Monthly Archives: June 2011

President Obama’s press conference June 29, 2011, a Conservative Response Part 1

President Obama Press Conference pt.1

Guy  Benson observed:

In case you missed it, Katie offers a fairly comprehensive recapof President Obama’s press conference below.  As is often the case, his performance was rather frustrating to watch, and seemed interminable.  A few initial reactions:

Debt Ceiling: The president called on Republicans to back off their “stubborn” refusal to compromise on their “sacred cow” (no tax hikes), asserting that everyone else at the table has displayed a willingness to do so.  This is news to me, as Democrats have consistently refused to deal seriously with entitlements, and have shamelessly demagogued Republican reform efforts.  One could also argue that Democrats’ true sacred cow in this debate is their insistence on raising taxes, a stance from which they have not backed down.  Obama then employed one of his favorite rhetorical maneuvers, citing the “consensus” of unnamed economists from across the political spectrum (“every single observer…who’s not a politician”) that a “balanced approach” to deficit refuction (ie, tax increases) is required to accomplish that task.  I can think of at least 150 economists who might beg to differ.  NRO’s Daniel Foster dug up a useful video clip on this front.  The president also mentioned his debt commission — which is rich, considering that he ignored all of its major recommendations in crafting his mammouth failure of a 2012 budget.  Plus, would tax hikes really right the ship?  Over to you, Jim Pethokoukis (once again).

In a ham-fisted class warfare gambit, Obama took aim at tax breaks for private jet owners.  His point, presumably, was to highlight an unpopular tax provision Republicans are “protecting” through their blanket refusal to entertain any tax increases.  Say, where’d those evil private jet-related tax breaks come from, anyway?  Clue: The answer may involve an infamous bill that zero House Republicans supported, and that Barack Obama signed into law.  Oops.

_________________________________________________________

According to President Obama the Republicans must accept tax increases. Is that the case?

Curtis Dubay rightly noted:

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) just released its long-term outlook for the federal budget. As expected, we are going broke slightly faster than we were a few months ago.

No doubt the usual bigger-government types will use this news to repeat the mantra that we need to both cut spending and “enhance revenues” (a thinly veiled euphemism for tax hikes). Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner used this oft-repeated line just this week.

But their argument is exactly backwards. The CBO report actually once again proves that no tax hikes are necessary to fix our budget woes.

The CBO calculates that if Congress leaves the tax code as it is today—which would include permanently extending the 2001/2003 tax cuts for all taxpayers (even those greedy, job-producing rich folks and small businesses), patching the alternative minimum tax so it does not impact middle-income families, and continuing a host of other tax-reducing provisions that regularly expire—tax revenues would exceed their historical average of 18 percent of GDP in 2021. Revenue would continue growing thereafter absent any policy changes and soon surpass the all-time record high hit back in 2000 at the height of the Internet-tech boom.

Earlier CBO reports show (and this latest release confirms) that revenue would actually match the 18 percent of GDP mark by 2017 and could get there even sooner.

Renewed economic growth—once it finally takes hold—is the reason tax revenues will shoot up in the coming years. Faster growth means that taxpayers earn more income and move into higher tax brackets. Faster growth also means that there are more taxpayers than before.

The impending rebound in tax revenues seen in the CBO data also rebuts the argument that “taxes as a percentage of GDP are at their lowest levels since 1950.” It has been repeated most recently by Fareed Zakaria.

These low tax receipts have nothing to do with changes in policy, like lower tax rates, as those making this argument would have us believe. Tax revenues are low compared to their historical averages, but that has everything to do with a terrible recession and a worse-than-anemic recovery that has repressed incomes and driven millions to the unemployment lines.

Conveyors of the wrongheaded wisdom about the necessity of tax hikes are trying to convince the American people that there is just no way to lower the deficit with spending cuts alone, that some tax hikes are necessary in any “reasonable” plan.

