Jason comments on the Presidential campaign

I swear this isn't becoming a political blog, I promise, promise, promise.

Originally, this was going to be a funny idea of reviewing the current campaign commercials from a purely cinematic view, ignoring the politics or the veracity of their claims. But I couldn't stop throwing up in my mouth whenever I tried to watch one. Honestly, I haven't seen a watchable campaign ad since Mike Gravel's "Rock" (screw you Paultards! I was a proud Gravelhead! At least, I was whenever I remembered he exists)

Anyway, everyone agrees, by a pretty wide margin, that McCain is running far more negative ads. However, this appears to have brought him even with Obama in the polls. I, for one, am not surprised. One thing pundits seem to never realize is that going negative is a good thing! And I don't mean that they're effective. They work exactly 50% of the time--both candidates inevitably go negative, and one candidate has to win. I mean negative ads are actually better than positive ads because they're more informative.

Imagine these two generic campaign ads:

Ad 1: "Candidate A loves America. See how American he looks standing in front of the American flag with patriotic determination on his face. He feels your pain, shares your values, and will fight for you!"

Ad 2: "Candidate B is wrong for America. His tax plan will bankrupt you and cause unemployment to skyrocket. His energy plan will make us Saudi Arabia's bitches. His position on crime will allow psychotic convicts out of prison with orders to rape your grandmother. Candidate A, on the other hand, will give you free money and create jobs out of thin air. He craps pure electricity and pisses gasoline, enough to power the entire nation. And if anyone even looks at your grandmother funny, he'll incinerate them with his heat vision"

Okay, I got a little carried away there. But my point is that Ad 1 tells you nothing. Even if the claims in Ad 2 are bullshit, you can research and find the truth behind the claims. It might not give you a completely accurate picture, but it gives you much more information. And since they can't really get away with outright lies, there's almost always a grain of half-truth.

The interesting thing about this is that at least McCain's first two negative ads--"Celebrity" and "The One", are remarkably negative while being completely uninformative. Here I am trying to defend negative advertising and McCain goes out and destroys my thesis by creating two of the most vacuous negative ads ever. McCain, by going negative and stupid you've actually sullied the reputation of negative campaigning.

Finally in his third try McCain actually puts some information in it, as he attacks Obama's tax plan. In this one, he moves from providing no information to providing misinformation...which I guess is a type of information? His claim that Obama voted to increase the taxes on everyone making more than $42,000 is based not on Obama's stated tax plan, but an earlier vote on a non-binding resolution to do away with the Bush tax cuts. Interesting aside, does this mean the McCain camp is tacitly admitting that the Bush tax cuts gave nothing to people making less than $42,000, since phasing them out doesn't affect them?

A quick comparison of their stated tax plans, courtesy of the Tax Policy Center and washingtonpost.com, can be seen in this graph:

I have no statement on which tax plan is better. I don't want to get into a debate about tax fairness or whether giving more breaks to the rich helps the economy. I will point out two things--first, Obama's stated plan does in fact give a substantial cut to people making $42,000. In fact, it gives a bigger break than McCain's plan, so McCain is clearly lying. Second, both plans are a net tax cut, meaning their promises to balance the budget (and both have promised this) are pretty much bullshit without some deep spending cuts. And don't give me crap about the Laffer curve--people who think lower tax rates result in higher overall tax revenue are idiots who don't understand their own argument.

More importantly, tax policy is not the only issue in the campaign. There's of course the war, health care, energy policy, and hot button issues like abortion or gun control.

I would like to meet someone who has studied both candidates stands on every issue and used that to make their choice in this election, because I have one question for them--are you fucking retarded!? Or, to put it a little more kindly, are you ignorant of--or willfully disregarding--the manner in which laws get passed? Our current unitary executive not withstanding, there are checks on the powers of the President, primarily that he has no power to write laws. Congress writes laws, and the President either signs them or vetoes them. Neither McCain nor Obama will have the power to change the tax rates by fiat. And given that Congress looks to not just stay in Democrat control but increase the Democratic margin, chances are any tax changes that come from it will look a lot more like Obama's plan than McCain's. And if you don't like that, work on changing Congress, because the President won't have a chance to change that. Same is true for all other legislative stances. The President can propose laws and draft bills and send them to Congress, but Congress has no obligation to act on any of his proposals. So why would you choose a President based on his legislative stances--the one thing he has virtually no control over? And that's if you even believe he'll keep his word when it's no longer politically necessary/expedient. I invite any of my readers to make an argument as to why the issues actually matter.

