Now liberals can love PolitiFact again.

Mitt Romney's claim in a campaign ad that President Barack Obama "sold Chrysler to Italians who are going to build Jeeps in China" earned PolitiFact's "Lie of the Year," the site announced on Wednesday.

Of course to do this they have to conflate two separate statements and ignore reality.

From PolitiFact's "award" (no links for propagandists)

"I saw a story today, that one of the great manufacturers in this state, Jeep, now owned by the Italians, is thinking of moving all production to China," he said, to boos from the audience. "I will fight for every good job in America. IÂ’m going to fight to make sure trade is fair, and if itÂ’s fair, America will win."

Reporters mentioned the mistake in their stories the next day, it lit up the Internet, and the liberal cable channel MSNBC attacked Romney for not knowing the facts.

"His lie is embarrassing, frankly, and it should be unsettling for the rest of the world," said MSNBCÂ’s Rachel Maddow. "Imagine Romney waking up in the Lincoln bedroom or whatever, checking his conservative Twitter feed and running with whatever he finds there."

RomneyÂ’s campaign didnÂ’t retreat, though. It doubled down with a TV ad for Ohio voters that weekend:

"Who will do more for the auto industry? Not Barack Obama," the ad began, adding, "Obama took GM and Chrysler into bankruptcy and sold Chrysler to Italians who are going to build Jeeps in China. Mitt Romney will fight for every American job." A similar radio ad soon followed.

The campaign statement was based on an erroneous report in the Washington Examiner. Romney never used the "all production to China" line once he was told the story he was relying on was wrong.

The second claim that Chrysler is going to build Jeeps in China is true. Even PolitiFact admits that.

But Chrysler was thinking of reviving the Jeep brand in key foreign markets, and like other American automakers, Chrysler preferred to build cars in the countries where it intended to sell them -- a common strategy to reduce tariffs and transport costs.

In their original Pants on Fire rating for the ad they said this.

Bragman, the auto analyst, said RomneyÂ’s notion that expansion in China comes at a cost to American workers runs counter to the facts. ChryslerÂ’s Toledo plant is running at full capacity, and its Detroit plant is at three shifts. Chrysler is building cars in the United States for sale here.

The production of cars in China is a sign of Chrysler's growing strength in overseas markets. It would like to build Jeeps in China to sell in China. It is not outsourcing American auto jobs.

This is the nifty little slight of hand. Suddenly opening plants in foreign countries is cool and doesn't cost US jobs? Why I'm so old I remember when Obama though that was immoral.

The distinction Obama and liberals are making is it's only eviilllll outsourcing (off shoring really) if a plant closes and the production is moved to another country but it's fine and dandy if a company opens a plant in another country instead of America (except when a Republican invests in that company, then it's evil again).

This is the intellectual corruption that infects the Democratic Machine Media.

By the way, here's my "Lie of the Year"

“We should ask the wealthiest Americans to pay a little more,”

Obama isn't going to "ask" anyone to pay more, he's going to make them pay more. Just try saying to the IRS, "The President has asked me to pay this higher right, I respectfully decline".

Posted by: DrewM at 07:33 AM | Comments (93)
Post contains 628 words, total size 4 kb.

Longtime AoS favorite, Senator Jeff Sessions has an idea that is so crazy it just might work...stop acting like a neo-autocracy and utilize the structure of our constitutional republic to deal with our fiscal issues.

This is the exact opposite of the hidden negotiations to avert the so-called fiscal cliff. Washington has become possessed by the idea that a small group of negotiators, meeting in secret, can solve the deep, painful and systemic problems plaguing this country with a single "grand bargain," produced at the 59th minute of the 11th hour. This is a siren song.

...

Instead, we have seen an endless series of secret conclaves: gangs of six, committees of 12, meetings at the White House, at Blair House, in the Capitol's labyrinth of hallways and hideaways. Meetings everywhere but in the committee room and the open air of the Senate floor.

...

What we need is more distinction, not less. On these great issues of the economy and debt, the voters have sent Washington mixed signals and a divided Congress. It is thus all the more critical that the facts and choices be clarified. The Senate is the perfect institution—created for just such a time as this—to provide that clarity and consensus.

