For movie-going that time of year is now, a time when such movies are foisted upon us that even the studios allowing their release know full well how truly TRULY awful they are.  It’s a virtual cinematic dumping ground and has been year after year.  If there are even two minutes of any semblance of redeeming value in No Strings Attached, or Just Go With It, or. . .

Hall Pass I would be shocked.  I sure as hell ain’t gonna pay any amount of money to find out.

Mercifully there is another choice at this time.  Along with the steaming pile of dreck there are usually also les films thoughtfully provided to screen “For Your Consideration” ( Not MY consideration; and probably not yours either.  For The Consideration of Those Voting For Oscars ).  The King’s Speech est un film comme ça.

I knew next to nothing about it other than the bajillion nominations.  I inadvertently saw something about “therapy”.  The cast certainly gave off the sort of requisite British Merchant-Ivory Remains of the Day-ishness only exacerbated by Colin Firth in the leading role, who I can only ever think of as Darcy in the BBC production of Pride and Prejudice.  All the stuff of which British films are proudly made.  You know, the stuff Eddie Izzard makes fun of.  Indeed, I kinda had to drag myself to see this movie.

I was bolstered a bit by the presence of Guy Pearce.  Also the cast’s Merchant-Ivoriness was somewhat tempered by an equal but opposite Harry Potter vibe.  You’d half expect Alan Rickman’s Severus Snape to suddenly appear, a-Slytherin across the screen; that would add some verve to the proceedings, but no such luck.

There’s nothing terribly wrong with The King’s Speech. Then, there’s nothing terribly right about it either.  You’ve just seen it before.  Imagine, instead of a reluctant man who would be king overcoming his struggles with the help of an unorthodox mentor, you had a bunch of East L.A. high school students whose only hope of passing a big test was a controversial math teacher.

Or maybe the high school kids were band students whose paths in life were shaped by an inspirational music teacher.

Or maybe you have a poor flower girl wanting to learn proper English from a phonetics professor.  Yeeeees, this movie actually asks for comparison to My Fair Lady, almost immediately.  I suppose it might be OH-maj, but in the way that it’s done, so soon and with other similarities later. . .it’s a mistake.

Of course My Fair Lady is considered classic and other films would not necessarily be expected to compare favorably.  However, there is nothing that stands out significantly to distinguish The King’s Speech from Stand And Deliver or Mr. Holland’s Opus ( or Hoosiers for that matter ); where then were the boatload of nominations for those films?  Well, while the storylines of the films are essentially the same, the others lack the specific G R A V I T Y of a film like The King’s Speech.

OSCAR VOTER

So what about The King’s Speech?  Disease of the week right?  A stutterer?

ANOTHER OSCAR VOTER

Stammerer.  He’s British.  Hell, he’s the king!

OSCAR VOTER

OK so persecuted stutterer and never-should-be king overcomes all and saves the day.  So what?

ANOTHER OSCAR VOTER

The backdrop is World War II Europe!

OSCAR VOTER is nonplussed.

ANOTHER OSCAR VOTER
(incredulous)

Hitler?!  Nazis?!

OSCAR VOTER

Right, well that’s. . .grave then, nomination at least.   And this is, like, the queen right now’s dad, right?

The King’s Speech has history on it’s side.  And more painfully serious British Empire actors than you can shake a stick at.  And that’s about it.

My man Pearce is relegated to playing the oh-so-brief king as such a feyish, foppish, irresponsible playboy that you wonder mightily how he ever ascends to the throne in the first place.  He also seems a bit out of place, as if he just flies into the film from some another country.

There is a False Crisis that is well, just plain embarrassing.  You’ll know it when you see it since it’s so shoehorned into the script that it practically announces itself.  Here Be The False Crisis But Don’t Worry Everything’s Gonna Be OK.  It’s So False You May Call It ‘Faux’.

The acting’s good of course, I mean c’mon these guys aren’t a bunch of amateur hacks.  Firth and Geoffrey Rush in the main roles do quite fine with what is required by the story but I wouldn’t go all tour de force.

I think Helena Bonham Carter fares the best.  I’m not quite sure what she’s doing, I can’t qualify it I guess because it’s subtle.  I can say she outperforms the limits of her role.  I just like her very much in here for some reason.

It’s got Jennifer Ehle!  I did have much poking of the fun earlier at The Britishness Of It All but seriously Firth is excellent in the Pride and Prejudice mini-series and if you are familiar with it then you know Ms. Ehle is his equal as Elizabeth Bennet and they’re great together.  Somehow, unfortunately, I didn’t recognize her here so it was a pleasant surprise to see her in the credits.

The King’s Speech is edited by Gabrielle Anwar’s dad.  This is a plus.

Overall though, The King’s Speech strives for and achieves middle of the road.  I would question rewarding it so.  At least Black Swan has to be credited for shooting for excellence if not achieving it, but recognizing, at best, above-averageness?  I would bet that if I started Netflixing the hell out of the movies of 2010, I could find at least twenty better movies.

The King’s Speech is pleasant enough.  At a duration of around two hours, it doesn’t wear out it’s welcome.  However, unless you are a rabid Anglophile or royals groupie you can wait for your choice of optical disc or streaming.

Others That Saw Essentially the Same Film I Did ··

James Owen · Movie Day at the Court
Rob Humanick · Projection Booth

post. Therefore, it's gettin' posted. ]

Excerpts from the post-midterm election press conference by HisWhiteHotBrilliance :

Obama: “And I think that there’s no doubt that as I reflect on the results of the election.. .”

Q: Just following up on what Ben just talked about, you don’t seem to be reflecting or second-guessing any of the policy decisions you’ve made.. . If you’re not reflecting on your policy agenda.. .

“I’m doing a whole lot of reflecting.. .”

Q: Since you seem to be in a reflective mood.. .

“You’re right, as I reflect on what’s happened over the last two years.. .”

Just one big fat giant reflect-o-rama!

[ I pause briefly here, while you suppress the gag reflex . . ... ]

An apparent soul-searchingly “reflective” Obama joined by equally touchy-feely and empathetic reporters, Savannah Guthrie of NBC and Hans Nichols of Bloomberg.  His reflectivity is so glaring that it continues on to parts of the 60 Minutes broadcast the next Sunday:

(CBS) KROFT: You said at your news conference that you’ve been doing a lot of reflecting. Are there things that you wish you could do over?