Higher taxes are not a mathematical necessity. They are a choice Washington politicians would make to expand the size of government. After all, history has shown us that Congress rarely if ever uses revenue from tax hikes to lower the deficit. Rather, it uses the money on new or expanded big-government programs. And tax hikes now would further harm job creation.

The reality is that hikes are not necessary to fix the budget. If Congress restrained spending to its historical level of 20 percent of GDP (rather than the bloated 25 percent that President Obama’s budget aspires for), the deficit would fall to manageable levels as revenues climb, and the national debt would stabilize as a share of the economy.

It is all about the spending, and no amount of reiterating false claims about plunging tax revenue can change that. Washington has spent us into this budget hole and wants more of our money to fill the void they’ve created. It is time they realize they’ll be getting plenty of our money in the coming years, and the only way out of this mess is to cut spending.

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) just released its long-term outlook for the federal budget. As expected, we are going broke slightly faster than we were a few months ago.

No doubt the usual bigger-government types will use this news to repeat the mantra that we need to both cut spending and “enhance revenues” (a thinly veiled euphemism for tax hikes). Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner used this oft-repeated line just this week.

But their argument is exactly backwards. The CBO report actually once again proves that no tax hikes are necessary to fix our budget woes.

The CBO calculates that if Congress leaves the tax code as it is today—which would include permanently extending the 2001/2003 tax cuts for all taxpayers (even those greedy, job-producing rich folks and small businesses), patching the alternative minimum tax so it does not impact middle-income families, and continuing a host of other tax-reducing provisions that regularly expire—tax revenues would exceed their historical average of 18 percent of GDP in 2021. Revenue would continue growing thereafter absent any policy changes and soon surpass the all-time record high hit back in 2000 at the height of the Internet-tech boom.

Earlier CBO reports show (and this latest release confirms) that revenue would actually match the 18 percent of GDP mark by 2017 and could get there even sooner.

Renewed economic growth—once it finally takes hold—is the reason tax revenues will shoot up in the coming years. Faster growth means that taxpayers earn more income and move into higher tax brackets. Faster growth also means that there are more taxpayers than before.

The impending rebound in tax revenues seen in the CBO data also rebuts the argument that “taxes as a percentage of GDP are at their lowest levels since 1950.” It has been repeated most recently by Fareed Zakaria.

These low tax receipts have nothing to do with changes in policy, like lower tax rates, as those making this argument would have us believe. Tax revenues are low compared to their historical averages, but that has everything to do with a terrible recession and a worse-than-anemic recovery that has repressed incomes and driven millions to the unemployment lines.

Conveyors of the wrongheaded wisdom about the necessity of tax hikes are trying to convince the American people that there is just no way to lower the deficit with spending cuts alone, that some tax hikes are necessary in any “reasonable” plan.

Higher taxes are not a mathematical necessity. They are a choice Washington politicians would make to expand the size of government. After all, history has shown us that Congress rarely if ever uses revenue from tax hikes to lower the deficit. Rather, it uses the money on new or expanded big-government programs. And tax hikes now would further harm job creation.

The reality is that hikes are not necessary to fix the budget. If Congress restrained spending to its historical level of 20 percent of GDP (rather than the bloated 25 percent that President Obama’s budget aspires for), the deficit would fall to manageable levels as revenues climb, and the national debt would stabilize as a share of the economy.

It is all about the spending, and no amount of reiterating false claims about plunging tax revenue can change that. Washington has spent us into this budget hole and wants more of our money to fill the void they’ve created. It is time they realize they’ll be getting plenty of our money in the coming years, and the only way out of this mess is to cut spending.

Digitally altered image of Princess Diana on Newsweek cover

diana-newsweek.jpg

Newsweek

The digitally altered image of Diana has caused much controversy, with many  calling the cover “creepy,” “shocking,” and done in “poor taste.” The Los  Angeles Times asked, “Shocking, brilliant or just plain cheap?”

