Just Misérable?

I'm not a fan of musicals, so I won't render a judgment on the new (and endlessly promoted) Les Misérables movie. But this passage from a review by Slate's Dana Stevens probably captures its essence: "In the “I Dreamed a Dream” scene—the standalone set piece that will no doubt become the movie’s Oscar audition tape—[Les Misérables tries] to fuse raw emotional immediacy with the mechanics of virtuoso ballad-belting. Anne Hathaway’s big song, delivered in extreme close-up in a single, very long take, is deeply felt and impeccably delivered. ... [But] as the camera reverently gazed through the alabaster pillars of Hathaway’s teeth, all I could think about was the proximity of her tunefully vibrating larynx. She nails the song, no doubt about it, but it’s a performance that, to me, is too much about the awesomeness of its own nailing. (And it doesn’t help that Hooper’s camera won’t stop asking is she nailing this or what?)"

'Tis the season for madness - yet again

ALTHOUGH TWO PEOPLE were tragically killed by a deranged, 22-year-old shooter at that Oregon mall on Tuesday, it could have been much, much worse. I thought we had dodged a bullet from the assault rifle of another madman incubated by the nation's out of control gun culture. That was wishful thinking. Today, yet another 20-something gunman killed at least 27 people at a Connecticut elementary school. Some 18 of the victims were kids between the ages of 5 and 10. Whatever problems each of us have, they pale in comparison to the outcome of this senseless massacre. I cannot begin to imagine what the parents of those slain school children are going through right now, just over a week from Christmas. It's an American nightmare. There's not much to say beyond asking: how high does the body count have to go before this country implements responsible but stringent gun control?

The coronation, again

AS RONALD REAGAN would surely say, "There they go again." As you've probably noted by now, the political media has already called the 2016 presidential election: It'll be Hillary Clinton by a landslide. The sheer ridiculousness of this prediction is self-evident. What we can say is that the pressure on Hillary to run is enormous, and will only increase next year when she steps down as secretary of state. And yes, as the near certain Democratic front-runner, Clinton would probably be a formidable candidate in 2016 if -- and that's a big if -- she chooses to run. That, of course, doesn't mean she would win, let alone cruise to victory. Lest we forget, Hillary was all but coronated Madam President until a fellow named Obama flexed his ambitions. And yet, as Howard Kurtz rightly notes, the media seem to believe that all Clinton has to do now is "plan her inauguration." Kurtz outlines what's missing from these stories: "(a) She is largely insulated from partisan attacks as secretary of State. If Hillary gets in the arena, she’ll start getting pummeled and those approval ratings will come down. (b) Even if Barack Obama is popular in 2016, asking the voters for three Democratic terms in a row is going to be a heavy lift. (c) Hillary was a lousy candidate in 2008, when the press also pronounced her inevitable. (d) She will be 69 and may decide not to run. So why are so many writing and chattering about Hillary Rodham Clinton four years out? She’s good for traffic—and is a heckuva lot more interesting than the fiscal cliff." Will Hillary run? Maybe. But I'll believe it when she actually pulls the trigger.

Girl power, defender of the realm-style

In Shakespeare's Henry VIII, the character Anne Boleyn famously said, "I would not be a queen, for all the world." In real life, the historical Anne Boleyn did indeed become Queen of England as the second wife of Henry VIII. She gave birth to the future Queen Elizabeth I, whose gender greatly disappointed Henry. However, the second monarch of the House of Tudor would have had a baby himself had he known what was coming five centuries thence. Kate Middleton, as the entire world now knows, is pregnant. We've also just learned that the British Commonwealth has jettisoned the rules that give boys precedence over girls in the royal line of succession. Slate's Alyssa Rosenberg welcomed the change: "So if this royal baby is a girl, Will and Kate won't have to get to work on a boy immediately—or ever." We see which way the stream of time doth run, indeed.

Fiscal reality check

Yet another definition of madness: The parade of pundits on MSNBC, CNN and Fox News opining (with a straight face) about the "fiscal cliff" negotiations in Washington. None of the usual suspects are economists (they just play them on TV). That means they: (a) have no idea what they're talking about, or (b) are badly parroting authentic policy experts (like Ezra Klein) who do. Remember, just a few weeks ago half of these talking heads were predicting Romney would win the presidency, perhaps in a landslide. Just saying.