“And so, I reflect a lot about over the next two years, making sure that I remind myself, my job is not legislator in chief.”

“. . .the rhetoric flies. ..I’ve been guilty of that. ..not just them. ..this is an example. . .of what I reflect on. I reflect on the fact that part of my promise to the American people. . .was to maintain the kind of tone that says we can disagree without being disagreeable.”

Now, what exactly has poor Mr. Obama all reflect-y and morose?  Well, the royal butt-kickin’ He and His party took in the election, of course.

So then it might reasonably follow to think that, with this clear message disapproving of His agenda, He might be given pause to reflectorate on the choices He has made, perhaps consider that He should have maybe paid some modicum of attention to the people He’s supposed to be working for.

Except, though it well “might reasonably follow”, I’m not sure “reason” is the first thing out of the toolbox that one reaches for when examining the actions of His administration (then again, I’m one of those He keeps saying is too stupid to figure out how WhiteHotBrilliant He is).

If, in the deep DEEP depths of His introspection, He is not ruminating in this manner (and it sure don’t look that way) then what is He thinking?

As He Himself explains it, although He has infinite understanding and sympathy for those people that have said of His agenda, “Boy, this feels as if there’s a huge expansion of government” or, “gosh, we already have all this debt, we already have these big deficits” or, “gosh, this is sort of business-as-usual in Washington” or, “gosh, you said if we passed The Recovery [Act], unemployment would peak here and it’s already gone up to here” (apparently if you speak in fluent Beaver-Cleaver, Obama CAN hear you), He simply needs to start “making an argument that people can understand” since, “I didn’t effectively. . .drive home. . .that we were taking these steps not because of some theory that we wanted to expand government.”

What powerful nefarious force has been preventing him from driving His points home, making understandable arguments or otherwise being able to “communicate” effectively all this time?

For once (and I think only once) it’s NOT George W. Bush; or even any Republican or other opponent.  Nope, for the answer Obama dips into his vast treasure trove of Ordinary American bona fides.  This is the same cache from whence came the now recognized Plaint of The Everyman:  “Anybody gone into Whole Foods lately and see what they charge for arugula?”

His reason for being unable to get His message out clearly, for not keeping His campaign promises (on earmarks, on how things get done in Washington), for His uneven leadership and for not being more transparent, among other things, is:

I don’t have time for that sh!t.

Hmm. . .wow, really?  ’cause, as the leader of the free world, whose actions have implications that will reach far into the future, this particular mind wonders how He couldn’t have carved out a couple of minutes to, I dunno, consider the consequences of these critical decisions maybe?  “Jeepers, Mr. Obama!  Why not?”

“. . .what is absolutely true is that with all that stuff coming at folks fast and furious — a recovery package, what we had to do with respect to the banks, what we had to do with respect to the auto companies — I think people started looking at all this and it felt as if government was getting much more intrusive into people’s lives than they were accustomed to.

Now, the reason was it was an emergency situation.”

CUE LIGHTS AND SIRENS !!

Captain Picard:  “ENGAGE !!”

“. . .we were in such a hurry to get things done that we didn’t change how things got done.”

“And I, in the rush to get things done, had to sign a bunch of bills that had earmarks in them, which was contrary to what I had talked about.”

“. . .the American people want to see more transparency, more openness. . .in the midst of economic crisis, . . .one of the things I take responsibility for is not having pushed harder on some of those issues.”

“. . .we had to take a series of big, emergency steps quickly.”

“. . .we had an emergency situation and we wanted to make sure the economy didn’t go off a cliff”.

“. . .to get the Recovery Act done you know, we knew that we were gonna have to act fast through Congress and get a lot of stuff moving.”

“. . .there are times where we said:  let’s just get it done, instead of worrying about how we’re getting it done.  And I think that’s a problem.”

“. . .we were so busy and so focused on getting a bunch of stuff done that we stopped paying attention to the fact that we yeah, leadership isn’t just legislation.”

Oh.  I see.  He’s Chicken Little.  Or Chicken Little running around with his head cut off, yet still able to sound the alarm that the sky is falling!  Or. . .

I know!   He’s (yet again) still trying to run the 2008 campaign and wants to prove he can take that 3AM phone call so He has decided that it’s always 3AM, 24 hours a day!

Actually, the most likely scenario is that (yet again) attempting to enhance his ordinary, Everyday American-ness, He wants to appear to be “just like us”.  See, His plight as the President is not unlike that of a harried parent whose “bunch” of “stuff” includes running the kids to school, working all day then running them off to piano lessons or field hockey practice, picking up the dry cleaning, providing square meals, helping with the homework, etc. etc., with nary a moment of free time to spare!  Why, that’s JUST like Obama!

Like insanely busy parents all over America, Obama apparently could do with the services of a personal assistant to manage His valuable time better.  The only difference is as President of the United States (NOT the ƒÚçKing stupid acronym “POTUS”; I don’t have the first ƒÚçKing clue what a POE-TUSS is) he has armies upon armies of people whose sole purpose for existing is to be at His beck and call, to wait on Him hand and foot, to “help” Him be President.  Let us say conservatively, a “personal assistant” for virtually every minute of the day.

Well, GOSH, in light of that, I’m gonna have to call the bull-est of sh!t on His pathetic “emergency” excuse.  Rather than being somehow “forced” to do all these things so many find unpalatable, He is doing only exactly what He wants.  He is supposed to never let a good crisis go to waste, and so He apparently will not, even if He has to create one first in order not to waste it.

After mighty swings and misses on free agents Carl Crawford and Adrián Beltré (the Curious) there was time enough for everyone to get from denial-to anger-to bargaining-to depression, all the way to the grudging acceptance that We Will Win With What We’ve Got.. . .

There was even some embrace of W6G, based along the thinking, “at least they didn’t do anything crazy like. . .”

