Wednesday, November 4, 2009

Conservatives shouldn't get too cocky about the election results...

Last night the Republican party gained a ton of momentum with the convincing victories of Bob McDonnell in Virginia and Chris Christie in New Jersey, as well as the strong showing of Conservative candidate Doug Hoffman in New York, a non-charismatic unknown who came completely out of nowhere in the last 30 days to nearly win a congressional seat.


No doubt the conservative blogosphere and national radio hosts will gloat today, claiming that this shows that conservatism is alive and well and that voters are rejecting liberal policies.

Not so fast.

I'd like this to be true, because I'm a conservative and believe that conservative principles are what will be best for our country long-term. But I don't for a minute believe that the majority of the country believes that. I actually don't believe that the majority of the country has any clue right now what is best for the country long-term, nor would they claim to. All they know right now is that they're not happy, and they want change at any cost. A year ago that meant switching from Republicans to Democrats. Now it means switching from Democrats to Republicans.

The country isn't going to improve economically in the next year or two. In fact, it will probably get worse after this current "uptick" (I use the term liberally) corrects itself. That means that in 2010, the Republicans will likely make significant gains in the House and Senate. That said, if Christie and McDonnell were up for re-election in a year, they'd probably be voted out as well.

When the economy sucks, the party in control gets the blame, fair or not. President Obama hasn't had enough time to make the economy much worse--his biggest sin has been promising that things would get better and grossly exaggerating the job gains and saves as a result of the stimulus, but it's not his fault the economy isn't getting better. His poor approval ratings aren't a rejection of liberalism or even of President Obama; people simply want miracles when things are bad, and they're bummed he didn't perform the miracles they thought he would.

Last night was a victory for the Republicans, and it bodes well for 2010, but it wasn't necessarily a victory for conservatism or a loss for liberalism. It was simply a statement saying, "We're not happy." Conservatives still have a LONG way to go towards making their position mainstream.

Wednesday Wisdom...

To test the airtightness of a window or door to see if it needs weather-stripping, move a lighted candle along its frame. If there is enough draft to make the flame dance, then caulk or weather-strip it. For a door, add weather stripping if you can slip a quarter underneath it.

Monday, November 2, 2009

Ever sat next to great people on an airplane?

I had a really cool experience on an airplane the other day, and I want to share it. Obviously I want to share it, because you're reading it right now.

99.9% of the time, I spend my flights reading or watching a movie on my laptop. It's not that I don't like to talk to people, it's just that I spend so much of my life talking (no surprise to any of my former teachers) that I like to take the time to catch up on pop culture stimulants that will feed my ADHD.

But on my last flight, I was sitting in the window seat, and this cool-looking dude who was about my age was sitting in the aisle. Then a cutesy-looking girl comes and sits in between us. She looked about early 20s. We all adjusted, got settled in, and then she did something strange--she introduced herself to both of us.

"Hi, I'm Bonita," she said to the dude, who responded with, "Anthony, hi." Then she and I exchanged the same pleasantry and settled back in.

Three and a half hours later we landed. About ten minutes later we said goodbye as we split up in the terminal. So ended a 3 hour and 40 minute conversation.

It was one of my favorite plane rides of all time. I don't know how the three coolest people on the plane ended up in the same row, but it happened, and it was great. We talked about everything. It started with a conversation about the airline and how it sucks that this particular one doesn't have TV or movies on a 3+ hour flight, and somehow it transitioned into everything.

I learned about Anthony's twin two and a half year olds and our similar views on discipline and child-rearing. We spent a lot of time talking about Bonita's living situation in a tiny Colorado town, and Anthony and I traded similar pieces of advice (basically, she needs to get tougher and set better boundaries with some of the people in her life, but not with her fiance, who sounds very cool, even though he only wants a few kids compared to her wanting a dozen). I talked about the film business and my family. We were all totally engaged the entire time. Even though several times we pulled out our books/magazines/computers, assuming the conversation was wrapping up and we were resuming our normal airplane routine, we never stopped talking for longer than 5-10 seconds.

Near the end, Anthony asked me more about my writing and blogs and said, "So what do you think of Obama?" I chuckled and said, "Not sure we want to go there," but because he was one of the three coolest people on the plane, he said, "I don't care about disagreements, I think it's cool to talk about different ideas and viewpoints." Living in L.A. and working in Hollywood, I don't hear that too often. Well, I've heard ABOUT such ideas, but I think they only exist in a magical fairyland.

So then we talked about the President, which turned to health care, which turned to abortion, which included religion. They were both pro-choice but weren't offended by my thoughts on it, and the whole conversation was terrific.

So...personal lives, politics, abortion, religion, all on an airplane ride with strangers.

Best. Flight. Ever.

From now on, when I'm on a flight, I'm going to at least be open to the possibility that I'm sitting next to cool people. Of course, I should look to talk to people even if they aren't cool, especially because I love talking about my faith, but the cool thing sure is a bonus. I suggest you do the same, because when you get lucky, it makes for a great experience.

We said warm goodbyes, and I know that if by some miracle I ever saw them again, I'd give them each a hug. Anthony wrote down this web address because he said he wanted to check out what I was writing. If he did, I hope he read this:

Thanks.

Sunday, November 1, 2009

The brilliant Frank Capra...

"There are the critical minds as we know them here in the United States. Their base of operations is the Eastern seaboard and they're more or less allied to the European culture rather than to the American culture, certainly not to a city in Ohio a thousand miles away. So I've never had a very good standing among American intellectuals with my films. Certainly sentiment is an almost verboten emotion with the intellectuals. Why that should be I have not an idea, except it's perhaps too common, too ordinary--it's not arcane enough for an intellectual. Perhaps it's too simple." Frank Capra, responding to critics labeling his films "capracorn."

Wednesday, October 28, 2009

Follow-up to previous post about flu vaccine...

To address the notion that the drug companies aren't providing enough of the vaccine, I want to quote from a recent Wall St. Journal article that made the compelling case for the larger reason for the delay, and that's the always overly cautious and time-consuming FDA.

The first fateful policy decision, made last spring, was to forgo vaccine additives—called adjuvants—that activate the immune system and make shots more potent. Adjuvants allow a smaller supply of vaccine stock to be stretched across more doses. These adjuvants are included in H1N1 vaccines world-wide, but not in the U.S.

Why do adjuvants matter? An adjuvanted H1N1 vaccine being used in Europe contains 3.75 micrograms of vaccine stock. The same vaccine in the U.S., without the adjuvant, requires 15 micrograms of vaccine for equal potency. If we used adjuvants, we could have had four times the number of shots with the same raw material.

The second cautious decision was to require that the H1N1 vaccine be a single shot. The government demanded single-dose syringes because they contain smaller amounts of thimerosal than multi-dose vials. This mercury-containing vaccine preservative continues to stir concern it can trigger childhood autism, even though this has been firmly disproven.

