This isn't new. It's from Romney's speech after his win in Wisconsin. But I wanted to call attention to it.

Maybe Mitt Romney does speak conservatism "as a second language," but he is trying to gain fluency.

he president, Romney said, has “spent the last four years laying the foundation for a new government-centered society.”

“Government-centered society” isn’t the most felicitous phrase, nor the most memorable sound-bite. But that may be for the best. What it lacks in mellifluousness, it makes up for in deadly accuracy.

Every major initiative of the Obama presidency has placed the government at the center of the policy the president wishes to effect and the change he wishes to see. Its policies have not necessarily put government in charge, or given government total control; but they have made government a dominating presence.

Video below. It's pretty good. If you want the meat of it, listen from 1:40 to 3:00 (or even up to 6:00). Although he continues to avoid the word "socialism," he speaks of Obama's vision being to doom the economy such that the government must then do more, and says we know where that leads: Look at Europe.

I liked the speech a lot. more...

Posted by: Ace at 12:14 PM | Comments (375)
Post contains 219 words, total size 2 kb.

Like, I don't know, one and a half stars. The film is obnoxious in its self-regard.

Let me explain.

There is a way of writing a screenplay, particularly exposition (telling viewers what's going on). Now, this method is somewhat artificial, of course. People don't typically call each other by their first names -- but they do this several times in the opening of a movie, just so you know what the character is named. So you know who the hell they're talking about.

But you have to do this. You don't want exposition to be obvious, but you do need to underscore the important elements and characters who will be in play for the duration of the film's running time.

Thus, moments after we first see Luke Skywalker, we hear his Aunt Beru call out to him, not once but twice: "Luke! LUUUKE!'

That "twice" thing is a standard trope in writing screenplay exposition. Let me give you a couple of examples.

If you wanted to make the plot of Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy easy for the audience to follow, and you were writing in the standard convention of screenplay exposition, you might have a scene between two characters go thus:

SMILEY: CONTROL thought there was a mole at the highest levels of The Circus.

ADELINE: A mole at the highest levels of British intelligence?! Paranoia! How does CONTROL know the Russians weren't feeding him that nonsense to divide us?!

Now, notice two things here. First, one character states the "mole" plotline. The second character immediately repeats it -- in case the audience missed it; hey, this is the main plot of the movie, and you don't want them to miss it. It's gonna be important, you know.

Second of all, the second character responds angrily, with emotion, to make sure the audience is paying attention. We are also fed the information that Smiley believes this theory, whereas Adeline dismisses it, and thinks it's stupid.

This injection of emotion/conflict is another big UNDERLINING of the central premise of the movie -- if characters are getting angry about it, it's a tip-off it's rather important and controversial. Like, we know there will be conflict about it.

One more thing about this "repeating" business. Notice Smiley said "The Circus" but then Adeline immediately defined "The Circus" for it, choosing to not call it The Circus, but call it "British Intelligence." Thus letting us know, hey, "The Circus" means "the collected agencies of British intelligence."

Now this is an artificial form of writing, I grant you. People don't actually talk like this, as if they're speaking for the benefit of audience members who do not know as much about the world the characters live in than the characters.

And yet this is necessary, if you want your audience -- who does not know as much about the world of The Circus as the characters here -- to follow what's going on.

Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy does this sort of thing throughout, making a fetish of making the audience "pay attention" if they want to follow things, where you have to put 2 and 2 together to figure out who people are and what's going on.

For example, a major character dies early on. Right after the prologue, in fact. He dies, get this, in a one second shot that shows him in his hospital bed. In the credits.

And it's just a one-second shot, and frankly, he might have just been sick in the hospital bed. No nurses rush in, we don't see the vital signs monitor going beeeeeep, we see no quickie shot of a funeral.

Now, five minutes later, by implication, we realize this character is dead. Well, we think we realize it, by implication, and then we kind of zoom backwards on the DVD to make sure we didn't miss anything, and oh yeah, I guess maybe that shot of him in the bed was supposed to be him dead.