The Vernon Wells trade! (the Curiouser)  Yes, after getting everyone to the point of taking a deep breath and a step or two away from the ledge, the Angels front office did do the seemingly crazy Vernon Wells for Mike Napoli & Juan Rivera trade.  “Crazy” was based mostly on the $$$ due to Wells over the four years left on his “immovable” contract ($$$ that somehow wasn’t spent on Crawford or Beltré) and on the giving up of Napoli (the final dubious chapter in the never-ending-until-now Napoli vs. Jeff Mathis saga).

As in the aftermath of the failure to sign a big free agent, it is again useful to take a deep breath and try to take a look at the big picture.  Is there at least something that we now know with some degree of certainty about the Angels and how they do business?  Even if we don’t like it, the truth is the best thing to know; have we learned any?  These are of few of my favorite things. . .we have learned.

Mike Scioscia is obsessed with one Jeffery Stephen Mathis
Sure, everyone knows this in the joking “mancrush” sense but this is a mancrush gone FAR too far, gone horribly awry.  Jeff Mathis sucks.  He sucks by eyeballs or sabermetrics.  By geiger counter or Richter scale or metronome; by slide rule or abacus or plumb bob or SNMP, he sucks.  The maintenance crew at the Big ‘A’ can whip out their Leathermans and see it (that he sucks means it goes with saying that he’s the nicest guy in the whole wide world).  He’s generally considered one of the worst players in MLB yet he’s not only on the team, he’s set to start most games at catcher.

The Obsession involves not just the inexplicable PROmotion of Mathis but the DEmotion of Mike Napoli.  Napoli was a threat to and continuously upstaged Object of The Obsession so had to be punished.  If Napoli had a really good game, say a couple of big extra-base hits, a caught stealing and the staff pitched well, you could pretty much guarantee that earned him a spot on the bench the next game (or two or three).  He never said a peep about it in his time here and I wish him well, even with the Rangers.

No one can know what Scioscia’s thinking is RE: Mathis since it’s not rational.  Mathis might lead the league in being a college football player and being “sooo athletic” so maybe he’s waiting for a Darin Erstad-like career .355 year (.220 for Mathis).  Maybe he’s trying to invent the defensive analog to the DH, the Designated Fielder.  Maybe Mathis “knows” something. . .maybe any and all of this and more, in any case not a mere mancrush.  Think Cap’n Queeg and his strawberries, think Glenn Close and rabbits; it’s that batsh!t.

The Angels are run by one Michael Lorri Scioscia (.) (!)
Otherwise, no Mathis right?  There have to be tons of people within the Angels organization, from owner Arturo Moreno on down, that question Scioscia’s judgment RE: Mathis.  Clearly only one vote counts so Mathis gets a raise and Napoli gets traded.

Scioscia might not exactly be “buying the groceries” à la Bill Parcells but he’s definitely making out the shopping list.  Obviously there’s dozens of the family-size Jeff Mathis and honey bunches o’ Vernon Wells on there.  Time will tell if he’s gonna be able to combine this with his starting pitching, revamped bullpen and multiple hoped for bounce-back seasons to concoct some kind of edible 2011 smorgasbord o’ goodness.

Should he wield this much power?  If you’re gonna look at pre-Scioscia v. Scioscia era, I mean, there’s nothing to talk about.  He’s gotten the job done, sometimes with smoke and mirrors.  There’s the small matter of 2002.  Still, if he demonstrates some kind of a blind spot someone should point it out and when necessary he should be overruled.

The Angels General Manager, one Tony Reagins, is merely a figurehead
Of course this is a given if Scioscia runs the club, yet Reagins has been savaged for the Wells trade and is widely credited with somehow turning the Angels into laughingstocks because of it.

I question this because I question how someone who many had considered a pretty good GM that had made several laudable improvements, some elevated to demonstrating “ninja” like skills, could so quickly be considered a complete moron.  I simply don’t believe it.

Prior to the Wells trade I think Reagins knew he had some financial constraints, he knew Scioscia very much wanted to improve the club and he knew Scioscia hated Mike Napoli.  In that context, the Wells trade was practically tailor-made (iff you consider the financials “constrained”; I believe you can).

Reagins can and should be called on his ridiculous equating of getting Kendry Morales back from injury to being “like signing a free agent”.  That was incredibly dumb to think us so incredibly dumb.  But as far as front office moves, Reagins is just the messenger.  Any such moves should be credited to/blamed on the combination of Scioscia and Moreno.

The Angels owner, one Arturo “Arte” Moreno, is NOT “in it to win it”
To be specific, he is not in it to win the World Series every year.  He has said, and I do believe, he is in it to make the playoffs on a regular basis.  Sure he’d like to win the World Series regularly but he’s not going to do what the teams that are “in it to win it” do, the Yankees, the Red Sox and now the Phillies.  If he wins his first World Series it’s gonna be on his terms.

His terms are fiscal responsibility.  I don’t have a problem with that.  Moreno is a billionaire, didn’t get there by being dumb with his money and I’m quite sure wants to remain a billionaire.  This has been reflected in this offseason.  The Angels had their assessment of what Crawford and Beltré were worth and they weren’t going any higher.  Reagins gave some fiscal rationale for the Wells trade that might have stretched and contorted credibility for some but the yearly average and age reasons weren’t without sensibility.  He didn’t even sugar-coat it (like calling it akin to signing a free agent), one of the first things he said about this blockbuster deal was that it was “palatable” and he seemed sincere about it all.

What does all this mean?  Or ·· What’s in it for me? (the fan)
In recent years the Angels have been about as successful as any team in baseball.  Their front office did not suddenly become incompetent idiots that know nothing about baseball in one off-season because that makes no ƒµçking sense at all.  There was just something of a perfect storm of sh!t that didn’t go their way.

There is the matter of The Obsession and that’s something the Angels are simply charged with overcoming.  In a perfect world:  Hello Hank Conger! but he’s still fairly raw and the recent history of “hot” prospects. . .the offense will have to learn to swim while weighed down heavily by the Mathis anchor around their necks.

We do have very good starting pitching.  Beyond that, the bullpen is ostensibly upgraded, the offense should be better than last year (yes, a low bar) and the defense should be good enough.  Whatever, I’m not terribly concerned about winning the AL West, there’s no perennial threat to us since, well, WE’RE the perennial threat.  It’s all about what happens after winning the AL West and that’s where we have a problem.