Proposals should be worked up in committee, where senators appointed by their colleagues have developed expertise in the issues that come before them. Amendments should be offered as part of an open process to modify and perfect legislation. The debate should be brought to the Senate floor.

It may take dozens of votes, even scores, to reach a consensus. But the American people need to be in on the process and have the opportunity to voice their opinion on concrete proposals. Have we forgotten that it is their future that is at stake?

Yes. A thousand times yes.

The President is not part of the legislative branch in our system. Why the hell is he being allowed to drive the agenda like this? Yes, he has to sign, veto, or ignore a bill but that's it.

Obama wasn't very interested in being a legislator when he was in the Illinois and US Senate but now he wants to be Legislator in Chief.

This is where I think Boehner is an idiot. Why is he letting Senate Democrats off the hook in this process? You know why Harry Reid didn't pass Obama's opening offer? Because he doesn't have enough votes. Big, blue state Democrats like Shumer, Gillibrand, Durbin, Nelson, Boxer and Feinstein aren't going to vote for a tax increase on "the rich" if "the rich" is defined as $200,000/$250,000. It would capture far too many people in those high cost of living states that are "middle class" in reality.

But Boehner lets them off the hook by negotiating against himself with Obama. Let the House pass it's own plan and then let the Senate pass theirs. Make Reid carry Obama's dirty water for awhile.

Right now the game is rigged against the House Republicans. It's absolute stupidity to keep playing when you know the dealer is dealing from the bottom of the deck. Either you get up or change the dealer.

Boehner doesn't have to invent a new game, there's one with rules already written down and everything. Try playing by that for a while, we might get a better outcome.

Posted by: DrewM at 06:00 AM | Comments (279)
Post contains 600 words, total size 4 kb.

• North Korea Successfully Fires Long Range Rocket
  
• Crowder Assailant ID'ed
  
• More Video Of Michigan Union Violence
  
• Democrats Urge Delay For Job Killing Obamacare Tax
  
• Appeals Court Tosses Out Illinois Ban On Concealed Carry
  
• California's Pampered Public Employees
  
• President Predicts GOP Will Cave On Taxes
  
• Always Bubbly First Lady Sorts Out Toys For Tots
  
• Surprise New 63 Dollar Fee In Obamacare
  
• Jedi Religion The Most Popular Alternative Faith
  
• Intellegence Report Challenges Declinist Consensus
  
• Julian Assange To Run For Australian Senate
  
• Remember When The Scandi's Were A Tough People
  
• The Oldest Story, Again
  
• Former Cast Member Of Storage Wars Sues A&E Claiming The Show Is Rigged
  
• Better Off Benefits
  
• Gov't Decides To Erase Incorrect Quote From MLK Memorial
  
• Apparently Large Butts And Big Breasts Are Racist
  
• Hilarious: Bane Outtakes (autoplay video)
  

Follow me on twitter.

Posted by: Pixy Misa at 04:51 AM | Comments (72)
Post contains 141 words, total size 3 kb.

Happy Three Dozen Day.

Liberals started bleating about "free loaders" as soon as it looked like Michigan's right-to-work law would pass. Heritage's Lachlan Markay explains the myth of the free loader. Generally, there's nothing in law stopping unions from members-only bargaining; they usually make a choice to bargain on behalf of non-members, who they then deride as "free loaders" and demand agency fees from.

The Seventh Circuit shot down Illinois' blanket ban on carrying outside the home. It relied, in part, on the Second Amendment's "bear arms" text to reject Illinois' argument that the "keep" in "keep and bear arms" meant that citizens only had the right to keep arms in the home.

Rand Simberg has an excellent article on property rights in space. It's long.

Meanwhile North Korea successfully launched a satellite.

The Democrats really have done a number on us. Not only have have Democrats seized the mantle of tax cutting, but Obama is demanding that Republicans, not himself and not Democrats, take the lead on picking what are sure to be portrayed as "unpopular" spending cuts.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 02:55 AM | Comments (324)
Post contains 187 words, total size 2 kb.

How To Make a Modern Movie Poster

It's easy. You just need an actor and the four elements.

And then you have this one for the upcoming Man of Steel movie.

Clearly somebody screwed up - can you spot what got left out?

Posted by: Maetenloch at 05:58 PM | Comments (632)
Post contains 938 words, total size 13 kb.