The burden of beauty

Rula Jebreal (pictured at left) is drop-dead gorgeous. Though her name was faintly familiar, Jebreal's loveliness was top of mind when I first spied her on MSNBC discussing the Israeli-Palestinian conundrum. Aha, I stupidly assumed, another beautiful celeb with questionable intellectual credentials (think Angelina Jolie) using her celebrity to spotlight a pet issue. I should have known better. So I Googled her to learn more -- and ended up on the road to Damascus. Jebreal, 39, is an award-winning journalist and novelist with duel Israeli and Italian citizenship (she was born in Haifa, Israel, to an Italian father). Right -- that Jebreal. Oops. Per Wikipedia, she has a masters in Journalism and Political Science from the University of Bologna. Jebreal became the first foreign anchorwoman in the history of Italian television, winning awards for coverage of the Iraq War (including the International Ischia Award for Best Journalist of the Year). She worked as a journalist in Italy for 12 years, earning a reputation as a tough interviewer. Her first novel "Miral," written in 2003, sold millions of copies worldwide, and was eventually made into an award-winning film. Oh, and Jebreal is fluent in five languages: Italian, English, Arabic, Hebrew, and German. In short: She is no air-head. That honor belongs to me for assuming that she was. Even in 2012, men reflexively tend not to take beautiful women seriously. Hopefully, bright lights like Jebreal will slap some sense into us. And, ladies, please use a two-by-four. Lord knows we deserve it.

Are we there yet?

At some point in the future, I suspect scientists (aided by ever smarter computers) will learn how to build the Warp engine (think Star Trek), thus enabling realistic travel between the stars. If history is any guide, if humankind can envision it -- and make the underlying math work -- it can build it. In the interim, contemplate the utter enormity of the problem. Per The Atlantic: "Alpha Centauri may be the closest star system to Earth, but it's still four light years away. Voyager 1, our farthest-traveled probe is moving at 38,000 miles per hour, and after 35 years, it's still in our solar system (barely). Moving at Voyager's speed, it would take 700 centuries for a mission to reach Alpha Centauri."

Fools and their money

CALL ME nutty, but I shop only when I need something. Otherwise, I steer clear of the mall. That's why every year I usually say something snarky about the invented, over-hyped event known as "Black Friday." And every year it's like shouting into wind. The frenzied crowds keep getting bigger. So this year I won't bother. Instead, I'll just cite this observation from New York magazine writer Kevin Roose and leave it at that: "Among the most potent reasons no sane person should participate in Black Friday is this: It is carefully designed to make you behave like an idiot. It's a nationwide experiment in consumer irrationality, dressed up as a cheerful holiday add-on. ... [Per behavioral economists], between retail tricks and your own cognitive flaws, you have almost no chance of actually saving money or making rational decisions." Plus, Roose adds, you might get trampled.

Lincoln vs. 007

For weeks, I've been reading mostly rave reviews for Lincoln, the new film starring Daniel Day-Lewis as the 16th president. But Mother Jones "critic" Asawin Suebsaeng (an interactive fellow at the magazine, whatever that is) thinks Lincoln is an "epic fail" and a "listless, heaving waste of cinema space." Mercy. Suebsaeng, a 20-something candidate for a Don't Know Much About History book, is an outlier. Reading his review, one gets the sense that his basic beef with Lincoln is that it forces one to, you know, go all contemplative and stuff. Egads. Where's the fun in that? Of course the fact that Suebsaeng ordained Skyfall, the new 007 movie, as a "flick for the ages" kinda explains everything.

Just a thought

"Democracy is the recurrent suspicion that more than half of the people are right more than half the time." -- E.B. White, July 3, 1943.