The third policy decision was to stick for too long with a proven, but slow process for making flu shots that uses chicken eggs to grow the raw vaccine material. Shots can be made much faster using mammalian cells to grow vaccine, and this process is already being used in Europe. The cell-based vaccines are unlikely to be approved in the U.S. Our precaution when it comes to vaccines means we don't easily embrace novel technologies, even if the Europeans would part with some of their limited supply...

...the FDA requires vaccines to sit for weeks after they come off the manufacturing line to make sure they haven't grown bacterial impurities. This is why most of the H1N1 vaccine supply is released in waves and won't be ready until later this winter. The FDA can work with manufacturers to develop better standardized tools, called assays, to quickly assess new vaccine.


The rest of the article is here.

Government's doing a bang-up job on the vaccine, huh?

So the same government that is currently bungling the distribution of the flu vaccine is the same government we think would handle public health care efficiently?
A year ago, they told us 100s of millions of vaccines would be available. Then it was 45 million by the middle of October (it was only approved in September by the always quick-on-their-feet FDA). Now it's 28 million, with less than half having been delivered.

I'd be willing to bet that if Walmart was allowed to purchase 100 million doses of the vaccine and sell it for $10 a pop, people would have no problem getting it quickly and efficiently.

Speaking of this vaccine, it is made and distributed by CSL Ltd. of Australia; Switzerland's Novartis; Sanofi-Pasteur of France; and Maryland-based Medimmune, which makes the only nasal-spray flu vaccine. FYI, these companies are all pharmaceutical companies. They are private. They all spend upwards of a million bucks a day in research and development. They all employ thousands of people.

Just sayin'.

Wednesday Wisdom...

The fastest way to cool off a bottle of soda, beer, or anything else is to hold it under running cold water. It's faster than putting it into the freezer.

Sunday, October 25, 2009

This video speaks for itself...

One of the most powerful I've ever seen.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WW0uTKblmN4

Friday, October 23, 2009

Test screening questions for "What If..."

Test screenings are common in Hollywood, of course...nearly every studio films does a couple of them. The results impact how the film will be marketed and in many cases impact reshoots and new endings.

I've never actually done one for a film, but we're doing one for "What If..." tonight in Charlotte at a Christian film festival. Below are the questions we'll be asking this audience. Because we still have a week or so to do more edits, we can still make some adjustments based on this screening.

“WHAT IF…” TEST SCREENING QUESTIONAIRRE (October 24, 2009)

How would you rate this movie:

__ Excellent
__ Very Good
__ Good
__ Fair
__ Poor

Can you mention a few of your favorite things in the movie (character, scene, story point, etc.)?





Can you mention a few of your least favorite things in the movie?





Did anything bother or offend you (please list)?





Was there anything at all confusing (please list)?




What’s the youngest aged child you’d allow to see this film?

__ 6 and older
__ 8 and older
__ 10 and older

Please rate your chances of recommending this movie to others:

__ Definitely recommend
__ Maybe recommend
__ Won't recommend

Would your church show this movie as a special event? __ Yes __ No

Please rate the Christian content in the film:

__ There was enough Christian content, and the gospel message was presented sufficiently.
__ There was enough Christian content, but the gospel message was insufficient.
__ I was disappointed in the Christian content.

How would non-Christians respond to this film (check all that apply)?

__ My non-Christian friends would enjoy this film.
__ This movie would impact non-Christians for the gospel.
__ Non-Christians wouldn’t enjoy this movie.

Would you (check all that apply):

__ See this movie in theaters
__ Purchase the movie on DVD
__ Rent the movie
__ I won’t see it again

Do you like the title "What If..."? If not what would you call it?


Thank you so much for your time and attention, Jenkins Entertainment and Pure Flix Entertainment really appreciate it. Anything else you'd like to say about the film? Every little bit helps!

"Thank God for Guns"

While I don't recommend shooting anyone anywhere but "center mass" (chest-stomach) if you're trying to defend yourself, this is a great one minute clip from the great William Shatner.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e0D78JtxmqI

Wednesday, October 21, 2009

Wednesday Wisdom...

For classy ice cubes if you're hosting a nice party, boil the water first. Cool and then freeze it, and the ice cubes will be clear and last longer because they have fewer air bubbles.

Sunday, October 18, 2009

God bless John Mayer

The Vulture interviewed ”world-renowned blues legend John Mayer”:

What do you think about health care? Would you take the public option?


Have you ever heard me play guitar? I’m really f****** good. You know what I’m bad at? Answering questions about public health care. This is not in my wheelhouse. Do you have any questions about music? I almost got a mad need to lighten up. You need to lighten up, because the questions you asked me were all troublemaking questions. If someone gave me the Nobel Peace Prize, and I didn’t deserve it, I would just shut my mouth and enjoy the hell out of it.

Friday, October 16, 2009

Did Rush Limbaugh say that slavery had its merits?

Smearing Rush [Henry Payne] — Henry Payne is an editorial writer and cartoonist with the Detroit News.

Detroit — One of the leading torch-bearers in the media-lynch-mob effort to deny Rush Limbaugh ownership in the St. Louis Rams was nationally known Detroit Free Press sports columnist Drew Sharp.

In an October 12 USA Today column that was reprinted by the Free Press (both papers are Gannett-owned), Sharp libeled Limbaugh as once having “said on his nationally syndicated radio show that slavery ‘had its merits.’” Sharp repeated the claim (along with another whopper: the allegation that Limbaugh advised the NAACP to rob liquor stores) in an on-air interview with Bill O’Reilly, refusing to back down even after O’Reilly told him that Fox News researchers had found no history of such quotes (the London Daily Telegraph’s Washington bureau has confirmed Fox’s research, finding the quotes to be bogus).

“Well, we’ve gotten no denials from Limbaugh’s people,” replied Sharp. That’s the journalism standard? You can make up anything about anyone as long as he or she doesn’t contact you and deny it? Keep in mind that this is coming from the same mainstream media that bemoan the decline in newspaper readership because it cedes the field to bloggers who play fast and loose with the truth.

Hoping to sweep this ethical breach under the rug, the Free Press and USA Today both belatedly added a disclaimer to Sharp’s column saying that because they “could not verify the accuracy of the quote, it was removed from this version of the column.” But that is hardly an apology.

Sharp continues writing for the Free Press; in Wednesday’s column, he moved on to the topic of Michigan college hoops. This says a lot about the lack of opinion diversity in America’s newsrooms. Pull a fast one about Obama’s birth certificate, and MSM fact-checkers (rightly) hunt down the truth. Make a wild claim about a right-winger, and it’s assumed to be true. Hey, they’re all racists, right?

(NOTE: Rush has repeatedly denied the quotes on his show and is pursuing legal action)

Wednesday, October 14, 2009

Wednesday Wisdom...