Many extol the virtue of being in the AL West but I see something different.   It’s a practical certainty that the wild card comes from the East.  What this means for the Central and West winners is, unless they somehow help each other out, they have to beat not just one of Yankees/Red Sox (and sometimes Rays) but first one in the ALDS then the other in the ALCS just to even get to the World Series. . .where there’s a great chance the Phillies are waiting.  Now I wonder what the odds are that ANY team could beat all those teams on the way to a championship?

The Angels have been going the Win the Division/Playoffs are a Crapshoot/Catch Lightning in a Bottle route to the World Series Championship.  If you’re not “in it to win it” but do aspire to a championship that’s pretty much the option.  No shame in it, teams like the Twins have kinda operated similarly.  It CAN work out. . .it’s just in the crapshoot that is the playoffs, the Yankees/Red Sox/Phillies get to play the pass line while the Angels are left hoping and praying for boxcars.  Those are long, long odds so when it does happen, like 2002, it is certainly something special to be savored.

But as special as 2002 was, it is, incredibly, going on nearly ten years since that magical time.  It is not just in the rear-view mirror but a disappearing dot in the distance and with the daunting circumstances just described, no real, solid prospects of another one appear to be coming up on the horizon.

Fans of baseball know it is a game of eternal optimism  and I do see it that way.  If it’s not working out right now, there is always the next pitch, the next at bat, the next inning, the next game, the next series, the next month, the next year.  It’s a game where failure is the majority outcome yet it’s a game of perpetual anticipation of success.  Kinda unique among the major sports.

That being said, I must admit to the nagging realization that for the Angels in the near term, trAdition may come to mean:  We Fly AL West Flags.

So, I read zero reviews prior to seeing Black Swan and I have read two reviews afterwards, appropriately, one extremely positive (white!) and one extremely. . .

negative (black!).  The truth of course lies somewhere in-between, toward the positive by my reckoning.

Black Swan is worth seeing yet if you are not terribly compelled, waiting for your choice of optical disc or streaming it later will suffice.  It should not lose much in the transition to the small screen, indeed its small intimate nature may lend itself very well to ‘curl up on the couch’ viewing.  There’s certainly nothing to merit avoidance at all costs; that Natalie Portman movie is called Closer.

What could drive you to the mega-plex for Black Swan?  It’s creepy. . .you like creepy?  It’s effectively creepy in the myriad ways that you want movies to be.  You like great acting?  Everyone’s great, not just Natalie Portman.  If you’re a fan of hers or of the other principals by all means go see it, you will not likely be disappointed.

I guess Portman’s portrayal of Nina Sayers is getting all the buzz.  I didn’t see many movies at all in twenty-ten but it seems sensible that this performance is in the upper echelon, she’s excellent.

I think she might be in just about every second of this film, so that she “carries” it might even be an understatement.  She manages to be a convincing emotionally repressed nebbish of a ballet nerd while. . .looking just like Natalie Portman!  And she renders a small moment of pure joy that is absolutely beautiful.

The other actors are equal to the task, just obviously not on screen as much.  Mila Kunis as rival/confidante Lily, Vincent Cassel as ballet mentor/antagonist Thomas and Barbara Hershey as supportive/protective mother are all excellent.  Winona Ryder is fine in the relatively small role of outgoing prima Beth.

Kunis is rightly receiving her own raves for her Lily, the foil to Nina.  However make no mistake, although there’s a persistent theme of dichotomy in Black Swan, this is no two-hander.  It’s a one-hander; Portman’s (and OH! the places that hand wanders).

Oh, that’s right; the sex.  There is some.  Uh, in the context of this story it makes perfect sense that it is Lily/Black Swan that makes Nina come  out of her shell, in different ways including sexually.  That’s gonna require a scene of sex.  Then probably other scenes of sex due to character development.  So there you have it, nothing gratuitous or exploitative, just simply necessary.  You can’t tell this story without it.

Credit must go to director Darren Aronofsky for getting a high level of performance across the board (I’ve tried watching his The Fountain without much luck; worth another try based on this effort).  Also the way Nina breaks out of her repressed state was executed very well.

There are problems.  It’s boring (I swear someone made that part of the definition of “indie” film.  That, and grain.  Don’t like grain, again, wait for the small screen).  I can’t point out a boring part, I just felt every minute of the running time.  It felt 20 – 30 minutes too long even though it clocks in at under two hours.  I suppose Aronofsky was aiming for an orchestral build-up to the crescendo but the build-up’s too slow.  Pacing is an issue.

The bigger problem is that once the credits started rolling I was “unsatisfied” and I didn’t really know why until I started writing this.  If a movie is unsatisfying I think the most likely culprit is the ending and that is the case here.

Much of Black Swan relies on Nina being a perfectionist.  For the ending, it’s crucial.  How do we know she’s a perfectionist?  Why, she tells us!  Unfortunately, if she has to tell us then it must not be shown to us adequately.  If you’re not able to show it adequately then at least you have to firmly tie what is happening to Nina to her drive for perfection.  The movie doesn’t do that but I think these issues are just byproducts of one of the filmmaker’s choices.

There’s a fundamental conundrum caused by this choice that is not resolved (that’s why it’s a ‘conundrum’).  They chose to make Nina a perfectionist; fine.  They also chose to define the Nina/Lily personalities in stark White Swan/Black Swan terms; sensible, given the story source.

Malheureusement mes ami, to what should have been to the filmmaker’s great chagrin, this undermines Nina as perfectionist.  When I think ‘perfectionist’, I think singularity of mind, relentlessness and even ruthlessness.  Nina?  She’s meek and timid!  She’s the Passive Perfectionist and yes, that’s about as oxymoronic a phrase can get.

I couldn’t buy Nina as a perfectionist so at the end I didn’t know that she fully appreciated what happened to her.  A genuine perfectionist at some point would have begun to understand that the tremendous psychological, emotional and physical toll was the price for perfection and would have begun to relish what was happening, not continue to be horrified.