Right-to-work is some incredibly misleading framing. It's right to not-pay-union-dues, or right-to-free-ride

— Ezra Klein (@ezraklein) December 11, 2012

Right to free-ride? Really?

Via Heritage's Lachlan Markay (as noted by Gabe in this morning's headline post) comes this piece entitled The Right-to-Freeload Myth that hits Juicebox square in the junk.

Right-to-work laws prevent unions from imposing mandatory fees, giving employees the right to work without paying union dues. Otherwise, right-to-work has no effect on collective bargaining. All other negotiations continue as before. What's wrong with that?

Unions object that right-to-work is actually "right-to-freeload." The AFL-CIO argues "unions are forced by law to protect all workers, even those who don't contribute financially toward the expenses incurred by providing those protections." They contend they should not have to represent workers who do not pay their "fair share."

It is a compelling argument, but untrue. The National Labor Relations Act does not mandate unions exclusively represent all employees, but permits them to electively do so. Under the Act, unions can also negotiate "members-only" contracts that only cover dues-paying members. They do not have to represent other employees.

Why all the anger then?

Unions are businesses and their top line revenues are dues #itsthemoney

— Dave in Texas (@DaveinTexas) December 11, 2012

Oh, right. If you're in the union leadership, not representing non-members doesn't pay nearly as well as forcibly extracting dues from people who wouldn't otherwise join the union. And lower dues coming in means less money to shower on politicians who'll vote to keep the scam going.

Frame that, Ezra.

more...

Posted by: andy at 05:30 AM | Comments (105)
Post contains 273 words, total size 3 kb.

Unconscionable.

White House spokesman Jay Carney declined to condemn the increasing violence and threats by union members in Michigan, merely telling reporters Tuesday that “the president believes in debate that’s civil.”

When asked by a reporter about a claim by Michigan state Democrat that “there will be blood” should Republicans pass a union-choice law in Michigan, Carney professed ignorance and then downplayed the comment.

“I haven’t see those comments, and I’m not sure they mean what someone interprets them to mean,” he said.

Posted by: Ace at 02:46 PM | Comments (629)
Post contains 97 words, total size 1 kb.

In that case I would advise conservatives -- don't retreat, reload.

Jimmy Hoffa, president of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, said Tuesday he expects Michigan unions and lawmakers to break out into "civil war" after the state legislature passed right-to-work bills that would weaken unions' power.

"This is just the first round of a battle that's going to divide this state. We're going to have a civil war," Hoffa said on CNN's "Newsroom."

As Usual, The Media's and Democrats' Civility Police Are In The Donut Shop When They Have an Opportunity To Police Their Own Side: Actual violence won't even make the news tonight.

Posted by: Ace at 01:05 PM | Comments (448)
Post contains 126 words, total size 1 kb.

Trailer 1 and Trailer 2.

Those mournfully blue stormy skies are exactly what I think of when I think of Superman. And the bearded Clark Kent, hitchhiking along a cold, dreary-skied road? It works for Superman just like it worked for John Rambo in First Blood.And there's no difference in the tone of those two movies.

By the way, did aliens move Smallville, Kansas to the Seattle area? What the hell's with the Rainy Pacific Northwest Right On the Ocean crap?

I was just realizing that maybe I'm not a fan of specific stories so much as a specific tone. Among my all time favorite fun-type movies are these:

The first 70s Three Musketeers movie

The first two Superman movies

The first and third Indiana Jones movies

The first three (real) Star Wars movies

If you notice anything connecting them-- besides the fact that they're all action-adventure fantasies, often with some light sci-fi theming -- it's that they share the same tone. The tone is specific: It's light and humorous, but not truly comical, and certainly not campy (like the Schumacher Batman films) nor self-spoofing (like the later Roger Moore James Bond films).

It's just serious enough to not subvert its own premises/fantasy elements, but no more serious than that. They maintain just enough seriously to permit a buy-in, but don't demand you take them any more serious than that.

The comedy element is light comedy (as opposed to full comedy, where any joke is permitted, as comedy is the main thrust). "Light comedy" is a splash of comedy. Because you don't want to subvert the other elements, you can't get ridiculous or completely silly.

Meanwhile the drama is also light drama. Yes, we care whether Indy and his Dad reconnect... but this isn't Sophie's Choice, here. The dramatic element is pretty fluffy. No one's going to be too worried, and no one's going to be crying here.