You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich.
You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong.
You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift.
You cannot lift the wage earner up by pulling the wage payer down.
You cannot further the brotherhood of man by inciting class hatred.
You cannot build character and courage by taking away people's initiative and independence.
You cannot help people permanently by doing for them, what they could and should do for themselves.

......Abraham Lincoln

Tuesday, October 13, 2009

You'll play with Michael Vick but not for Rush Limbaugh?

(UPDATE--Apparently, according to ESPN, seven players have spoken out against Rush Limbaugh owning an NFL team, with the head of the union asking for more. So now we're up to seven morons instead of two, with more morons still to develop.)

Hearing a couple NFL players (of course, the media makes it out to be a large group, but I've only seen two quoted) say that they wouldn't play for Rush Limbaugh is about the most laughable thing I've heard from the NFL in a long time. The hypocrisy is hilarious. For one thing, I'd like someone to point out to me one thing that Rush Limbaugh has ever said that is outright racist. As in, hateful or prejudiced towards the black race. People can keep whining all the time that the man whose favorite Supreme Court justice is Clarence Thomas is a racist, but that doesn't make it true. Making comments ABOUT race does not make you someone who is prejudiced against black people.

But leaving that aside, when did all this righteous anger suddenly emerge from the league of Michael Vick, Ray Lewis, Warren Moon, and the 73 players on rosters last year who have had DUI arrests?

The New York Jets' Bart Scott says that the NFL would be wise not to allow Limbaugh into the league. "It's an oxymoron that he criticized Donovan McNabb," Scott said. "A lot of us took it as more of a racial-type thing. I can only imagine how his players would feel. I know I wouldn't want to play for him. He's a jerk. He's an ---. What he said (about McNabb) was inappropriate and insensitive, totally off-base. He could offer me whatever he wanted, I wouldn't play for him. ... I wouldn't play for Rush Limbaugh. My principles are greater and I can't be bought."

What a silly comment. First of all, I'm not sure that he knows what the word "oxymoron" means, but let's leave that aside. Second, while I would agree that Rush's comments about Donovan McNabb (that the press wanted a black QB to succeed so they weren't as hard on him) were inaccurate and probably stupid, they weren't racist. Nor were they a personal attack against McNabb. Finally, would Scott make this kind of statement if Donte Stallworth (the receiver who committed a DUI manslaughter) were to return to the NFL? Hmm, let me guess...

Monday, October 12, 2009

The Global Warming Debate Is Over! Or not...

From the BBC, an article entitled, "What Happened to Global Warming?":

This headline may come as a bit of a surprise, so too might that fact that the warmest year recorded globally was not in 2008 or 2007, but in 1998.

But it is true. For the last 11 years we have not observed any increase in global temperatures. And our climate models did not forecast it, even though man-made carbon dioxide, the gas thought to be responsible for warming our planet, has continued to rise.

So what on Earth is going on?

What can we expect in the next few years?

Both sides have very different forecasts. The Met Office [Britain's equivalent of the National Weather Service] says that warming is set to resume quickly and strongly.

It predicts that from 2010 to 2015 at least half the years will be hotter than the current hottest year on record (1998).

Sceptics disagree. They insist it is unlikely that temperatures will reach the dizzy heights of 1998 until 2030 at the earliest. It is possible, they say, that because of ocean and solar cycles a period of global cooling is more likely.

One thing is for sure. It seems the debate about what is causing global warming is far from over. Indeed some would say it is heating up.

Friday, October 9, 2009

When Nobel Prizes are given to men commanding wars...

The Nobel Committee has awarded the Nobel Peace Prize to President Obama for “his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and co-operation between peoples”. So apparently you don't have to do anything to get the prize, you just have to try...or at least plan on trying eventually. You see, nominations for the Nobel Peace Prize were closed on Feb. 1, after he'd been President for 12 days. I guess they assumed he'd pull out of Iraq and Afghanistan by now, because it seems a bit odd to give the top international prize for peace to a man currently in charge of two wars.

“His diplomacy is founded in the concept that those who are to lead the world must do so on the basis of values and attitudes that are shared by the majority of the world’s population.”

So...good leadership is based on holding the already-existing values of the majority? There was a time when the majority of the world believed in slavery--good thing we had some leaders who didn't follow the dogma of the Nobel Prize committee.

Why doesn't Michael Moore love capitalism?

In this article by Nicholas Ballasy for Video Reporter, Ballasy asks Moore a pointed question regarding his anti-capitalism documentary, "Capitalism: A Love Story":

“Critics would say you've been very successful under a capitalist system. How would you justify making a movie where you paint capitalism as evil?”

Moore said: “Well, capitalism did nothing for me, starting with my first film.”



"You know, I had to pretty much beg, borrow and steal,” he said. “The system is not set up to help somebody from the working class make a movie like this and get the truth out there.”

“In fact, in Fahrenheit 9/11 if you remember, capitalism, the Disney Corporation, tried to kill that film--tried to make it so that people couldn’t see it,” said Moore. “My book Stupid White Men--Harper Collins tried to kill that book so that people couldn’t see it. It's only because I put the light of day on it and told people what was going on did people get the chance to see these things.”

Ballasy points out that Moore has made at least $50 million from his films, a figure Moore disputes (in spite of evidence to the contrary), although Moore acknowledges having done well. He adds,

“So, that means I have an extra responsibility to make sure I spend my time trying to make things better for the people that don’t have what I have, right? I mean, everybody should do that,” he said.


Where do I start?

I'll get to Moore's inherent contradictions in a moment, but let's begin with the fact that capitalism is what birthed the technological advances that allow him to make his films. The dreaded profit motive fostered his equipment, the studio that distributed his film, the theaters that exhibit it, and high profit is what has allowed him to make more films like his in spite of controversy.

I in fact have often pointed to Moore as an example of what I love about America; I disagree with Moore on nearly everything but love the fact that an unattractive blue collar guy from the Midwest can rocket to success and speak for so many common Americans.

But pay close attention to what he says when he speaks of Disney and Harper Collins trying to "kill" his film and book. For one thing, I don't really believe him, but for another, note the word "tried." Many people often refer to big corporations as "powerful," which implies they actually have inherent power to enact their will. But they don't. Government has power, as it has law enforcement authority and can essentially do whatever it wants. Socialism is controlled by a much more truly powerful entity than capitalism is. In capitalism, corporations can "try" to kill a project, but they can't really. Because of capitalism, Michael Moore is able to "shine a light on what's going on," and because of capitalism, the market decides his success. People wanted his product, so they got it.

In socialism, people could want his product but still be denied it. Or they could not want his product but see it financed and produced (with their money) anyway.

Then he says that he has a responsibility to things better for others--again, this is a capitalist ideal. For one thing, in capitalism Michael Moore can do with his money what he wants and decide exactly who it helps and how. For another, Michael Moore IS actually helping others who have less than he does when he makes his films. His films bring in money for the studio, theaters, and companies that help make the films successful, which in turn benefit their employees and stockholders. His films hire people, people who buy things for the films from companies who hire people. All of these people have less than Michael Moore does.