If you wanted to go the “continue to be horrified” route, that could have happened had you started with, not one of the top dancers, but one of the mediocre or worse dancers, decidedly non-perfectionist say.  Now it would have been interesting to see that kind of Nina continuously struggling with the price of perfection and wondering if it was all worth it.

Nina as-is doesn’t really “struggle” with anything, she is shocked and alarmed then gets over it until the next time.  With all that is happening to her she doesn’t really question any of it or wonder about it, again it just “happens” to her and by the end she’s just good with it since it made her perfect.  As I said, unsatisfying.

I do not mean to throw the baby out with the bathwater, there’s a helluva lot to like about this movie as I did detail.  Black Swan aims high and falls a bit short and even so, is still probably superior to most other choices out there.

Go ahead, see it.  Even at a less than perfect non-matinee price.

Others That Saw Essentially the Same Film I Did ··

Dana Stevens · Slate
Ed Gonzalez · Slant
Marshall Fine · Hollywood & Fine
Sean Gandert · Paste

Fear cards number fifty-one in the political deck so it is played early and often by both sides, routinely followed by the righteous, indignant, decrying outrage at the opponent having played it.

Does this ridiculous hyperbolic cycle of playing the Fear card followed by the requisite outrage actually work?  Sure seems that it should not but fear is ubiquitous not just in politics, it permeates all society.  Marketing and advertising for instance, appear to be nearly 100% based on fear.  If everyone’s doing it, it must work, right?

Well, we have an example here, named brilliantly enough, ‘The Politics of Fear’, a New York Times editorial.  They say:

An election is coming, so the Republicans are trying to scare Americans by making it appear as if the Democrats don’t care about catching or punishing terrorists.

It’s nonsense, of course, but effective.

There you have it, it works, the Fear card here being the justice system vs. the military in the handling of Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the terrorist who tried to blow up an airplane last Christmas.

Hard to tell who’s full of sh!t on this one but I lean toward the handling was botched and I am moved not at all by fear.  I do see some of the merits of the route that was taken but the case for it is not helped by weak arguments like this article contains.

Sensible concerns are exaggerated into the playing of the Fear card, then bemoaned and decried.

Well now, lookee here, we have a bit of a rebuttal to ‘The Politics of Fear’, the even more brilliantly named, ‘The mythical potency of Terrorism fear-mongering’ at Salon by Glenn Greenwald.  Well, the headline kinda says it all doesn’t it?  I feel safe guessing he’s not overly wowed by the power of the Fear card.  Let’s see. . .based on polling(?) and previous elections.

Polling(?), because two out of the three polls Greenwald cites scarcely help in his view:  (a)Approval of Obama handling the threat of terrorism:  56 – 39; sure, okay;  (b)Americans approve Obama’s terrorism policies “more so” over the past couple months since the Christmas day bomb attempt; no, really?  (c)Obama trusted more than GOP to handle threat of terrorism by 47 – 42 (margin of error?), and he notes that the gap has closed recently; compelling!

Greenwald’s on much firmer ground with the 2006 and 2008 election examples and especially later, looking at why this “mythical potency” persists, which would’ve been a slam dunk except for his reason 2 of 3, which just confused me (‘confused me’, being redundant).

His reason (2) is:  “to affirm the notion that fear-mongering works is to pressure the political class into maintaining core Bush/Cheney policies. . ., policies which the media class largely supported and still support”.  What?  waitaminute. . .

This is in rebuttal to the New York Times editorial that does affirm the notion that fear-mongering works, although he only quotes a few lines beyond the key phrase, “It’s nonsense, of course, but effective.”

So with this passage (w/Greenwald’s emphasis) then, The New York Times Editorial Page wants to pressure the political class into maintaining core Bush/Cheney policies?  Even though the very next quoted line is, “The be-very-afraid approach helped former President George W. Bush ram laws through Congress that chipped away at Americans’ rights.”?

This doesn’t sound very much like pressuring the political class to maintain Bush/Cheney policies, it sounds a lot like the opposite.  So does the rest of the editorial, which is the usual rigorous defending of Obama decisions vs. Bush decisions.  Hence, I don’t get the affirmation of fear-mongering reasoning, again with full disclosure that this particular mind does quite easily become lost.

What I can manage to get is that everyone, Fear card players, Fear card decriers and even the take a deep breath crowd, seems to use the same technique to make their point, at least in print.  Ridiculously outrageous and exaggerated verbiage is used in the headline; they might as well print ‘em up thus:  The Politics of. . .FEAR!!!; The MYTHICAL potency of. . .TERRORISM FEAR-MONGERING!!!  The only thing missing is the ominous theatrical score.

Once they get your attention, and you actually decide to see for yourself if their premise is backed up by something resembling fact, you usually find tepid argument and misleading information, the stretching of whatever necessary to make the case.

Right on cue, another example showed up shortly after I began this, the perfectly spectacular mess that is ‘Tea Partiers Are Anti-Statist Radicals’ by E.J. Dionne.  I mean really, need we read more?

NEW ENGLAND GUY -from olden days
(snooty AND haughty)

Everyone knows the Tea Partiers ARE anti-statist radicals, GOOD GOD MAN, it’s right there in the headline!

Well, foolish me, I proceeded to read the article desperately hoping to learn just how Tea Partiers are anti-statist radicals.  After his ringing positive statement of a headline, Dionne tries to back it up. . .

He doesn’t understand the ferocity of the Tea Party opposition to Obama.  He gives reasons why Obama is clearly NOT a statist.  Since he then quickly moves on to other matters, at this point one must then conclude that Tea Partiers are anti-statist radicals because E.J. Dionne finds their behavior, “mystifying”.

He has yet to make a coherent point so it must be time for the race card, which he plays deftly, since opposing illegal immigration and claiming people can’t spell ‘vote’ or say it in English is a classic attack on Obama’s race.

He repeats Meghan McCain, who said the call for literacy tests amounted to “innate racism”. . .which I suppose it could, but this just digresses since apparently no such call was made.  Someone suggesting that Obama was elected because civics literacy tests aren’t required to vote is not a call for those tests to be required.  Dionne needs to twist it that way though, so he can call it a harkening back to the Jim Crow South.

