Roman Polanski defenders don’t leave any middle ground

I’ve avoided discussing Roman Polanski’s recent arrest for skipping bail on his 1978 statutory rape charge, but I’ve been watching it from afar. And I really don’t believe some of the public comments some people have made about Polanski, and about his 13-year-old victim.

I’m stunned, frankly. And now we can add one more lunatic to the pile: Gore Vidal.

I like to poke fun at Hollywood and the entertainment industry. It’s easy, and it’s fun, because these ridiculous people bring it on themselves. Despite that, the media refuses to criticize any of them, because the media depends on access to these yahoos for much of its content. They are, quite literally, “off limits”.

But what we’ve seen lately really ought to make some of us sit up and pay more attention to the types of people who produce our television shows, our movies, our books and CDs, and our newspapers. Because if their recent comments defending Polanski’s disgusting crime reflect their true vision of right and wrong, then we need to confront some ugly truths about our star-centric culture.

The list of such people is long, and disturbing. I’m not going to bother digging up links to all of them here and glorify their ridiculous statements.

So the big picture here is that it’s easy to dismiss cultural influence as unimportant, but I think that’s a mistake. A really big mistake.

And if the fact that Gore Vidal is an amoral twit with nothing useful to tell us wasn’t clear before, then it is pretty damn clear now.

But he’s like 145 years old, so who cares? Here’s why it matters: his outlandish, insane comments in this Atlantic interview a couple of weeks ago didn’t cause any kind of public backlash in the media.

This tells us just about everything we need to know, about both the media and Hollywood in general. And what it tells us is not good.

I’ll break it down for them: it’s ok to come out in public and criticize creeps that drug and rape and sodomize 13 year old girls. Really.

Give it a shot sometime.

First Rule of Financial Holes: Stop Digging

You have to wonder if maybe Illinois wouldn’t be in such a big budget crisis right now if the state legislature didn’t routinely, and for many years, approve new programs without funding them.

Seems a little risky, no?

In a business, or even a family, non-essential expenses are the very first thing you evaluate. It’s called “cutting the fat”, and it’s how sane people try to balance budgets.

But not in government! Governments have these wonderful ATM-like things called “taxpayers”.

Governments think taxpayers are awesome because taxpayers are too busy leading their lives to learn much about how completely they get ripped off by their governments. And the media likes taxpayers too, as long as they are kept in the dark about how markets work and what taxes do to an economy.

Isn’t it funny how none of the politicians or news stories mention any of this when the going gets tough? No, it’s all about yanking food right out of the mouths of starving children.

Gee thanks, but I’m trying to cut down on my big-government platitudes and insulting emotional appeals meant to trip my trigger and open my wallet.

The Economist notes how widespread it is :

Despite allocations of federal aid to states, services are being cut, state employees are being laid off, and taxes are being raised in order to balance the budgets of local governments constitutionally unable to run deficits. It’s not at all clear that the federal stimulus will entirely compensate for state-level fiscal tightening, which means that American fiscal policy could, on net, be contractionary.

Q: Is there anybody in the room who dares to ask the obvious? That, maybe, just maybe, we’re overspending?

A: Sadly, no. Doing that would require cutting programs that benefit special-interest groups. And the media, which frames the discussion about the role of government in our lives, believes all government spending is inherently a Good Thing.

And so on and on we go. Giving government more and more power by relying on it to fix things for us.

How’s that working out so far?

Stupid Is as Stupid Does

And Waxman-Markey thinks YOU are stupid enough to support this dumb idea:

Now Congress is trying to pass a new law called ‘Cap and Trade,’ which is really just another new energy tax. According to the Environmental Protection Agency, the new tax could cost you between 61 cents and $1.60 for every gallon of gas you buy. Economists think this could cost the average family $3,100 a year. I’m working hard to defeat this new tax.

Funny how that huge tax increase on everybody who drives doesn’t seem to resonate in the media. Huh.

I have a feeling it would resonate with the consumer.