I submit to you that it actually makes more sense to cast their vote for whoever makes them feel better. Every election year, it seems there's a poll about who voter's would rather have a beer with (or invite to their barbecue, or have watch their pets while they're on vacation, or something equally insipid). Now I'm not saying "pleasant drinking partner" is a good quality in a leader (I wouldn't necessarily feel better if some of my closest drinking buddies were in charge of anything). But the one thing the President does have more or less unchecked control over is the national mood. And as much as some people lamented that George W. Bush won twice just because he was more folksy than his more qualified opponents, I still submit that it's not that bad of a reason to vote for a guy (for the record, George W. Bush never made me feel good). I also submit this is actually how people make their voting decision. As much as most people claim to study the issues and make their decision based on them, their decisions are based singularly on who gives them a better feeling, and they'll even change their stance on the issues to conform to this person. A couple of quick questions. Is anyone planning on voting for the candidate who will make them personally feel worse (e.g., they'd suffer more but it's better for the country)? Has anyone caught themselves "refining" their stances on issues as their candidates did (e.g., McCain on immigration or "running an honorable campaign", Obama on public financing or offshore drilling)? I will emphasize again that I don't think this behavior is a bad thing. I think not only that it's natural, but it's the best criteria available.


Now as I was drafting this post, Obama announced his selection of Joe Biden as his running mate. I have no strong opinions one way or another about the guy, but the whole "veepstakes" brings up one other thing I'd like to know about the candidates. I'd like to know who their top advisers would be, especially their cabinet. Particularly, I'd like to see that they choose good, smart people, who are experts in their field, and who speak their mind (i.e., are not "yes men"). Biden seems to fit at least three of these--he seems like a good, smart guy and he's not afraid to disagree with Obama (most notably on voting for the Iraq War). I only reserve giving him "expert in his field" because I don't know how you show expertise in checking if the President is alive and then doing whatever you feel like (although our current VP seems to do a lot more, constitutionally that's the only thing he's required to do).

But the VP candidate is just one appointment, and I'd argue not as important as his cabinet secretaries, who should be his go-to guys (or gals) in their respective responsibilities. I would actually say that this would be my most important criteria in choosing who to vote for, except for the fact that we will never be given this information. For some reason, it's considered uncouth to even pretend that you're thinking about who you'd appoint. Why is it so forbidden to give me the most relevant information possible for my choice? And I know, they don't have ultimate authority over this either; their choices need to be confirmed by the Senate. But in all of U.S. history, only 9 cabinet nominations have been rejected (11 have been withdrawn prior to a vote), and it's fairly common to hear the argument 'I don't think he/she is a good choice, but I respect the President's right to surround himself with the advisers he wants.' That's reasonably close to a rubber stamp. And really, I don't need final choices, give me a possible short list of 3 or so names for each position so I can get a sense of your judgment. I won't hold you to any of them, and the first candidate to do this will score major points in my book.

Well, this ran on as usual when I start posting politics. Now I'm going to disappear for a week, I'm going to a land that's outside of the reach of the Internet. I'll be back on Labor Day to tell you whether or not I'm actually being serious.

Jason goes to the Niles Film Museum and sees Douglas Fairbanks in "Reggie Mixes In"

Back at my favorite theater that plays silent films every Saturday night.

First a couple of shorts, starting with "The Thieving Hand". A one-armed honest beggar is rewarded by a rich man with an artificial limb. Problem is, the limb has a mind of it's own and starts stealing against his will, in this comedy trick film.