The 'no drama' Obama way is better

THE ELECTION is over. In its wake, a gazillion champagne bottles popped in half the country over Obama's reelection and the bullet dodged (think 3 Nino Scalia clones on the Supreme Court). Giddy liberals are still dancing in the end zone. And spiking the football. And doing the salsa. And high-fiving. And trash-talkin'. And ... well, you get the picture. Clearly, as Slate writer Katherine Goldstein rightly notes, liberal Schadenfreude has spiraled out of control. Goldstein wrote: "When the TV networks declared that Obama won his second term, I whooped with glee, did a little dance ... I was so incredibly happy." She immediately conveyed her joy via the social media ("4 MORE YEARS!"). I did much the same. Then Goldstein began to notice something. "Both in media coverage and in social media networks, Obama supporters were not just thrilled that our guy won—folks were insanely, morbidly happy that all Republicans were miserable," she wrote. Jezebel blogger Lindy West, for example, wrote a post entitled “My Ten Favorite Kinds of Right Wing Temper Tantrums” in which she proudly declared, “I am just 99 percent completely fucking delighted by every single weepy right-wing temper tantrum. I can't stop hate-reading. I can't stop.” Sigh. Give 'em an inch and they'll take a mile every time. Goldstein is right, of course. This ain't healthy. My progressive friends need to take it down a notch or three and mimic the classy style of the object of their celebration: "No Drama" Obama.

A good man falls

In a stunning fall from grace, Gen. David Petraeus resigned as CIA director today, citing an extramarital affair. It was the honorable thing to do to spare the president, the CIA and the nation from further embarrassment. Nevertheless, Lincoln's famous observation still ring true: "Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man's character, give him power."

Wither the angry white guy

IT IS BECOMING increasingly uncomfortable to watch. Still, like a ghastly car crash, it's hard to avert your eyes. Make no mistake: We are witnessing the last throes of the Republican white power structure, the current surrogate for the vestiges of pre-Civil Rights Era America. They are the "dead-enders," to use the Rumsfeldian phrase, who reject the nation's evolution and refuse to believe that most Americans (including moderate Republicans) have refused to follow them back to 1954 and Old Virginny. I give you Sean Hannity, a sort of modern-day "Bull" Connor in sheep's clothing, who huffed: "America now deserves Barack Obama.” Panicky Hannity should have stopped there. But, like an out of control child, he couldn't:

"Just barely over 50 percent looked at [Obama's] pathetic record and decided they wanted more of the same. I’m not sure exactly why they arrived at that judgment, I think it’s a bad judgment, but we are a self-governing country and the voice and the will of ‘We the People’ have now been heard. America wanted Barack Obama four more years. Now you’ve got him. ... Good luck with that.”

Only FCC obscenity rules prevented Hannity from flipping America the bird after that last sentence. With Obama's decisive reelection and Democratic gains across the board, America has effectively told the GOP to take its Mad Men Era dogmas and shove it. The good news is that "severely conservative" Republicans are on a steep, slippery slope to irrelevancy (see this week's voting results), one of their own making. The bad news is that these angry white guys won't relent we pry their "Father Knows Best" Betamax cassettes from their cold, dead hands.

Obama is reelected! Enough Said.

O how the mighty have fallen

ONCE UPON A TIME, I was a regular reader of the National Review, the once intelligent brainchild of William F. Buckley (1925 – 2008).

Politically, I rarely agreed with its conservative arguments. But the magazine's philosophy was generally worthy of serious consideration and debate. Occasionally, its editors even got it right.

But that, alas, is history.

To understand why, consider this sampling of the stories headlining the NRO website today, on Election Day.

o Mitt’s Inchon Landing: A surprise victory in Pennsylvania?
o Obamanomics Explained: President Obama’s economic illiteracy.
o Romney’s Path to 270: How to reach the magic number.
o A Jew Tours for Romney: Israel hatred is a leftist preserve.
o Why Romney Will Win: Polls can’t measure intensity.
o Virtual Challenger: Obama ends with a whimper, not a bang.
o Black Panthers Back at Polling Sites

Oh how the mighty have fallen, as the biblical saying goes. I found only a single article ("Twilight or Breaking Dawn? Romney faces tough odds") that bore the earmarks of a rational conservative mind. The entire front page was otherwise a shocking exercise in delusional, paranoid fantasy. Sadly, the National Review has become an empty, alternate universe that bears little resemblance to any reality I recognize. I cannot believe the erudite Buckley would approve. But when today's GOP gazes at itself in the mirror, NRO is the reflection it sees. And that's doubly sad.

How large is your bet on Romney?