Could I follow the movie? Yes, with some effort, but I have to say, it made a mystery out of things -- the basic starting situation, the basic conflict, even character's names -- where a conventional movie would have tagged those all as important and made a mystery of what the characters found to be a mystery.

That is, a better-written movie, which wasn't fetishizing subtlety and elliptical reference so much, would have just told me the key elements of the mystery so I could then focus on the mystery itself. Not sit there wondering, "Wait, was John Hurt the guy they call 'CONTROL'? Is CONTROL dead or something? Did I miss a whole death? Cripes, I'm five minutes into this movie. Did I already miss a death?"

The plotline of Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy is actually pretty simple: There may or may not be a mole at the top of "The Circus." CONTROL thought there was, and mounted an operation to learn the name of the Russian mole, but the operation was a bloody botch -- the mole himself tipped off Soviet intelligence and captured the agent involved.

Now George Smiley, himself retired in the wake of the embarrassment over the operation, is asked to look further into this theory, operating outside British intelligence -- that is, actually spying on the British spies themselves, without real official authorization. (That is, if they get caught spying, they're actually guilty of spying and may be hanged or whatever.)

Kind of interesting, right? Well, the filmmakers here sure don't want you to think so. They insist you do not have any fun in what sure sounds like it could be a taut Out-Spy the Spies drama.

Tinker Tailer Soldier Spy is written in an obscurantist manner to make you think it's deeper than it is, and it winds up just being coy for the sake of being coy. And it's directed in a dreary way.

Let me just give you one more complaint. There are several flashbacks that happen, all right? And one of them occurs before I'm sure John Hurt is dead, and he appears in it, so I'm like, wait, is this a flashback or a new scene? I thought he was dead. Isn't he dead?

Anyway, yeah, he's dead. That's not even the problem.

The problem is that they feature a flashback to a dead character. Then there's a character you think is dead, but they flash sideways to him (that is, unconnected to the main plot) so you wonder, wait, is he alive, or was that another flashback?

Well, that one was was a flash-sideways not flash-back. He is alive. So, you know, the first half hour of the movie, and there's a question about exactly who is dead and who isn't.

And you're sitting there trying to figure out basic facts, rather than focusing on the actual mystery the plot presents-- is one of the Big Four in British Intelligence a spy? And if so, who?

Here's another complaint, then. First, we have this stupid impulse to make mystery out of things that ought to not be mysterious. Then the film doesn't even deliver on the actual mystery -- there's not really any detection or clues to point out who the spy is (by the way, it's easy to guess, based simply on Who Would The Filmmakers Cast as the Spy). It's just sort of random. All of a sudden it's just This Guy. No real clues led there. They just rig a simple trap for him (which, by the way, they could have rigged in the first hour of the film-- they gained no new information later which was necessary for the simple trap) and he shows up.

So the movie actually falls down completely on the actual Mystery plot. Instead of giving us an engaging Mystery to try to figure out, with clues and revelations and so on, we're too busy trying to figure out who the character named "Bland" is -- is he the one with the big skull or the funereal face?

And this is just an example of how this movie fetishizes bloodnessness and borningness for the sake of boringness:

When they actually find The Spy at the trap, you just see him sitting on a chair. There is no confrontation at that moment. He doesn't react. None of the heroes confront him. No gloating, no gunplay.

You just see him for half a second, and then they flash to him in prison. There is a little talky-talk there ("how could you," etc.) but it's just strange that the film decides to cut away from the moment of maximum tension and climax to just show you the guy sitting there, relaxing, and then a moment later in prison.

See, when he's in prison, there's no more tension. There's no fear he might pull a gun or do something desperate. It's over. Rather than milk that climax, the movie makes it a very short half-second shot of a man in a chair with his legs crossed and smoking a cigarette.

The movie seems less a movie than a manifesto -- we're not going to make a movie like other movies. We're not going to spoon-feed the audience basic information in the first twenty minutes so that they can follow things.