Having used his broad brush to boldly paint Tea Partiers as racists, he turns the page with a tempering, “But it would be a mistake to see the hostility to Obama only in terms of race.”

Because (finally!) Dionne gets to the anti-statism, which he says goes back to the founding of the country which, I believe, was before Obama was President (I guess anti-statism is another one of those terrible “inherited” problems He is so bedeviled with, in unprecedented fashion).

This anti-statism, saith Dionne, is opposition of government power as a matter of principle, not amenable to “facts” and at any given time makes up perhaps 20 – 25% of Americans that can be counted on to denounce anything Washington does as a threat to “our traditional liberties”.

Now, that’s deep thinking!  So deep, that Dionne might have thought to consult himself before pronouncing that he was mystified, waaaaay back at the beginning of his article.  As we go full circle. . .

Cliff’s Notes version:

Dionne calls his article, ‘Tea Partiers Are Anti-Statist Radicals’ and will later define anti-statism as, among other things, a profound mistrust of power in Washington, yet at the outset has no clue what all the Tea Party fuss toward Obama is about.

Since Dionne can’t figure out what the fuss is about, Tea Partiers must be racists.  It’s all about who Obama is. . .

Except when it has absolutely nothing to do with who Obama is, when 20 – 25% of us are simply opposing whoever happens to be President, being anti-statists.

Then as some sort of “bonus”, Dionne throws in an inexplicable, seemingly gratuitous equating of Ron Paul to the Tea Party and/or anti-statism.  I’m not even sure of which party is being maligned, in keeping with the “logic” of this piece, probably neither.  Apparently, Dionne thinks Paul’s preferred choice of having a bad economic year instead of a bad economic decade is “radical”.

Like the others, this article’s content fails to correspond to or justify the sensational headline.  It seems that it is far easier to form alarming headlines than to actually have a reason for calling such alarm.  So, fear the headline, if you must, but be reassured that what follows will likely fall well short of anything truly scary.  Unless you find nonsense terrifying.

Everyone knows women are free to have an abortion should they choose to do so.  If you don’t like it, then you probably won’t be having one.  If you don’t want anyone else having one, . . .

then. . .well, apparently you feel you can make life-altering decisions for those about whom you know nothing at all; this particular mind cannot.  I would defer to Whoever’s Pregnant as to who has ultimate authority on what Whoever’s Pregnant should do.  I can’t really comprehend any other scenario.

However, this particular mind is also not sure it gets some of the opposition to this TV ad, set to run during the Super Bowl.  Understandably, with abortion an essential issue in their lives & liberties, strongly expressed reactions from women will arise in this argument but the volume seems to be cranked way up on this one.  I’m not sure they’re doing themselves any favors.

With the undue publicity and attention so far, Focus On The Family has already received a lot more than their money’s worth before the ad even runs.  At this point they could pull the ad and still be satisfied that their message has been successfully disseminated.  By the time it actually makes it over the air, the salient points of an ad lasting a minute or less will have been discussed and debated for days.  That is called fantastic bang for your buck.

Obviously there is valid counterpoint to the ad but to make it in so vociferous a way, basically demonizing not only the message of the ad but the Tebows as well, only serves to undermine it.  The ad has been characterized as dangerous and disturbing in the extreme.  Most viewers will find it less than that to some degree and wonder what all the fuss is.

What is all the fuss? What exactly is dangerous, disturbing or shocking about it? Are pro-choice proponents unaware that they have opposition that is pro-life?  No? Oh, then they’re unaware that pro-life advocates wish to promote their opinions?  Hmm, they know that as well. . .um, they’re pissed off that they didn’t think of a Super Bowl ad first?

I recently heard Colin Cowherd on ESPN Radio allude to something about Democrats or liberals that seems fitting here:  it’s real funny how they are chock full o’ benevolent tolerance right up until they find you utterly intolerable.  When you dare disagree.

As far as I know, the ad tells the story of Tim Tebow’s mom having to make a decision about her pregnancy and choosing to have the baby that would become Tim Tebow. Although Tebow’s mom makes a choice of her own, I guess this ad is anti-choice or anti-abortion or pro-life or whatever.

It’s very clear, Tim Tebow’s mom made a decision for herself and. . .wait, how is that relevant to me again?  Sure, good on her and Tim and all, but is this somehow supposed to inform me of something deep and meaningful?

It seems fairly innocuous but I’m sure I’m missing the obvious, blaring subtext or some other sub-thingy.  I suppose it could be construed as dangerous and disturbing to me or women everywhere, if only this story had any relevance at all to anyone else but the Tebows.

This ad is also further being faulted for having male minds as it’s intended target (apparently disposing of the idea that “targeting the male mind” is a practical oxymoron), except millions of both men and women typically watch the Super Bowl.  Any agenda aside, it’s simple common sense to take out an ad if you want to spread your message as far and wide as possible.

Anyway, this “targeting of the male mind” is iffy at best in ordinary circumstances, but during the Super Bowl?.  The message of this ad might manage to seep into one ear but then, finding no purchase, will go wafting out the other ear leaving the male mind completely undisturbed.  Impenetrable thoughts on other matters are going on in there.  Hot babes.  Spinach dip v. Guacamole.  Hot babes.

If by chance a wisp of the message somehow gets through and elicits a response, two reactions may be verbalized: Confusion (I don’t. . .what’s it sayin’?) and Tasteless Humor, always at the very top of the male mind, regardless of the situation or subject matter.  Brilliantly, it will be Tasteless to everyone on all sides of the issue.

Best to nip the Tasteless Humor sh!t in the bud immediately unless you want the ad to be a gift that keeps on giving; I’d estimate at least 20 minutes of sheer masculine hilarity.  “Don’t you have money on this?”, should be a sure distraction.

Most of the rest of the group watching would comprise an apparent “unintended” target audience, the Women Of Careful Consideration, otherwise known as “women” (at least say, upwards of 98% of women).

These “women” have already come to a conclusion on this matter, long BeforeTebowAd, that may or may not agree with that message, arrived at after thinking about it for a duration even longer than that of the ad, with Careful Consideration of pro and con and other.  If they are in disagreement, still will they find that their carefully considered conclusion is proof against this ad’s dreadful onslaught on their sensibilities.