WOULD YOU bet your mortgage or 401K on Mitt Romney being elected president tomorrow? I bet the answer to that question would quickly separate the men from the boys -- or rather the crazies from the rational -- among Republicans. But I digress. The Economist has a compelling piece on why the media's insistence that the presidential race is a toss-up is misleading at best. Their bottom line: Forget the polls (because reporters are grossly misevaluating the results). You're better off thinking like a bookie about Romney's odds of winning. To wit: "For the baseball fans among you, Mr Romney is in roughly the same position as a team starting the bottom of the ninth inning trailing by one run; for the poker players, he’s all-in holding pocket kings facing an opponent with pocket aces." Bookie's translation: Romney certainly has a chance, maybe as high as 20%. But you'd be crazy to bet money on it, buddy.

An election 'pre-morterm'

FIRST, the caveats: I could be wrong. Most journalists (the folks following this thing the closest) could be wrong. Most political scientists (the folks analyzing this thing the closest) could be wrong. The polls (virtually all of them) giving the edge to President Obama over Mitt Romney could be wrong. And, most importantly, whiz kid Nate Silver, the NY Times pollster who's never been wrong, could be wrong. So, yes, Obama could be toast tomorrow. In theory. All that said, UC San Diego political scientist Samuel Popkin, author of the recent book about presidential campaigns The Candidate, thinks that if all current indications hold, Barack Obama wins. The professor's "pre-mortem" is clear-eyed, balanced and worth mulling. In it, he unpacks "The 3 Myths of the Romney Campaign," the ones that did not lead to his imminent defeat. Read it here. But, yes, Dr. Popkin could be wrong, too.

A Romney win means the sky is not blue

Andrew Sullivan: "[I]f Romney gets a landslide in the electoral college [as some ordinarily rational Republican pundits are seriously predicting], many of us will have to reassess our entire understanding of America, politics and polls." In fact, that would be the least of it. We'd also be dealing with a Brave New World of "facts." At a minimum, we'll be forced to acknowledge that white is black, the sky is not blue, 2 plus 2 does not equal 4, and the moon really is made of cheese.

In defense of ... President Romney?

FRANKLY, I'M SURPRISED that conservative pundit David Frum has just endorsed Mitt Romney for president. I respect and admire Frum. Though a Republican, he's never been afraid to call a spade a spade in his frequent attacks against his own party. At bottom, Frum is a sane pragmatist, one noted for casting a wary eye at political ideologues in either camp. But his arguments in support of Romney over Obama are epically convoluted. Frum has convinced himself that the real Romney is "Massachusetts Mitt," a fellow who will cast off the Tea Partyists and govern from the middle as president. In other words, Romney will be a rational actor, a Republican Obama, if you like. Right. As I have noted many times in these pages, I, too, suspect that Romney, in his heart of hearts, is essentially a centrist. In a perfect political vacuum, he might even govern like one. But the world is not a void. His White House anterooms will be filled with those Oz-like flying monkeys (along with their GOP political/ideological/cultural detritus) moments after the Big Bang on Inauguration Day. And then there's Romney's apparent hollowness. Though he is not exactly an empty suit, I can detect no core convictions in the man. I mean, does anyone really believe Romney has a clear sense of mission other than just wanting to be top dog as president? Mix in his lack of intellectual curiosity and sophistication and, well, we have a prescription for a tragedy of Shakespearean proportions. One LA Times writer noted: "Apparently, Romney is like a lot of people: He reads for pure escapism. Good and evil are pretty clearly defined in most of the books he likes. Life is simpler." Remind you of anyone? Hint: His middle initial is "W." Do we really want to stun the world by dethroning a president who enjoys "Macbeth" for an untested man whose favorite novel is L. Ron Hubbard's "Battlefield Earth" (universally panned as dreck)? How Frum can rationalize all of this away is simply beyond me.

In the annals of 'no kidding'

TV political ad revenue is up 68% over the 2008 election likely reflecting the many ads financed by super PACs, reports SNL Kagan. (jsonline.com)

Let's just be friends

Well, the verdict is in. Per Scientific American, a new study finally proves (more or less) that men and women can't be "just friends." Right. Now tell us something guys don't know. This memorable scene from When Harry Met Sally still sums up the conundrum best:



And I would be remiss if I didn't include this bookend scene :

Gallup Syndrome

I AM THE walking definition of cynicism when it comes to politics. But even I am taken aback by the media's neurotic obsession with polling as we approach D-Day. Talk about "lies, damn lies, and polls." Though I am happily just Joe Sixpack today, I followed the last three presidential elections as a working journalist. And I've never seen it this bad.