Capitalism has done quite a lot for Michael Moore and those who work for him or because of him, and capitalism has allowed him to "spread the wealth around" in a way better than any government program his taxes could help finance.

Wednesday, October 7, 2009

Wednesday Wisdom...

Governments don't tax to get the money they need, the government will always find a need for the money they get." Ronald Reagan

Monday, October 5, 2009

I have a new black hero...

Jonathan McCoy makes me proud to be an American.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bMyp8y8SkUM

Saturday, October 3, 2009

You won't believe this...



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d2WK44cH2J0

But not all feminists support Polanksi...

From noted feminist Katha Pollitt in a terrific article:

"The widespread support for Polanski shows the liberal cultural elite at its preening, fatuous worst. They may make great movies, write great books, and design beautiful things, they may have lots of noble humanitarian ideas and care, in the abstract, about all the right principles: equality under the law, for example. But in this case, they're just the white culture-class counterpart of hip-hop fans who stood by R. Kelly and Chris Brown and of sports fans who automatically support their favorite athletes when they're accused of beating their wives and raping hotel workers.

No wonder Middle America hates them."

Read the rest of this great article here.

Where are the feminists re: Roman Polanski?

The same place they were when the most powerful man in the country had a sexual relationship with an intern, apparently.

"...let the guy (Polanski) go. It's bad a person was raped. But that was so many years ago. The guy has been through so much in his life. It's crazy to arrest him now. Let it go." Peg Yorkin, founder of the Feminist Majority Foundation

Wednesday, September 30, 2009

Wednesday Wisdom...

'If we ever forget that we're one nation under God, then we will be a nation gone under.' - Ronald Reagan

Tuesday, September 29, 2009

Inflation is coming, are we ready?

Yes, the economy is making a very slight recovery because of government lending and government money being pumped in, but this will be only temporary. Eventually, debt has to be paid back, and when countries run out of lenders, the only way to do that is to print more money, which of course causes significant inflation.

I don't have a big post on this, I'm just saying, "Be forewarned." Don't go into debt and buy things of value, because your cash won't be worth nearly as much next year.

Friday, September 25, 2009

How will young people pay for Obamacare?

Interesting article by Dick Morris about the political situation with Obamacare. Yes, it has some policy stuff in here, and there are a couple comments I don't agree with (I don't believe for one minute that 45% of doctors will close up shop if Obamacare passes--I think that's right-wing silliness), but I'm more interested in the politics of how this thing might or might not pass.

By DICK MORRIS

Published on TheHill.com on September 22, 2009

Now that the various healthcare plans are being reduced to print, the financial details are emerging and with them a fundamental conclusion is becoming evident: The Obama plan is a giant tax increase for much of the American people (not just the rich).

Start with the mandate that falls on those whose welfare is the supposed object of the entire program -- the uninsured. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the average uninsured person or family will have to pay between 15 and 20 percent of his or their total income on health insurance (counting premiums, deductibles and co-payments) before any of the subsidy in the Baucus bill kicks in. Even in the more generous House bill, the tab that the uninsured must pay is very, very high.

Most uninsured would likely be quite happy to avoid paying this much of their income for health insurance. But they will be forced to shell out the money under the program. Others would want catastrophic coverage (which for the young would likely not be too costly) but the Obama program requires comprehensive insurance that is costly to satisfy the government requirement.

Having spent the entire campaign speaking about "affordable" coverage, it turns out the program is not at all affordable, but a massive new tax on the average uninsured American.

Then there is the tax on health insurance premiums that is to finance about a quarter of the subsidy for the uninsured. This tax, billed as only to be levied on "gold-plated" policies, will, in fact, reach down to the average American. The Baucus bill specifies that the tax of 35 percent would be put on all premiums over $8,000 for an individual and on proportionately higher premiums for families. Current estimates are that about one-tenth of the current health insurance policies would be taxable. But the $8,000 premium level that will trigger coverage is not indexed for inflation, let alone for medical inflation, which typically runs twice as high. ObamaCare will take effect in 2013. By then, the percentage of Americans subject to the tax will doubtless expand dramatically. Indeed, this trigger is a new Alternative Minimum Tax waiting to happen. As inflation pushes more and more Americans into tax eligibility, it will become a universal health insurance excise tax of 35 percent. While the tax will be imposed on health insurers and employers, it will, obviously, be passed along to the policyholders.

So if you are insured, you will increasingly have to pay 35 percent more for the privilege. And if you are uninsured, you will have to pay one-fifth of your income in premiums, deductibles and co-payments before any subsidy kicks in.

And then there is the final piece of the puzzle -- the $500 billion cut in Medicare that will pay for the bulk of the subsidy under the bill. We are literally slicing services to the elderly in order to transfer healthcare to others. Obama's claim that only "waste and inefficiency" in Medicare will be cut is, at best, disingenuous. Most of the cuts will be in reimbursement for doctors and hospitals. That will lead to less care, shorter office visits, fewer tests, fewer surgeries and less care. And it will lead to fewer doctors. As a result, a survey by the Investor's Business Daily indicates that 45 percent of all doctors would "consider retiring or closing their practices" if the Obama bill passes. The result will be a greater scarcity of medical services, even as the patient load expands by at least 30 million people.

Each of these fiscal pieces is movable. The left will pressure Obama to increase the subsidy to the uninsured. But that will necessitate raising the Medicare cut borne by the elderly or increasing the tax on health insurance policies -- or adding to the deficit. Any of these options will alienate moderate senators. Balancing these competing priorities only works if the taxpayers don't know what is going on.

If the average middle-income American family realizes that it will have to pay one-third more for health insurance or the uninsured learn that they will have to pay a fifth of their income to get insurance, they will make their dissatisfaction felt by their Democratic senators.

All of which begs the fundamental question: How willing are Democratic congressmen to commit political suicide? Are they willing to lose the elderly and to antagonize the uninsured as the health insurance cops chase them around the block? When does JFK's comment kick in: "Sometimes party loyalty asks too much"?

Thursday, September 24, 2009

This is absolutely incredible...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0aqMTD5UFmU



Tax dollars at work, ladies and gentlemen...this is a public school in New Jersey.

LYRICS

Barack Hussein Obama
He said that all must lend a hand [?]
To make this country strong again
Mmm, mmm, mm!

Barack Hussein Obama
He said we must be clear today
Equal work means equal pay
Mmm, mmm, mm!

Barack Hussein Obama
He said that we must take a stand
To make sure everyone gets a chance
Mmm, mmm, mm!

Barack Hussein Obama
He said Red, Yellow, Black or White
All are equal in his sight
Mmm, mmm, mm!

Barack Hussein Obama
Yes
Mmm, mmm, mm!