We're also going to avoid all that "drama" stuff, because, sure, that's fun and interesting and all, but we're above that sort of thing.

Ultimately, I followed the movie. I also really didn't care about any of it.

By the way, John LeCarre, who wrote the book, is a communist sympathizer who says things like "The right side lost the Cold War, but the wrong side one." He hates the Western system almost as much as he hates the Communist one (rather more, actually, I suspect).

So he has his Mary Sue, George Smiley, say something to a Soviet agent he's trying to persuade to come over to the West: "When did you realize the society you live in was just as corrupt and without merit as the one I live in?" And he means it.

I didn't really care about this, as I was expecting it. But socialists are just so dreary and lifeless and gray.

To that extent, the film is at least a faithful adaptation.

Alternate Movie Recommendation: If you're interested in this kind of thing, rent the underrated Enigma. It's not perfect, and it gets choppy in its rush to spell plot and background information out to us (several large, difficult-to-chew downloads of background historical information), but it's well done, has good actors, and a kickass John Barry score. (Barry did James Bond, of course.)

more...

Posted by: Ace at 11:24 AM | Comments (266)
Post contains 1790 words, total size 10 kb.

more...

Posted by: Ace at 10:35 AM | Comments (227)
Post contains 33 words, total size 1 kb.

This doesn't mean there won't be charges. It means only that the prosecutor has decided that she has enough information to make the call herself, and doesn't need a grand jury.

The special prosecutor already signaled she would probably not empanel grand jury, and now that's official.

Not sure what this presages. It would be a very easy move to dump this on to a grand jury-- putting the decision-power into its hands and, crucially, ducking the exercise of this power yourself.

But special prosecutor Angela Corey said Monday she will not bring the case before a grand jury.

Corey said she continues to investigate the case, and that her decision to skip the grand jury should not be a factor in determining whether charges will be filed against Zimmerman, the Associated Press reports.

The decision now rests with Corey, who would provide no further comment. Corey has two choices left, according to CNN: File charges or drop the case.

My guess? This means she will likely charge Zimmerman.

Here's my thinking: Given the ginned-up firestorm here, it's the popular decision to charge him, and the unpopular decision to re-affirm that there doesn't seem to be enough evidence to charge Zimmerman with a crime.

If she was worried about making an unpopular decision, she could have dumped it off on the grand jury.

But if I know people -- and I've met a few -- she's angling for a career-making case and wants to make her bones here. Hence, she's keeping it in her office.*

On the other hand, she says it is her standard practice to not use a grand jury in a justifiable homicide case, because she feels in such cases the prosecutor can make the decision. So, maybe this means absolutely nothing.

* I guess I could make the opposite case and posit this woman is of unbendable integrity and thinks a grand jury would be unavoidably politicized and racialized, and hence is determined to soldier on with a Buck Stops Here mentality.

I don't know. I generally assume most people are basically good -- but not that good, and certainly not heroic. Heroism, I need to see some evidence of before I posit it as likely.

Ugh: Yes, there are still a fair number of racists running around.

We're Americans. We're supposed to make decisions based on the law and facts and actions, not based upon someone's identity.

A lot of people, on both sides, forget that, or never knew it to begin with. These cases quickly devolve into Racial Teams.

Posted by: Ace at 09:42 AM | Comments (290)
Post contains 439 words, total size 3 kb.

Bonus Added at the end of the post, as an apology for posting this at all.

I don't understand some things. Like, why everyone on Survivor hates Christina. She doesn't do anything wrong, causes no problems or friction, seems to do a solid amount of work, and, while she isn't good at competitions, she isn't noticeably bad.

And my reason for caring is this: more...

Posted by: Ace at 09:03 AM | Comments (182)
Post contains 302 words, total size 2 kb.

via @gabrielmalor, Obama's charmless offensive isn't working.