Here's some free advice: Now is a good time to start aggressively ignoring the national press -- print, TV and blogs. Especially the blogs. (To see what I mean, check out Andrew Sullivan's latest use of what amounts to a forked divining rod to forecast the future.) It should be obvious by now that any voter who is still "undecided" at this late date is clearly suffering from a mental disorder. Ditto for people who provide evolving answers to pollsters. Think about it. How could a sane voter be for Obama one week and then for Romney the next?

Ergo, these folks -- upon whose votes the press would have you believe the outcome hinges -- can be safely dismissed since it's unlikely they'll show up at the polls anyway. The only line they'll be standing in on Nov. 6 will be the one to re-fill their prescription meds. In short, this cake is baked. Sorry Republicans, but Obama is very likely to be reelected (and I'll eat this blog before moving to Canada if I'm wrong). But for reasons having to do with ratings, page visits and epic navel gazing, the chattering class is loathed to tell you that.

So do yourself a favor. For the next 10 days, steer clear of all things political. Enjoy the autumn weather, clean out the garage, romance your spouse, write the next great American novel or anything else that moves you. Just ignore the talking heads. Then simply cast your vote on Election Day. You'll thank yourself. By the way, if you truly are undecided and unmedicated, just flip a damn coin and be done with it. You, too, will thank yourself.

The jihad against Santa's pipe

Look, smoking in any form is bad for you. The trend away from the ancient habit of inhaling nicotiana tabacum is a good thing. But what is it with these severely uptight, anti-smoking zealots? Now they're going after Kris Kringle of all people. Yes, friends, Canadian publisher and noted anti-smoking crusader Pamela McColl has decided to tamper with Clement Moore's classic Christmas poem A Visit from St Nicholas ("Twas the Night Before Christmas," etc). In it, a description of Santa reads in part: "The stump of a pipe he held tight in his teeth / And the smoke, it encircled his head like a wreath." For do-gooder McColl, it's like, my god, we can't have any of that. I mean, how dare St. Nick light up in our 21st century No Smoking Zone. So without batting an eye, McColl simply expunged the two offending lines in her newly "edited" version of the 1823 story. "By removing these words we may save lives and avoid influencing new smokers," she says with a straight face. She even believes that children's books which feature smoking should include parental warnings. Right. Talk about ho-ho-ho. Is no one safe from these people? McColl has (rightly) drawn widespread criticism from anti-censorship groups. Stick that in your pipe, lady, and smoke it.

Slouching towards inanity

IT'S TRUE that you can't judge a book by its proverbial cover. But you can sometimes judge political webzines by their headlines. Two of my favorites are Slate and The Atlantic. Both do credit to the profession of political reporting -- most of the time. But, alas, even they are not immune from, well, let's just call it "Huffington Post Syndrome." Both magazines have noticeably increased their paeans to page visits. How else to explain these Atlantic headlines: Romney Fans Like Arby's, Obama Fans Like Red Lobster, The Sex Lives of Conjoined Twins, and The Tango as Relationship Therapy. On Slate's front page are: When Did Tanned Skin Become Fashionable (think Romney)? The Problem With Palin’s “Shuck and Jive”, and my personal favorite -- a perfect example of world-class navel-gazing -- The Tyranny of the Iron (Or Why we should all wear wrinkled clothes). Does the uptick in the manufacture of this haute pablum mean that the apocalypse is nigh? Happily, no. We've merely slouched an inch or two closer to it.

The Long Patrol

The General weighs in. Former Secretary of State Colin Powell on CBS this morning: "I am not quite sure which Gov. Romney we would be getting with respect to foreign policy. My concern is that sometimes I don't sense that he has thought through these issues as thoroughly as he should have. I signed on for a long patrol with President Obama, and I don't think this is the time to make such a sudden change. I voted for him in 2008, and I plan to stick with him in 2012. I’ll be voting for he and for Vice President Joe Biden next month."