Barack Hussein Obama

segue to

Hello, Mr. President we honor you today!
For all your great accomplishments, we all [do? doth??] say "hooray!"
Hooray Mr. President! You're number one!
The first Black American to lead this great na-TION!
Hooray, Mr. President something-something-some
A-something-something-something-some economy is number one again!
Hooray Mr. President, we're really proud of you!
And the same for all Americans [in?] the great Red White and Blue!
So something Mr. President we all just something-some,
So here's a hearty hip-hooray a-something-something-some!
Hip, hip hooray! (3x)

Wednesday, September 23, 2009

Wednesday Wisdom...

'No arsenal, or no weapon in the arsenals of the world, is as formidable as the will and moral courage of free men and women.' - Ronald Reagan

And in honor of my Dad's birthday today, I'll give a piece of wisdom he always gave me... "Don't buy into the myth that quality time can replace quantity time with your children."

Tuesday, September 22, 2009

This might be our son!

We received a picture today of Nutdanai, the Thai child we've been matched with. That doesn't necessarily mean the board will approve the match, but we should find that out within a month. I'm currently trying to physically restrain Amanda from running and swimming to Thailand.

Saturday, September 19, 2009

ESPN's Stephen A. Smith rules...

Friday, September 18, 2009

New post production video blog...

What If Blog 09-16-09 from What If on Vimeo.

Thursday, September 17, 2009

My new article on Big Hollywood about Kanye...

More socially inflammatory than politically inflammatory...

KANYE WEST DOESN'T CARE ABOUT WHITE PEOPLE
by Dallas Jenkins

On television, how often do you see the Heartland, the South, or innocence portrayed as positive, or as the innocent victim of thuggery or artistic elitism gone awry? If I told you that it happened over the weekend, would you have guessed that MTV was the network that aired it?

As it turns out, Joe Wilson isn’t the only inappropriate interrupter of the last week. If you haven’t seen Kanye West’s shocking-only-to-people-who-have-never-seen-or-heard-Kanye-West-perform-or-say-words outburst at the normally classy and restrained MTV Video Music Awards, take 90 seconds and watch the train wreck. I don’t want to say it was awkward, but I haven’t seen a performer arouse that many embarrassed faces since…well, since Kanye West did the exact same thing at the European VMAs in 2007, which at the time was the most awkward TV moment since Kanye West hijacked a Katrina charity TV show to rant that “George Bush doesn’t care about black people.“

Read the rest of the article at: http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/djenkins/2009/09/17/kanye-west-doesnt-care-about-white-people/

Wednesday, September 16, 2009

Wednesday Wisdom...

'Government's view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it' - Ronald Reagan

Gosh, I love that man.

Tuesday, September 15, 2009

Do we have a son?

Boy, this is happening really fast all of a sudden. After finding out that the Thai board has indeed approved us, we were then informed that one boy fit into our criteria of being a boy under the age of two and a half. This is what our friend told us:

"There is a 2 1/2 yr. old boy who needs an operation for a hernia. Angkana wasn't absolutely certain that he's been cleared for adoption, so I asked her to please find that out for sure, and, if possible, find out more about how serious the hernia is."

Well, first of all, we don't care how serious the hernia is. If this is our son, that's not an issue.

We'll know more in the next day or two, but this could mean we're 2-3 months away from meeting and bringing home our son.

Pardon me as I read my typing through cloudy eyes.

Sunday, September 13, 2009

Why tonight wasn't a fluke for Cutler/Bears...

This is what I said back when the Cutler trade was first made:

"Two, some "experts" are saying that the Bears should have done everything possible to get a franchise quarterback, that a QB like this comes along once in a blue moon, blah blah blah. The truth is, superstar QBs don't win you Super Bowls, and most of the best QBs in the NFL, or at least the most successful ones, weren't even drafted in the first round. Yes, Peyton Manning is special, but he didn't win until the Colts got a defense. Kurt Warner wasn't even drafted. Tom Brady was drafted in the fifth round, and when he got injured, his replacement, a guy who'd never started a football game in college or the pros, did almost as well and just got a big contract. Drew Brees was drafted in the 2nd round, did great and then was replaced by someone doing great, too. Eli Manning and Ben Rothleblahblah were high draft picks and have won Super Bowls, but no one would argue that they had great stats or were special passers (do you think they'd add two wins to the Bears?). Trent Dilfer and Brad Johnson have recently won as many Super Bowls as Peyton and Eli Manning.

The Bears have holes to fill to become a Super Bowl team, but QB was not one of them. They could win with Kyle Orton; heck, he was 10-1 his rookie year, and he's twice the QB now he was then. They needed to shore up the offensive and defensive lines. They got Orlando Pace, which I love, but they still need a pass rusher, a safety, and a possession wide receiver (Tory Holt would be solid). Giving up three (!) high draft picks to upgrade at QB was wildly inefficient, unnecessary, and unwise.

Not to mention that Cutler has shown himself to be a pouty non-leader with self-esteem issues, so I'm not sure he's going to take anyone to the championship, much less a team with holes and a bad coach.

I feel the same way about this trade that I did when the Cubs signed Alfonso Soriano--it's fun and exciting, but not very smart.

What did we see tonight? The offensive line got massacred (run and pass), their lack of a solid, smart possession receiver killed them, their secondary was bad (as usual) and got lucky by Packers' drops, and Cutler showed no confidence or leadership.

Gotta love that we got inside the ten twice with a first down and couldn't get it in. Do we need a gunslinger to do that?

Ugh.

Saturday, September 12, 2009

New article of mine published on Big Hollywood...

The blog I posted here about President Obama's health care speech ended up getting posted at Andrew Breitbart's (the guy who brought forth the Acorn tapes the last few days) Big Hollywood site. I've posted there before regarding movie stuff, but I haven't done a political post for them. You can check it out at http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/djenkins/2009/09/12/obamas-health-care-speech-a-common-sense-rebuttal/#idc-container, and feel free to add to the comments if you like it!

Pictures from Michigan this summer...

I went to Michigan this summer to film my movie, and halfway through Amanda and the kids were able to come out. Here are a few pictures from their time there.
This is Beanie's new smile for pictures; for some reason it's called her "princess smile." As soon as we say it, she tucks her head to her shoulder.

I love this picture.

Maya and Amanda on a bridge overlooking the Manistee (the small town where we filmed most of the film) river where we shot a scene.

On one of my days off, we went to this massive slide that was like a ski hill. You could get going pretty fast on these toboggan-like things. No way I'm spelling that right.



How gorgeous are they?

Most of the time they were there, I was shooting, so they had to find things to do. This was at a kids museum.

At various times, Beanie will do something like this just to center herself. This is actually a pose she always struck as a baby, always curled up like a little bean; hence, her nickname.