Just before the highly publicized hearing on the constitutionality of President ObamaÂ’s health care law, ratings for the U.S. Supreme Court had fallen to the lowest level ever measured by Rasmussen Reports. Now, following the hearings, approval of the court is way up.

Forty-one percent (41%) of Likely U.S. Voters now rate the Supreme CourtÂ’s performance as good or excellent, according to a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey. ThatÂ’s up 13 points from 28% in mid-March and is the courtÂ’s highest ratings in two-and-a-half yearsÂ….

There's an old saying that the Court reads the election returns. Despite the notion that they should be immune from current political fashion, they're not. The Court's authority rests only on its authority -- that is, unlike the Executive, it can't force people to obey it. To the extent it has authority, it is because the public deems it worthy of authority.

So they are mindful of that.

Now, in the present case, at least five justices are very skeptical that what Obama and his temporary, immediately-repudiated Congress did was constitutional. One thing that might stay their hand is concern of an erosion of authority.

But the public seems to approve of their sentiment regarding ObamaCare.

So, if it's right, and it's also popular...

Posted by: Ace at 08:29 AM | Comments (140)
Post contains 241 words, total size 2 kb.

John Derbyshire just had the "Talk" with his kids.
He said they could work for Obama 2012.

Buzzfeed's very comfortable Obama's Campaign HQ.

As well they should be. They look just like Ben Smith's prep school's AV team.

“There is a very, very good feeling here,” David Axelrod, Obama’s senior advisor, told BuzzFeed.

Indeed! That feeling? The ineluctable frisson one gets from knowing that everyone around you watches Downton Abbey, or maybe even appeared as an extra in a fox-hunting scene on Downton Abbey, or actually was born and raised at Downton Abbey.

Top Ten Things Almost As White As Obama's Campaign HQ Staff

10. The Annual Frasier Cosplay Convention

9. People who buy CDs from Starbucks; also, people who buy biscottis from Starbucks; also, Starbucks

8. An National Hockey League line, doing a line dance in honky-tonk in White Line, Michigan, after doing lines of the purest cocaine, and then standing in line for Bocephus tickets

7. An eggwhites-only omelete, covered in mozzarella and white truffles, made by a Racist Short Order Cook named Kyle

6. A Wonder Bread & Mayonnaise sandwich, crust off

5. The officer corps of the Galactic Imperial Fleet

4. A snowman with a black tear tattoo

3. The racist Whitesnake tribute band, Aryan Sex Dragon

2. Beneath the wild thatch of mangy, unkempt hair -- Rosie O'Donnell's egg-shaped frontbutt

...and the number one thing almost as white as Obama's Campaign HQ...

1. The liberal editorial staff at Buzzfeed, who at no point in this process wondered where the black and Hispanic staffers were

Thanks to Phil from TN and the cobloggers for the tip and for inspiration for the list. This is now the fourth one of these top tens I've done. Hard to keep coming up with white things.

Posted by: Ace at 07:41 AM | Comments (443)
Post contains 332 words, total size 2 kb.

James O'Keefe's team strikes again. This time they walk into a DC polling place and are offered the chance to vote using Eric Holder's ballot.

According to liberals the right to vote is so sacred that it must be left undefended by even the most innocuous (but effective) means of protection.

Via Jeff Emanuel, no what O'Keefe's guy did wasn't illegal.

Posted by: DrewM at 06:06 AM | Comments (282)
Post contains 85 words, total size 1 kb.

Early start today. Actual headlines tomorrow, I promise.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 02:08 AM | Comments (276)
Post contains 16 words, total size 1 kb.

Happy Easter Morons. I hope everyone was able to spend time with their families on this fine Sunday. Also, happy Passover to fellow Hebrew and Shebrew Morons. As with all Jewish holidays, they tried to kill us, they failed, let's eat.

Iconic Movie Characters as Easter Eggs

Posted by: Open Blogger at 04:47 PM | Comments (730)
Post contains 419 words, total size 5 kb.