And the romance? All the romance is... yes, light romance. It's not the main part of the movie, but there is usually a romantic element, generally handled as light comedy.

The specific genre elements are themselves light. Star Wars isn't a deep science-fiction movie; its science-fiction elements are superficial. So's the historical aspect of Three Musketeers, and Indiana Jones.

The word "light" seems to be coming up a lot here. Not campy, and not self-subverting. The humor isn't silly enough to cripple your ability to buy-in to the fantasy premise (and start thinking, "I should be an archeologist, I think"). But the drama isn't so heavy that you have to buy into it, invest in it emotionally, much more than saying "Gee I hope Indy kills that guy."

It's a tone that works, and has worked, and, I suspect, will keep working. The National Treasure movies-- which I liked, and made money -- had this tone. The Marvel-produced superhero movies tend to have this tone, more or less exactly. I suppose part of the reason the other elements (comedy, drama, and romance) are so light is to make room for, and not distract from, the action-adventure element, which is the main draw. The human touches of comedy, drama, and romance are kept light so they exist -- so they're there, for the audience's enjoyment, and to give characters three full dimensions so you can really experience them as flesh and blood human beings one and a half enjoyable dimensions so you can invest slightly in them as they perform feats of derring do.

Movies of this genre that depart from this specific tone tend to do poorly at the box office and disappoint fans. The Schumacher movies were far too silly and campy (especially the second, which kill the Batman franchise, at least until it was resurrected), as were the last two Superman films in the 80s. The Bryan Singer Superman film, on the other hand, was too portentous and self-consciously "epic" to be any kind of fun at all. It also featured, incongruously, the real-life problem of a fatherless children (and a father who'd left his son to be raise by another man).

The Nolan Batman movies (at least the last two) are exceptions to this rule (at least this suggested rule, I mean), as they were pretty dark and "serious." (I guess they were -- I never got how a movie could be all that serious when it's about Batman.)

The Star Wars prequels suffered from all-over-the-map tones, as the Plinkett review noted.

I suppose this "Rule" might be sort of obvious, and it might not be a case of people deciding to depart from the rule, as much as it is that people simply make bad movies and hence fail the rule, because the "light comedy" turns out to be dreadful comedy and the "light drama" turns out to be boredom and the "light romance" turns out to be characters who are chemistry-free ciphers. I guess the Green Lantern movie attempted this tone, for example, but just failed at it, as it failed at everything.

Still, seems to me to be something to shoot for in this kind of movie, if you want people to spend money on it and actually like it. The template, at least for tone, for what is expected and permitted, exists, has numerous exemplars to copy, and works most of the time it's executed (or at least executed competently).

So, this new Superman. It's dark and moody, without bright colors and without clear photography. I feel like I'm looking at a new Jason Bourne movie, where Treadstone agents get a transfusion of Kryptonian blood. It's "gritty," I guess, and "relevant to our times" (btw, do we want to be reminded of our current dreary and horrible times in escapist movies?), and we're supposed to, I guess, really take Superman's emotional journey seriously.

I just don't see it working. Seems too ambitious, and worse than that, the movie seems to be fighting against its own essence. Like it doesn't know what it is, or, worse yet, it knows what it is but doesn't like what it is so is contriving a different personality, wearing a mask.

Come on, it's Superman. The Big Blue Boy Scout, Last Son of Krypton, the Man of Tomorrow. Truth, Justice, and the American Way. Why are we running away from the actual identity of the property?

Now That I Think About It: This tone is tried all the time. It's just botched a lot. Wild Wild West was this tone-- it just sucked at all elements of it. The Men in Black movies were this tone -- but only the first one was good.

All of the X-Men movies tried this tone -- but only three of the five were good.

So, it doesn't always work. It doesn't work automatically. A bad movie will tank even with this tone.

Still, I have to question the decision to depart from it in a Superman film. Movies that deviate from this tone fail more often than those that stick with it.

Posted by: Ace at 12:03 PM | Comments (324)
Post contains 1201 words, total size 7 kb.

Or does the left enjoy a broad license to assault people in furtherance of their agenda?

Thanks to @edzeppelin91

Posted by: Ace at 11:12 AM | Comments (417)
Post contains 45 words, total size 1 kb.