The article was written by Diana biographer and Newsweek’s Editor-in-Chief,  Tina Brown, who doesn’t think the cover is the least bit offensive. “We wanted  to bring the memory of Diana alive in a vivid image that transcends time and  reflects my piece,” Brown said in a statement Tuesday.

The cover story about the late Princess highlights her imagined Facebook page, what her life might look like now, and  includes a slideshow comparing the chic fashion styles of Diana and Kate.

Diana died in a single car crash in Paris on August 31, 1997, which also her  boyfriend, Dodi Fayed, and their driver, Henri Paul. She was 36.

Princess Diana Photoshopped Newsweek Cover Causes Uproar

Related Posts:

Kate Middleton and Prince William: Marriage made in Heaven? (Part 62)

Prince William, Duke of Cambridge, Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge and Prince Charles, Prince of Wales leave Clarence House to travel to Buckingham Palace for the evening celebrations. (John Stillwell/WPA Pool/Getty Images) I really do wish Kate and William success in their marriage. I hope they truly are committed to each other, and if they are […]

Kate Middleton and Prince William: Marriage made in Heaven? (Part 61)

Britain’s Prince William, center left, and his wife Kate, Duchess of Cambridge, center right, pose for a photograph with, clockwise from bottom right, Margarita Armstrong-Jones, Eliza Lopes, Grace van Cutsem, Lady Louise Windsor, Tom Pettifer, and William Lowther-Pinkerton in the Throne Room at Buckingham Palace, following their wedding at Westminster Abbey, London, on Friday, April […]

Kate Middleton and Prince William: Marriage made in Heaven? (Part 60)

Michael Middleton lifts Catherine’s veil Michael Middleton lifts Catherine’s bridal veil at the altar of Westminster [2011] The Royal Wedding – MARRIAGE part 1 The Archbishop: “I pronounce that they be man and wife together, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost” . They’re now man and […]

Kate Middleton and Prince William: Marriage made in Heaven? (Part 59)

The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge walk hand in hand from Buckingham Palace in London Saturday April 30 2011, the day after their wedding. (John Stillwell/AP Photo) Prince William and Kate moved in together about a year ago. In this clip above the commentator suggested that maybe Prince Charles and Princess Diana would not have divorced […]

Kate Middleton and Prince William: Marriage made in Heaven? (Part 58)

The Official Royal Wedding photographs The Royal Wedding Group in the Throne Room at Buckingham Palace on 29th April 2011 with the Bride and Groom, TRH The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge in the centre. Prince William and Kate Middleton’s Love Story In this video clip mentions that Kate and William lived together in college. […]

Kate Middleton and Prince William: Marriage made in Heaven? (Part 57)

The Official Royal Wedding photographs The Royal Wedding at Buckingham Palace on 29th April 2011: The Bride and Groom, TRH The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge in the Throne Room. Prince William and Kate moved in together about a year ago. In this clip above the commentator suggested that maybe Prince Charles and Princess Diana would […]

Fathers Day 2011

For almost three months I have been thinking a lot about the issue of fatherhood and marriage.  I have started two new series which have been very popular. The first series deals with Kate Middleton and Prince William and the second series has been concerning Arnold and Maria. I will post some links to past […]

Kate Middleton and Prince William: Marriage made in Heaven? (Part 56)

Britain’s Prince William, center left, and his wife Kate, Duchess of Cambridge, center right, pose for a photograph with, clockwise from bottom right, Margarita Armstrong-Jones, Eliza Lopes, Grace van Cutsem, Lady Louise Windsor, Tom Pettifer, and William Lowther-Pinkerton in the Throne Room at Buckingham Palace, following their wedding at Westminster Abbey, London, on Friday, April […]

Kate Middleton and Prince William: Marriage made in Heaven? (Part 55)

The Royal Wedding Ceremony of William and Kate Live part 3/4 I really do wish Kate and William success in their marriage. I hope they truly are committed to each other, and if they are then the result will be a marriage that lasts their whole lifetime. Nevertheless, I do not think it is best […]

John Quincy Adams a founding father?