The very few not yet addressed are Women Who Let Matters Of Great Import Be Decided By Ads On TV. Let the Women Of Careful Consideration lead these others away from the television, gently but firmly, when the ad is aired.

Those opposed will probably still be compelled to watch it, maybe thinking of their own version, the Tebow story obverse.  A mom doesn’t have a recommended abortion and . . .mass murderer!  See, that’s exactly opposite Tebow’s mom not having an abortion and . . .Tim Tebow! . . .but coulda been. . .Hitler! . . .then mighta been. . .a President!  Gosh, it’s just like you could go back and forth like, forever, and not get anywhere.  Just like that.

If it really just cannot be dealt with, there is the Deus Ex Remotecontrola.

Turn The Channel.

it likely only approximately happened this way.  The details might be a bit fuzzy, but the feelings about it are still quite vivid.

Now, I have always been registered a Democrat, though quite tenuously these days because of the 2008 election and resultant Obama presidency.  Oh, for the salad days of the primaries when, bursting with pride, Democrats beamed at Obama and at Hillary, all dewy eyed, all, “Gosh, whichever one wins, we’ll have a great, a historic candidate!  Awwwww!”.

I was one of those dumb enough to think that.  Until Iowa.  That was when the Obama Coronation Tour began with the entire Democratic infrastructure, in the party, in elected office and in the media turning against Hillary and just wanting her to get the hell out and let Obama win; she says, “I’m in it to win it.” (I love it!).

Then, did Sexism rear it’s ugly head from all quarters, including Obama; it was dismissed as Hillaryism (and who doesn’t despise her?  Other than her 18 million+).  A few had Hillary’s back, Florida’s Wasserman-Schultz, Kirsten Powers, the Rachels, Maddow and Sklar among them, but once the Democratic machinery put Florida-And-Michigan-Don’t-Count and Hillary-Is-Destroying-The-Party into effect, the Coronation Tour rolled on, Hillary “vanquished” and tossed aside.

Hillary is nothing if not presidential throughout this disgusting period and, still, gracefully bows out with class and (choke!) dutifully gets in line behind Obama.  President Clinton does this as well, even though Obama called him a racist and even ’til today has yet to offer an apology (Being Obama means never having to say you’re sorry).  I expected President Clinton would exact one for the price of his speech at the convention. . .?  Nope.

Sarah ‘Barracuda’ Palin blazes onto the scene with John McCain introducing her in a positively electric announcement.  She is thrown instantly into the fray, having to fend off the Democratic machinery and Obama who have now trained their Sexism apparatus directly at her, in fact they use every -ism weapon in their arsenal.  It is vicious.  It is inhuman.  It is revolting.

Ms. Maddow?  Struck dumb, which is no small task, and all she’s got in response is to pile on with the rest of the mob in a nonsensical woman-v.-woman feeding frenzy.  Some members of that mob were the ones calling Sexism against Hillary, but when the woman being attacked lacks a ‘D’ by her name, well, you can not just refuse to call out the Sexism, you can actually join in!

What Hillary endured was legitimately awful, but Palin endures multiple levels of awful.  For her part, she is grace under fire, fearless responding to attacks, and is more qualified to be president than Obama (as she remains today).

Once Obama “wins” the nomination I immediately have to wonder, what the hell am I gonna do at the ballot box?  There’s NO WAY IN HELL I can vote for Obama.  I consider writing Hillary in, but there’s some arcane whatnot about write-in candidates and I am concerned my vote will somehow be invalidated.

It really didn’t matter what I did anyway, I’m in California; Obama’s taking California.

Obama helps me out, though.  Once Hillary’s out of the way He can fully concentrate on perpetuating the persecution of Sarah Palin; among other things, He outright calls her a pig and of course His Enablers have never stopped their attacks.  I hope she comes out swinging at the Republican Convention and she doesn’t disappoint (I think I love this woman!).

So it’s pretty much settled by election day, I will vote my conscience and I will vote for a woman, like I had planned.  A different woman than expected to be sure, but no less deserving of my vote.  While a “throwaway” vote, I come away feeling immense satisfaction after exercising my right and voting for Sarah Palin, and not for Obama, the first vote I have ever cast for the Republican ticket in a presidential election.

Later, as I vainly try to argue her merits versus Obama on a “blog”, the outcome becomes clear.  I institute a self-imposed moratorium on seeing, hearing, smelling or touching, anything and everything Obama.  This is extremely difficult since He is everywhere but I am suffering mightily from severe Obama Fatigue with accompanying ObamaFamilyUnit Fatigue.  I can’t stand to hear anything about Him or them.

Then, quite by accident, I happen upon Obama on the television and I thought it was The Twilight Zone.

He appears to be standing at a podium spouting some sort of glittering generalities and I had to blink several times and squint because I thought there was something affixed to the podium that read, “Office of the President-Elect”.

I find out it is REAL, not a figment of my imagination.  It is however the very definition of figment:  something MADE UP or CONTRIVED.  Except if you use ‘contrived’ to describe this “seal” or whatever it was, you can’t possibly use the word to describe anything else!  EVERYthing else in the world is genuine if “Office of the President-Elect” is merely ‘contrived’.

Are you really telling me that you just kicked a 70-year old guy’s a$s all over the electoral map, and you still need to remind everyone, and more importantly yourself, that you did win?  I thought to myself, possibly out loud, “You have GOT to be ƒÚçKING KIDDING ME!”.  In an instant I knew that this guy had an absolutely toxic persona:  a massive, voracious ego that, amazingly, was only dwarfed by His preternatural insecurity; is this gonna suck, or what!

Whatever; He won and I tried to ignore everything about it.

However, I pay attention when Hillary is mentioned and I do hear about the rampant speculation, will he or won’t he?  Put her in His administration, that is.  As much as He probably would rather not (the both of them probably would rather not) He really has no choice, He can’t have the Clintons throwing rocks at Him from without but He also couldn’t have Hillary publicly rebuff any offers.