Kristy Swanson was one of the leads in our film, and her son Magnus came out for a week. Kristy's husband is Lloyd Eisler, a two-time Olympic doubles skating medalist. I'm guessing the women Lloyd threw in the air weighed a bit more than Magnus, but I still felt cool.



Kevin Sorbo played the main character, so his family came out, and we're good friends with them. That's Sam Sorbo next to Amanda, along with her three kids. On the far left is Dana Groothuis, mother of Taylor, who had a role in our film.

Amanda's parents were able to visit around the same time that her sister and her sister's family were able to stop by. This is the grandparents with our kids and my nephews.

The whole Jarvis clan, including Amanda's brother-in-law Steve, and Amanda's grandmother in the back.

My brother was able to come out with his wife Christa and my nephew Isaac. Chad actually got some decent screen time in the movie.

I don't know what parents did on road trips before portable DVD players.

This is me with my production designer and close friend (he was my college roommate and was in my wedding) Jim Cunningham.

The kids were excited to meet John Ratzenberger, a voice in every Pixar movie, who played "Mike the Angel" in my film.

In the movie, Kevin Sorbo's character has a teenage daughter and a 7 year old. There's a flashback scene where the youngest daughter is born, and Maya got to make an appearance playing the teenager as a little girl. So here she is with "Dad."

Me with the kids in front of the truck John Ratzenberger's character drives in the movie. He's an angel on earth in the form of a tow-truck driver/mechanic. Yes, it's a metaphor.

The family sitting on the steps of the church we shot a few scenes in.

Me doing my top two favorite things in the world.

Those would be hanging with my family and directing a movie, in case that wasn't clear.

Friday, September 11, 2009

Adoption update

Boy, it's been a long time since we've said anything about our Thai adoption. The main reason for that is that there's been no news, unfortunately. We were approved by the Thai board, which is apparently rare and great news, but then we didn't hear anything for quite awhile. Our missionary friend in Thailand, Krissie Cilano, has been our "woman on the ground" there, constantly trying to stay in touch with the Thai adoption people, but they're not easy to get ahold of. She finally talked to them last week, and the word was that there was still some disagreement about us, that they weren't 100% sold on us, at least not sold on making us a priority because we already have three children.

We just got the following email today from Krissie:

The Adoption Board has resolved its debate in your favor!!!!!! On Monday, Angkana promises to have a list of special needs for you to consider.
Either you can make direct contact with her or she will tell me what they are on the phone, and I will email them to you or phone you.
Then, the Board will begin to send the case studies to you w/photo.
Love, Krissie

So...

Woohoo!

Dallas

Thursday, September 10, 2009

Where to begin on Obama's speech?

I'll try to make this quick and just quote a few comments and respond:

"If companies don't do right by their workers and offer them insurance..."

This comment drives me insane. Why is offering health benefits "doing right," but not offering them "doing wrong?" Isn't the fact that the company even hired them in the first place "doing them right?" Employees know what they're getting when they get a job, and if they demand health coverage as part of their employment, they can go work for someone else if their boss doesn't offer it to them. Purchasing health coverage for your employees is extraordinarily expensive; sometimes simply hiring the person is all an employee can afford.

And by the way, offering health care to employees wasn't always the norm. But eventually, it became part of a job offer--"Instead of paying you $60,000 and you paying $10K a year for your health coverage, I'll pay you $50,000 a year and give you health coverage, and then you won't be taxed for that $10K." It's a privilege, a bonus, a cool thing...it's not a RIGHT, and not offering it isn't necessarily "doing wrong."


"We will require everyone to get health insurance, just like many states force you to have auto insurance."

Wow. He has big stones to say something like this. For one thing, the reason you're forced to have auto insurance is to cover OTHERS, not yourself. You're driving a big dangerous machine, and if you injure someone with it, you better have a way to guarantee payment. For another, you're not forced to drive a car! So if you don't own a car, you don't have to get auto insurance!

What a horrible metaphor.

One other thing about forcing people to have health insurance. This, like forcing insurance companies to cover all this preventative stuff, and forcing people to participate in it, is such a nanny state, big brother mentality. Sure, it's smart for people to be more preventative, but why should the government force it on you? Is this freedom? What's next, they'll force people to work out three times a week and ban sugar? They're already banning the sale of trans fats in California and New York; we're not that far away from forcing people to be in good shape. Forcing people to purchase health insurance is lunacy, especially considering one of his reasons--"because when someone goes to the emergency room without insurance, we all have to pay for it." Why is that? Why can't they get billed? Why shouldn't they be expected to pay for the cost of being treated?

"According to the Congressional Budget Office, only 5% of Americans will sign up for the public option."

Nice little stat there, except he left out two things: one, only 15% of Americans don't have insurance anyway (notice how he lowered the number of uninsured in this speech from 45 million to "over 30 million," because he realized that the 45 million figure included illegal immigrants?), so a better way to say it would have been, "one in three uninsured will sign up for the government option." Two, the Congressional Budget Office he quoted here is the same group that is saying his plan will operate at a deficit, which he denies. So why does he trust the CBO for the stat above?


"Public universities don't hurt private colleges, so public insurance won't hurt private insurance" (paraphrase).

Hm. Well, that's partly true, except the difference is that there are thousands of different public universities to choose from, which means they compete with each other, whereas Obama's proposing one government plan. Also, most public universities are state run and funded, not nationally run and funded. And again...NO ONE'S FORCING ANYONE TO GO TO COLLEGE, whereas Obama wants to force you to have insurance, so again, it's a crappy metaphor.


"You shouldn't be denied coverage for a pre-existing condition."

Then why ever get insurance in the first place? Oh, never mind, he's going to force you to do it. Forgot that part.


"It will be against the law for an insurance company to drop you just because you get sick."

It already is. Let me repeat that. It already is. As long as you make timely payments, it's against the law for an insurance company to simply drop you because you got sick while on their plan.

To close, President Obama has been making some very interesting statements about Medicare. I've been attacking Medicare in health care debates for awhile. I've used it as an example of a poorly run government program that should scare us from wanting government to have a bigger role (along with FEMA, DMV, post office, etc.). And my liberal friends usually respond by defending Medicare, pointing out its high approval ratings and efficiency. Well, I appreciated President Obama tonight acknowledging that Medicare is a problem, because he said that one of the biggest ways the government option would be paid for is with the elimination of waste and fraud in Medicare.

Get that? "We're going to pay for this new big government program by eliminating all the mess and mistakes from the other one. Yes, the other program has wasted HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS OF DOLLARS, enough to nearly pay for this new program, but trust me...we'll do this one better." President Obama said something similar about the post office, another government program we on the right attack. He said, "Government competition hasn't hurt fedex and UPS; in fact, it's the post office that usually has the problems." Um...so this is supposed to give us confidence in your new government program?

And by the way...if there's so much waste and fraud in Medicare, why not eliminate said waste right now?