Then a Roscoe "Fatty" Arbuckle short, "Fatty's Tintype Tangle". Tintype refers to a type of camera. Fatty is married to a lovely lady, but her mother rules the house and abuses him. He leaves in a huff (presumably just for a walk to cool off) and is accidentally photographed in a misunderstood pose with a young lady (it's a misunderstanding, he was just being nice and trying to reassure her after he sat on her knitting needle). Unfortunately, they're from Alaska, meaning her husband is a hot-head who attacks with his pistols (which he doesn't know how to hold steady for shooting). To make matters worse, his mother-in-law sees the photograph. And to make matters much, much worse, the Alaskans are looking for a home and unwittingly rent out Fatty's home from his wife. Needless to say, wacky hijinx ensue.

Then after an intermission, the feature program, Douglas Fairbanks in "Reggie Mixes In". Fairbanks is best known for his swashbuckler roles, but this film predates those and he plays a contemporary character. Specifically, he plays Reggie, a lazy but athletic idle rich kid, just out of college. With no real aim, he amuses himself with his servant "Old Pickleface." Out on a drive, they find a little girl who is lost. They take her home, his first introduction to the working class part of town. There his eye catches a lovely lady who he learns is a dancer at a local club, Gallaghers. He and Old Pickleface dress up as working class toughs and visit Gallaghers. A gang fight breaks out, he equips himself well, and earns a job as the club's bouncer. He gets into a war with the gang, barely escaping, and finally wins the girl. Everyone is happy (except the gangsters he whups).

And that was that. Kudos to Frederick Hodges at the piano.

Next week, although I won't be there, is comedy shorts night, which is always possible. So if you want to see it, show up early.

Jason watches "Pineapple Express"

My neck has been hurting me the past couple of days. I just realized why--I haven't watched a movie in almost a week! Turns out, it's important for my posture that I sit in front row center and crane my neck upwards for at least a couple of hours for a day or two a week.

Well, my neck is all better now, and as a bonus I got to watch a pretty entertaining movie. It's fair to describe it--as so many critics have--as a stoner action flick. It's also a very homoerotic story about the friendship between a pot smoker and a pot dealer. Seth Rogen as Dale Denton plays the customer, who early on rants about dealers who want to be your friend. For him it's a (cordial) business relationship. James Franco is Saul, the pot dealer with a heart of gold (he started dealing to get his grandma into a better nursing home). No need to rehash the plot, you get all you need from the trailer. I will say although it is absolutely full of pot, it's accessible enough to be funny to a guy who rarely smokes and usually prefers to laugh at those who are way more high than him. I assume it would also be funny to heavy pot smokers...because everything is funny to them.

Jason previews a Shakespearean duel

A more detailed post will be coming soon. But I'm disappearing next week (even out rang of the interwebs), when a cinematic Shakespeare duel throws down.

Anyway, if you're like me you've been giggling at the trailers for "Hamlet 2" and humming "Rock Me Sexy Jesus" in your head. I really hope this movie is good. It comes out in limited release tomorrow and wider on Labor Day weekend.

But next Tuesday the really really independent Shakespeare movie comes out (on DVD)--"Never Say Macbeth" which was made for less that 1% of the budget of "Hamlet 2" (and that's billed as an independent film). The only reason I know about this is because one of the producers kindly contacted me and sent me a DVD screener. I watched it (actually a couple of months ago) during a family reunion. Because it was months ago I don't remember it well enough to give a detailed review (I'll watch it again after seeing "Hamlet 2" and give a more detailed comparison). Here's what I do remember--science guy travels across the country stalking his actress girlfriend. He accidentally gets a part in a production of the Scottish play, and then even worse he goes against all theater superstition and actually says the name of the play--Macbeth. Well, that unleashes ghosts of actors who were performing when the theater burnt down ages ago. Wacky hijinx ensue.

I remember we (I and my family) generally enjoyed it. The low budget does show, but it's still impressive for what they spent, and it was funny. Personally, I was more interested in the ghosts than in the love story (and the fact that three different ghost productions are going on is a good source of humor). As long as you can read around low production values (I.e., you're a film festival veteran) it's reasonably good family friendly fun. As I said, a more detailed review will come after I see "Hamlet 2" and rewatch "Never Say Macbeth".