Hillary finds the Secretary of State appointment acceptable, after all.  It immediately occurs to this particular mind that if the Obama administration falters badly enough, she can resign to take a run at Him again in 2012.  A masterstroke would be to simultaneously resign and announce she’s running for the nomination.  In that potential climate she would be advancing herself while dealing a severe blow to His chances at the same time.  Glorious!

I also firmly believe that this idea occurs immediately to the minds of both Hillary and Bill.  You’re really not gonna take a presidency from them until you pry it from their cold dead fingers.  Hillary will keep her head down, nose to the grindstone, and wait; they can bide their time very well.

And bide their time well they have, and a Hillary resignation & announcement for the nomination is still in play.  If it does happen though, just where does this particular mind now stand?  I voted for Hillary in the primary but Obama took her place then I voted for Sarah. . .there’s an outside chance that the 2012 campaign is Hillary vs. Sarah, what then?

I certainly had to turn away from the Democratic party under Obama’s “leadership”.  I remain registered Democrat, but am I an Independent or even Republican at this point?  I can’t bring myself to say I’m Republican or conservative, even if I agree with them on some issues.  I guess it’s about a lifetime being Democrat, even as I detest most of what’s being done by the party, I can’t seem to completely let it go for some reason; kinda pathetic. . .

A Hillary vs. Sarah election could be just what I need, maybe what we all need.  The obvious beauty of it:  a woman president, guaranteed.

Now I find there are other ways this endeavor is beneficial to this particular mind. . .

Random-access memory and/or non-volatile storage
Q.  If this particular mind was a computer, what kind of computer would it be?
A.  a 286 with 16MB RAM and 40MB HDD

This computer would be next to useless today, except to run Win v3.1 on DOS v3.30 (and Wayne Gretzky Hockey!  Woo hoo!).  Therefore, this relatively similarly equipped mind can retain:  next to nothing.

So, as it’s random thoughts get jotted down over time, it will then be possible to revisit, reconsider and possibly decipher those thoughts when inevitably I have completely forgotten them.  Within a few months, maybe a few weeks in some cases, it will be as if some other person wrote this.  It will be completely new to me and I’ll have to turn it over and turn it over and turn it over again in my mind. . .oh yeah, that’s what I was thinking!. . .maybe. . .

It would be very much like the Amber character on House, or J.K. Rowling’s idea of Dumbledore’s pensieve; in fact it is the muggle world version of the pensieve.  I can extract the thoughts and deposit them here thusly for ruminating on later, just a sh!tload more typing since, no wand (or magic to make it work).

On the series House, Amber (the hallucinated Amber, not the living Amber) is in actuality House himself, his mind.  House converses and argues with Amber, tapping into and understanding his own thoughts better, resulting in a kind of rigorous self-examination. . .a formidable argument for hallucinogens, actually. . .alas, I will go this more conventional route for now.

I think it’ll work and it should be fascinating, but there is a little chink in the armor.  I will need the foresight to make sure the thoughts and ideas that I document are the ones I will forget later. . .there’s just no way around that one.  Luckily, since I forget most everything, it should be OK.

The, by any other name, . . .”blogroll”
I also am not a “blogger” and cannot use “blogger” language.  However, I do have links in a sidebar that many would objectively deem a “blogroll”.  It’s split into sections with the rationale for the arrangement being fairly obvious, at least to me (since I’m the one that made it that way).

I will try to maintain a level of discrimination as to what is listed, not because I am some kind of Supreme Arbiter Of What To Read, but basically, if you’re gonna have a list of “blogs” in a sidebar, you should probably read those “blogs” on a regular basis.  It seems some “blogrolls” list 40, 50 or even more; who the hell can be reading that many?

Most of the time just the plain, non-descriptive “blog” names are listed which makes it very difficult to ascertain exactly why one might want to have a look see and clink on a given “blog”.  Therefore I don’t think I have ever followed a link on a “blogroll”.

So, I put some kind of description next to the link, which goes to a noteworthy post representative of that site.  I tried to use the post what brung me but the limited memory. . .(sigh).  I will probably update them from time to time.  Initially, an inordinate number of them relate to Sarah Palin, but then that’s just how I found a lot of  these sites.  Anyway, this just seems the minimum effort to create a useful “blogroll”.

Links in a sidebar:  I’m With These Folks
I was gonna do a kind of review of the links in the sidebar but now I realize it’s beyond the scope of this post (even though this post threatens to be VOL-oominous), but at least I want to address the I’m With These Folks links.  They have something in common, something about the writers. . .

Why do this?  A cursory glance through some of the sites there should offer a clue, there is a certain. . .attitude(?) that prevails on some of them.  That, and the writers really ought to explain it. . .

Why am I ‘with’ these folks?  The writers are who they are, write terrifically and, as Eliza Doolittle, should get some of their own back.  Although I am in agreement, I am necessarily limited in my ability to legitimately embrace or espouse some of the sentiments expressed, so I use the ‘I’m With. . .’ construction which I kinda like.  It fits.

I’m With These Folks because I have two little nieces, littleJazz and theButterball, and while These Folks I’m With have diverse opinions, in general they’re harmonious in moving the world toward true equality for all; in life, in liberty and in the pursuit of happiness.

Incorrection or: A Journey Of The Mind Through A Veritable Cornucopia O’ Bullsh!t
(this section exploded in volume such that in order to give it the proper attention, I put it in a separate post; but while you’re here. . .)
Parsing through the title, I came up with ‘Incorrection’ playing around with ‘correct’, as in “market correction” or “coming correct” and, ‘insurrection’, or rebellion.  The ‘Veritable Cornucopia O’ Bullsh!t’ was the 2008 presidential election process, of course everyone calls it that.

Through that Cornucopia this particular mind came to a point where it didn’t know who it was gonna vote for, or where it stood political spectrum-wise.  Apropos to it’s scattered nature, it’s probably like an old analog tune car radio with mechanical preset buttons.  Fiscally?  Somewhere toward 108.0 MHz.  Socially?  Somewhere toward 87.5 Mhz.  Then for whatever else, well, gonna need a helluva lot more preset buttons than five or six and probably there’s stuff where I wouldn’t even know what button to push.  Maybe they’re in another frequency spectrum, like microwave or ultraviolet. . .