Not all Obama said was bad. And of course, the beginnings and ends of his speeches are always great, and I'm guessing support for him and the plan will go up in the next week based on this speech. But most likely it'll return to earth in a couple weeks, and we'll be back where we started.

Wednesday, September 9, 2009

New post-production video blog...

To those of you on facebook, I apologize for the repeat posting of this video. I'm posting now on my personal blog, which sends posts to facebook automatically.

The following is #2 in the post production "director's diary" video blog. #1 and many other pictures and updates are at http://whatifmovie.wordpress.com. We also got some nice coverage of the video at a popular teen entertainment site: http://justjaredjr.buzznet.com/2009/09/08/debby-ryan-what-if-behind-the-scenes/

What If Video Blog 09-05-09 from What If on Vimeo.

Wednesday Wisdom...

'It has been said that politics is the second oldest profession.. I have learned that it bears a striking resemblance to the first.' - Ronald Reagan

(to those of you who don't know what the "oldest profession" is, it's prostitution.)

Tuesday, September 8, 2009

Pictures from 70s night

Amanda and I went to a birthday party for Camille Grammer, Kelsey's wife, and 70s costumes were required. We obliged. Enjoy:

That's not a wig on me.

Thought I'd mess with the picture a bit here to see if it can look a bit more old-school.

I'm taken, ladies.

Monday, September 7, 2009

Political discourse has gotten insane...

The recent debate about President Obama's public school address has really got me thinking about where we've come as a country when it comes to public discourse, and even our own views on issues. Both this public school address and the health care debate have fostered some hysteria on both sides, and it's getting ridiculous.

The country doesn't react to the issues, we react to commentators' reactions to the issues. That used to be okay--the smart guys did the studying, we picked the people we trusted (for the right, guys like George Will, Charles Krauthammer, etc.), and we allowed them to help us shape our opinions, which tended to be more balanced. For instance, I know that Will and Krauthammer weren't big Palin fans from the get-go, and they turned out to be right. The guys and girls on the far sides of the issues, particularly the blowhards, stayed on the outside, with the exception of the New York Times, a paper that used to be considered somewhat mainstream but got hijacked by the left. The mainstream media obviously leaned left, but it wasn't outwardly rabid. The blogosphere, entertainment outlets, and talk radio were where all the angry guys hung out.

Then cable news happened, and they brought these angry people on the air because it made for exciting TV to compete with the boring network news shows. And these angry people got so popular as guests that they ended up becoming hosts.

Not only that, the angry people got more popular because their opponents started using them as examples. Obama's guilty of this, interestingly moreso than Bush, who always acted as if he had no idea the Michael Moores and Keith Olbermanns of the world existed--Obama brings up Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh as if they're his adversaries or opponents, which does two things. One, it makes these guys more mainstream, and two, it helps Obama say to the middle, "See what I'm up against? Is that the side you want to be on?"

And then oftentimes the envelope-pushers have an opposite effect of what they want. For instance, I believe that moderates never fully believed that Bill Clinton was a murderous sleazebag, and they grew tired of trying to be convinced that he was. Same with Bush, where moderates didn't buy into the notion that he was a greedy and stupid liar. So both presidents served two terms even though they had a ton going against them when they were running for re-election.

I happen to agree with most of the viewpoints of people like Ann Coulter, Glenn Beck, and Michael Savage, because I'm a conservative. But I prefer them in private. When some of the things they say, particularly the way they say them, get into the mainstream, our views end up looking inflammatory, and we have to spend as much time clarifying them as we do simply discussing their merits. I'm sure liberals feel the same way sometimes about Michael Moore, Al Franken, and Keith Olbermann.

Because no one talks about the actual issues anymore. Both sides are so scared of being on their opponents' side of a particular issue that they'll either keep quiet if they disagree with their own side, or they actually make a silly choice just to avoid agreeing with their opponents. What moderate wants to be on the same team as Ann Coulter, even on one issue? Or Joy Behar? I sometimes have to fight that urge--for instance, I agreed with the guy who fought against requiring children to use the phrase "under God" in the pledge of allegiance, because the phrase had been added later by Eisenhower so that public school children would acknowledge their Lord every morning, which is of course unfair. But I hated being on the same side as that guy, who happened to be a jerk, or some of the atheist activists who take the anti-God thing way too far.

It's the same thing with my views on the legalization of marijuana, and drugs in general. I hate being on the same side as pothead hippies. But sometimes one has to be. Just like our country has been on the same side as some evil countries or dictators so that we could defeat a worse enemy.

This public education speech has brought it all to a head, and both sides are culpable.

Sunday, September 6, 2009

Jenkins Entertainment blog

My latest blog on the Jenkins Entertainment site:

We're co-producing this film with Pure Flix Entertainment, a company that is also a distribution company. They focus primarily on straight-to-DVD releases and on a church screening program, and they do distribution and marketing, which makes them a nice fit for us because we don't want to do that. So we know that, at the very least, Pure Flix will be doing a strong DVD release, and we're confident they'll do a great job.

That said, when "What If..." is completed, we'll show it to the big studios to see if they have any interest in buying us out. This is what has happened on all the films we've made so far. As with any independent film (a film financed and produced outside of the studio system), we made the film and then showed it to the studios. For Hometown Legend, Warner Brothers purchased distribution rights; for Midnight Clear, Lionsgate purchased them.

I had a good chat with Pure Flix today, and we're all on the same page. We think What If... has a chance to be special and to do really well, but until we actually see it, we're unsure of how exactly this will all pan out. If a studio wants to purchase rights and release it theatrically, we'll be open to that if we feel they can make it work financially; if we decide we want to release it theatrically, we can look at that option as well and raise some extra money. But either way, we know that we have a strong safety net in the Pure Flix distribution system.

Of course, it's impossible to know what chances the movie has until we see it. So right now the next step is simply for me to work on making a great film. If the film is only pretty good, then our chances for wider distribution are slim anyway. But if the film is great, and people respond very strongly to it, then our options are broadened significantly.

No pressure, right?

Friday, September 4, 2009

Jenkins Entertainment blog...

My latest blog to the Jenkins Entertainment website...

Well, I'm finally on twitter. Sigh. It's going to be primarily geared towards the film stuff, so if you have any interest in getting more frequent updates on what we're up to or little tips and info on filmmaking, find me at www.twitter.com/dallasjenkins. I'll also be posting pics from What If... there that you won't find anywhere else.

Right now, while I wait for the editor to finish the initial assembly of the film, I'm spending time making sure that I'm primed and ready once it's time for me to go in and shape it. That means not only looking at raw footage and re-familiarizing myself with everything that I shot (so that if I don't like something Frank did, I know what the alternative is), but also continuing my work and study with other films and books. Inspiration comes from everywhere--I remember watching Traffic for the first time when I was making Hometown Legend, and it gave us a few great editing ideas for a few scenes.