I do have to mention a problem with the audio on my screener disk. Ummm...yeah, that's it, there was a problem with the audio on my screener disk. Sometimes the dialogue was too loud, sometimes we could barely hear it over the soundtrack. It wasn't bad enough that we missed what was happening, but it was distracting. However, I've been assured that this is only a problem with the screener, and the DVDs from the distributor should be fine. If any of my loyal readers buy or rent this, let me know if the audio is good.

And finally, I also want to give a little shout out to an even more independent Shakespeare movie, "Green Eggs and Hamlet". Why would I bring a 13 year old video into this duel? Simply put, yours truly has a cameo as a member of angry mob shouting "Laertes should be our sire! That is what we now desire!" So see, I'm a Shakespearean actor, too (and a scientist, and I didn't have to stalk a girl across the country to be both).

Jason receives fan art!

More proof that I've arrived on these here Internets! And just after I claimed the Front Row Crew are not my "disciples", one of them sends me this:

I like this, it simultaneously makes fun of my career, my slovenly appearance, my movie addiction, my raging alcoholism, and my skills of an artist. Plus it looks like I've had a psychotic break with reality and the movie is talking to me. And that's exactly the psychotic break I wanna have! Although I want my psychotic hallucinations to give me beer, not demand it from me.

He also sent me an early prototype of the mad scientist character, apparently making bubble appear from an Erlenmeyer flask through use of a magic wand (little known secret--science doesn't exist, we all use magic and just call it science)

All credit goes to Alan for the artwork (Go MS Paint! Sad that you can do better there than I can do with pen and paper). The line in the second comic is mine. I said it to him once and now he can't get it out of his head. So I guess I inspired this all. I apologize.

Jason has disciples, apparently

At least according to this blog post from Dan.

I wonder if this is how religions get started?

When I first read this, at first I was kind of flattered, then I didn't think much of it (I don't consider myself a leader, just another audience member who has welcomed/encouraged other people to enjoy the front row). I thought about commenting and identifying my disciples and anyone else I knew by name, but Dan only allows comments by team members.

Then I happened to run into one of the people described in this post who thought it was creepy. It got me thinking a bit more. I've put myself out there on the Internet, so I don't mind if others talk about me. But as far as I know these other people don't have blogs or websites or anything like that (let me know if you do, I'll link to it). And I wouldn't really like it if someone was writing on the Internet that I was "shifty looking", even if I wasn't identified by name (actually, I'd laugh at that, but I could see how other people would be bothered). Now I'm kind of glad I didn't identify anyone.

Anyway, I allow posting by anyone (even anonymous posting, at least until I get enough spam to change that setting), so if anyone wants to identify themselves, they can do that here. For that matter, if anyone wants to anonymously bitch out Dan for writing about them, feel free to do that here, too.

And for the record, I don't refer to anyone as my disciple. Those who sit with me in the front row I call "The Front Row Crew" (or FRC, which I mentally pronounce "Freak"). If I'm the de facto leader it's only because I have less of a life than any of them, or because I'm goofier looking, or because I'm selfish and always grab the exact center seat (at the Roxie, my fat ass has actually pushed this seat down slightly more than the other seats--it's actually more comfortable to sit in front row +/- 1 seat off center). I guess those are as good as any reason to choose a leader.

Jason mourns the loss of Kelly Bundy's boobs

Aparrently three weeks ago Christina Applegate went under the knife for a prophylactic double mastectomy. But...but...but...I grew up with those boobs! I mean, not dying of breast cancer is great for her, but don't my fond adolescent reminiscences count for anything? I guess I'll always have my memories, if not her mammaries. Hah!

Seriously, here's wishing her the best of health and luck in the future. I think she got typecast as the dumb blond from "Married With Children", but in the few interviews I've seen/read of her, she seems much smarter and a better actress than she gets credit for. Plus she let Donnie Darko masturbate to her (after Alyssa Milano refused). With that and her jokes about how after reconstructive surgery she'll have indestructible boobs that will be the envy of her nursing home, she's pretty cool.