tax burden of the middle class and poor causing a rise in unemployment.   Oh and did I mention that one of his cuts, school lunches had ketchup declared as a vegetable? 

By Tea Party standard on fiscal policy and never compromise  he would most likely be labeled a RINO (Republican In Name Only). The Reagan of the Tea Party is a carefully constructed myth.  When Reagan left office, the Republicans enjoyed a 63 percent approval rating.  Today, the Republican lead house has a less than 25 percent approval rating.  The Reagan who had failings and successes was a solid president.  The ultra conservative Reagan...is a myth. Next up...The Real JFK.

Life of Pi...A Boy, a Tiger and a Life Boat

I am a bit behind the time for this review, but...

It has been a while since I read the Life of Pi. I try hard not to be a book snob and forgive film makers as they adapt a beloved and brilliant novel to the screen.  I will not forgive film adaptations that don't even try to follow the book.  Why bother adapting a book if you're not even going to try and tell its story?  I am for example still waiting for someone to actually do an adaptation of Planet of the Apes. I have forgiven Peter Jackson for leaving out Tom Bombadil in  Lord of the Rings and for leaving out actual killing of the Saruman the White (while he did do a killing in the extended cut but still not right.) So I must also forgive the cutting down of a few plot points in the movie version of Life of Pi.  Since I have distance from the book, that may make it easier too.

Life of Pi is a movie based on a book by Yann Martel and it is a remarkable book and a visually stunning movie.  The premise is a simple one: Pi Patel, played by Suraj Sharma, is the sole human survivor of a shipwreck.  Pi and his family are traveling from India to Canada transporting their zoo.  One night a massive storm swamps the ship and it sinks.  Pi ends up alone on a lifeboat with an orangutan, a zebra with a broken leg, and a Bengal tiger, named Richard Parker. Needless to say Richard Parker makes quick work of the zebra and orangutan, although much faster in the movie than in the book.

The tiger is a stunning visual effect.  He is CGI for the most part.  At no point was actor and tiger ever together on the boat.  Richard Parker was created by using four different tigers for reference and visual mapping.  The four tigers, used primarily for single shot scenes like when Richard Parker is swimming, made for a high standard  for the CGI version that would appear on the boat with Pi.

So Pi and Richard Parker set off on a remarkable journey lasting, according to the book, 227 days as a castaway with a Bengal tiger in a twenty foot lifeboat.  Pi learns to live at sea and eventually masters the tiger.  It is an astounding story that draws us in and gives us hope bonding us to nature and God as Pi feels he too is bonded.  There are scenes from the book that are not there, but like the cutting of Tom Bombadil, I understand the need. Although one particular scene in the book in which Pi is about to be killed and cannibalized by another castaway who is killed by Richard Parker before he can act, I did miss.  I always thought of this scene in the book, one of the more unbelievable ones, as showing the difference between the tiger which kills to survive and man that will not only kill to survive, but because he can.  Man is the moral beast in the book. Nature does what is needed, only man can reason beyond this.  It gives us some insight just as learning that Pi is a Hindu-Muslim-Catholic believer gives us insight into the nature of the man who tells us the story of his survival as a boy.  Still this scene would be hard to work into the movie and even harder to explain.

Others have remarked that there is a few awkward spots in the movie.  Oddly those did not bother me because I felt those same pacing moments in the book at the same moments in the film.  To me it was actually a remarkable sign of adaptation.  The film must also telescope time.  If the production pushed the feel of the 227 days at sea that Pi lives through in the 100 or so chapters of the book, it would have indeed suffered from pacing issues.

The movie is visual and for the most part easy to watch and like the book draws you into Pi's tale, almost fable, like stories of having survived as the sole survivor.  The movie, obviously filmed to take advantage of 3-D effects, is still stunning to see in the 2-D format.  The acting is well done and the story remains basically true to the novel.  The only thing that was, I thought, underplayed a bit too much was the end of the story.  I don't want to spoil it for you, but in the book it is one that is so carefully crafted, it catches us a bit off guard but does not cheat having laid the ground work throughout the book.  I think it could have been stronger in the film so it would better balance with Richard Parker walking into the jungle.

We must sometimes forgive filmmakers for failing to include every detail or plot point from a book.  Let's face it, movies have a limited time in which to tell the story.  I will, however, never understand those who decide with why bother with making the story, we will just use the title...I'm looking at you Tim Burton and your adaptations of Planet of the Apes and The Legend of Sleepy Hollow. As for Ang Lee's direction of  David Magee's adaptation, it is a good one, well worth the look.