As I've mentioned, my netflix queue is filled with as many great films as I can think of that I haven't seen. One right after another, trying to increase my film vocabulary and appreciation. All of the great filmmakers of all time have seen every important film ever made; I've got a long way to go, as I got off to a late start because I grew up in a pretty strict home when it came to entertainment. Plus, when I started getting into films, I didn't work as hard as I should have to see the classics.

Today I'll be watching The Manchurian Candidate for the first time, and later this week I'll see The Third Man. I also continue to do a lot of reading; I've discovered that my style and tastes are similar to Frank Capra's (although I'm nowhere in his league, of course), so I'm reading a few books on him. It's important to not only watch the films of your favorite filmmakers, but to find out what they were thinking and why.

I've also created a "What If..." folder on my itunes so that I can listen to the songs that most stir me up for the emotion or story of the film. Because this film is a romantic comedy with a lot of heart, I'm listening to songs that are more sweeping and uplifting and emotional (Snow Patrol has two songs on the list, as does Coldplay--also loving Avril Lavigne's "Keep Holding On" and Taylor Swift's "Change." For my next film "Riven," which is set in a death row prison and is more raw, I'll listen to rootsy/bluesy/country-ish stuff.

Besides being a director, I have to be a business man, so I'm spending a lot of time updating all our websites and keeping marketing going. New pictures and updates are up weekly at http://whatifmovie.wordpress.com. It's no fun, but it's part of the marriage between art and commerce. Grief, I sound like a jackass.

Enough with the hysteria about Obama's public school speech...

I'm no fan of President Obama. I think he's a sincere and brilliant man, but we're on opposite sides of the political spectrum, and I wish he was a little less polished and cautious in his approach to communication and to international diplomacy.

That said, I think it's great that the President of the United States is speaking to public schools across the country next week, and I have to say I'm pretty disappointed with the reaction of those on the right, many of whom are people I normally agree with or even look up to.

Now...some of the people who are comparing President Obama to Hitler and saying that this is about indoctrinating kids into being robots are obviously a little nuts, as were the people who always compared Bush to Hitler and who called Palin a racist woman hater. Let's leave them out of this--there are crazies on both sides, and to use them as representatives of their side is unfair stereotyping. I'm talking about the normal people here.

I've read the letter from the Department of Education about President Obama's speech and the follow-up discussions they're suggesting for teachers, and I've heard what it is President Obama wants to talk about. Can anyone tell me what's alarming about it? Don't we want the leader of the free world encouraging kids to work hard and take school more seriously? Can my friends on the right tell me that if George W. Bush gave the EXACT SAME SPEECH that they wouldn't be proud and supportive of it? I'm hearing stuff from prominent conservatives about "socialist indoctrination," and a "massive waste of public resources." Come on, people, it's the leader of the free world telling American students to work harder in school.

The only thing that has concerned me has been that one of the follow-up questions teachers are encouraged to ask is, "What can we do to help the President?" I think a better question would be, "What can we do to help our country," or "What can we do to make our school better and improve our chances of success," or something along those lines. The government is supposed to be "for the people," so it's probably better for the President to ask, "What can I do to help you," as opposed to the other way around, which would also avoid some of the fears of partisanship.

But even that question isn't that bad--it's obviously referring to education, not President Obama in general. And shouldn't we think about ways we can support our leaders, even if the answer is, "Protest?"

The fact is, if George W. Bush did the exact same thing, the far left would be going crazy about letting that "evil man into our children's safe place...he invaded Iraq, now he's invading our schools," and the regular left would be saying that it's dangerous because Bush is stupid and is the last person who should be talking to our kids about education, especially because of his "disgusting no child left behind" program, and you know that there would be countless teachers who would refuse to allow it along with protestors outside schools.

And you know what? They'd be just as wrong as many on the right are now.

We can at least respect the office of the President enough to let him give an encouraging speech. I assume he's not stupid enough to say something partisan. Of course, Amanda or I will be there, because we're not big fans of politicians sharing with our kids without our input and involvement.

But to my friends on the right--let's calm down. To my friends on the left--don't gloat too much because you know many of you would be doing the same thing, especially the crazies on your side. Let's all give each other a break a bit, hm?

Wednesday, September 2, 2009

Wednesday Wisdom...

'The nearest thing to eternal life we will ever see on this earth is a government program.' - Ronald Reagan

Monday, August 31, 2009

Is America a Christian nation?

“Whatever we once were, we are no longer a Christian Nation…” - Barack Obama

My friend Jeremy, one of the smartest guys I know, wrote a pretty brilliant piece about this topic. It's very much worth the read. The opening paragraph:

In the comment section of a recent post, I drew some fire for making the following, apparently shocking claim:

We [Americans] see America, from the Pilgrims who signed the Mayflower Compact to the Biblical scholars… who birthed the nation, to the spirit of sacrifice and charity that thrives to this very day, not as a nation of Christians (for that freedom is at the deepest core of our common philosophy) but as a Christian nation.

It seems that there is a growing belief that because our Founders were stalwart advocates for religious liberty, and because some of them had very nuanced and sometimes cynical views about organized religion, the United States was somehow conceived to be a secular nation. This belief is not only untrue, but detrimental to an adequate understanding of the underlying political philosophy of the founding, not least of all because it envisions the government as the nation instead of merely the organization through which the nation conducts its civil affairs, and more importantly because it betrays the singular belief that undergirds the entire American experiment: That the rights of man come not from government but from God.

The rest of the article is here:

http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/jdboreing/2009/08/29/a-christian-nation/

Sunday, August 30, 2009

A few more pics from the set of "What If..."

Here are a few more photos from the set; these are mostly from days 2-4. As always, check out http://whatifmovie.wordpress.com for more pictures and behind the scenes videos and updates.

Me directing all the extras (people who are in the scene who don't have any lines) before we shoot a scene where Kevin Sorbo's character delivers a sermon. Ironically, I know one of our lead actresses Debby Ryan because she and her mom were extras in a church scene in my feature Midnight Clear.

I love this picture, because sometimes it's good when a crew member is presenting me with an idea as opposed to the other way around. My cinematographer Todd sometimes knows how to attack a scene visually better than I do, which is a great help. I want people who are better than I am at their jobs.

In the upstairs hallway of the "Walker" house before the scene where Kevin's character Ben wakes up in an alternate reality, I talk with Kristy Swanson and Kevin Sorbo. Especially on lower budget movies when you don't have as much time in advance to rehearse, much of the character preparation for a scene comes while the crew is setting up the lighting for a shot.

Upstairs hallway again before a scene with Debby Ryan and Kevin Sorbo (daughter and father). The camera is on a "slider," which allows it to move smoothly during the scene.

Preparing a scene where the family watches a "family memories" DVD from the living room couch.

Wednesday, August 26, 2009

Wednesday Wisdom...

'Government is like a baby: An alimentary canal with a big appetite at one end and no sense of responsibility at the other.' - Ronald Reagan