That passage above is from this link at the site of my congressman, Peter Roskam (Ill.). I sent him an email today requesting that he vote no on that legislation, before I knew how strongly he already opposed it. He doesn’t like the Waxman-Markey bill. He is a smart man.

You can also find this graphic at that link, reflecting the cost of gas in Chicago, which already pays the highest prices in the nation, and which could increase by up to $1.60:

http://roskam.house.gov/Issues/Issue/?IssueID=4291

Thanks, but no. Sorry … I’m really trying to cut down.

Fight Back, or Get Used to Sending More of Your Money to the IRS to Slay Imaginary Dragons

In a stunning development, we have learned that Congress is right now crafting legislation that is not just useless, but dangerous and expensive too.

Which, like, hardly ever happens!

It’s called the Waxman-Markey bill. You might not know about it, but you should, because it is just the latest example of how government deceives you in order to take your money. It’s what they do.

It presumes a global warming crisis that is actually unraveling as we speak, as new, compelling evidence emerges nearly every week that we are now entering a historic cooling period.

It assumes that even if this climate crisis did exist, it is best fixed by … collecting money. Really. This is what Congress does: think up ways to waste our money on mostly ineffectual and sometimes downright dangerous “solutions”. When the only tool you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

And even if you buy into all that silliness, the proposed solution hasn’t worked very well in Europe.

Summing up then:

1. A crisis that doesn’t exist,
2. used to coerce you and me into paying more money into our government,
3. to fund a solution that won’t work.

A perfect storm of pandering.

I know global warming is the current “hot button” issue of the day, and lots of people view it as a crisis that needs our attention. But it doesn’t take very long to discover that the “science” behind it is extremely shaky; in fact, it is not science at all. That’s why they use words like “global warming denier”: it’s a belief system.

Usually, investing your faith where it doesn’t belong is a pretty bad idea. Render unto Caesar, etc.

And we don’t need lies in order to pursue reasonable energy and environmental policies. There were already plenty of good reasons to support the “green” lifestyle. For years, I’ve supported recycling, fuel conservation, and research into new sources of energy. I could support things like wind farms if there was any hope that such a thing could work in a huge country like the United States. And we need to re-open drilling in places like ANWR in Alaska and offshore. The caribou and the godforsaken mosquitoes in ANWR  won’t mind, and other countries are drilling off our shores already, so what do we gain by sitting it out?

But what we don’t need is fear-mongering based on half-baked theories, and taxation that couldn’t fix it anyway. Plus, of course, the meddling in economic markets, which didn’t work out too well with the mortgages.

And even worse, all the social divisions created by all of it. You risk being called ridiculous names by “scientists” if you dare to question their methods and conclusions. Really?

Cute documentaries with polar bears is one thing; turning the junk science behind it into a demand for tax revenue is quite another.

We don’t need the Waxman-Markey bill, or anything remotely like it.

Letterman Finally Offers Real Apology to Palins

Good for Dave. He seems to understand why this was a problem for many people, and he also seems contrite about it. And it’s been accepted, so we can all move on now.

Frankly, I always thought he was better than this, better than the raging loon we’ve been seeing on TV these last eight years or so. Maybe he’s been sucked in by all the other raging loons that inhabit that strange city.

But I’m still not sure people “get” what this is all about.

I think the accepted storyline in the eyes of at least some people is “Letterman made fun of touchy conservatives who then threatened a boycott like a bunch of spoiled children, so he finally had to give in and apologize”.

In truth, the takeaway from this is that Letterman made a joke about conservatives that he would never make about liberals, and he did this because conservatives aren’t viewed as fully human in the eyes of the media establishment, so you can get away with it. They aren’t real people, so who cares?

It’s pandering to the audience they clearly prefer, and nothing more.

“Tolerance: It’s Just a Word We Like to Throw Around!”

The climate that allows it to happen in the first place has to change. And until it does, nothing is really changed.

My earlier post is here: So . . . This is Where We Are Today? Really?