I do  not think that John Quincy Adams was a founding father in the same sense that his  father was. However, I do think he was involved in the  early days of our government working with many of the founding fathers.

Michele Bachmann got into another history-related tussle on ABC’s “Good  Morning America” today, standing by a statement she made praising the founding  fathers for having “worked tirelessly to end slavery.”

ABC’s George Stephanopoulos asked Bachmann to defend that comment, given the  fact that the U.S. founders helped enshrine slavery in the Constitution and  allowed it to continue as an institution until the Civil War.

Bachmann responded by pointing to the career of John Quincy  Adams, the abolitionist president who was not yet 9 years old when the  Declaration of Independence was signed.

“If you look at one of our founding fathers, John Quincy Adams, that’s  absolutely true,” Bachmann said. “He was a very young boy, but he was with his  father, serving essentially as his father’s secretary. He tirelessly worked  throughout his life to make sure that we did, in fact, one day eradicate slavery  from our nation, and I’m so grateful for that work.”

Stephanopoulos responded: “He wasn’t one of the founding fathers. He was a  president, he was a secretary of state. As a member of Congress, you’re right,  he did work to end slavery decades later. But — so you’re standing by this  comment that the founding fathers worked tirelessly to end slavery?”

“Well John Quincy Adams most certainly was part of the Revolutionary War  era,” Bachmann said. “He was a young boy but he was actively involved.”

Aaron Goldstein rightly asserted:

However, what Jeff omits is that during the Stephanopoulos interview, Michele Bachmann identified John Quincy Adams as a Founding Father. The Declaration of Independence was adopted a week shy of his ninth birthday. Now Bachmann is correct in saying that John Quincy Adams was actively involved during the Revolutionary War Era. In fact, he was given his first diplomatic posting in Europe at the tender age of ten. It would have been more accurate for Bachmann to describe John Quincy Adams as a Son of the American Revolution

David Barton in his 4 of July  article commented:

In 1837, when
he was 69 years old, he delivered a Fourth of July speech at Newburyport,
Massachusetts. He began that address with a question: “Why is it, friends and
fellow citizens, that you are here assembled? Why is it that entering on the
62nd year of our national existence you have honored [me] with an invitation to
address you. . . ?”

The answer
was easy: they had asked him to address them because he was old enough to
remember what went on; they wanted an eye-witness to tell them of it! He next
asked them: “Why is it that, next to the birthday of the Savior of the world,
your most joyous and most venerated festival returns on this day [the Fourth of
July]?”

An
interesting question: why is it that in America the Fourth of July and Christmas
were our two top holidays? Note his answer: “Is it not that, in the chain of
human events, the birthday of the nation is indissolubly linked with the
birthday of the Savior? That it forms a leading event in the progress of the
Gospel dispensation? Is it not that the Declaration of Independence first
organized the social compact on the foundation of the Redeemer’s mission upon
earth? That it laid the cornerstone of human government upon the first precepts
of Christianity?”

According to
John Quincy Adams, Christmas and the Fourth of July were intrinsically
connected. On the Fourth of July, the Founders
simply took the precepts of Christ which came into the world through His birth
(Christmas) and incorporated those principles into civil government.

Have you ever
considered what it meant for those 56 men – an eclectic group of ministers,
business men, teachers, university professors, sailors, captains, farmers – to
sign the Declaration of Independence? This was a contract that began with the
reasons for the separation from Great Britain and closed in the final paragraph
stating “And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the
protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our
fortunes, and our sacred honor.”

 

David Barton in his article “The Founding Fathers on Jesus, Christianity and the Bible,” noted:

SIXTH PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES; DIPLOMAT; SECRETARY OF STATE; U.
S. SENATOR; U. S. REPRESENTATIVE; “OLD MAN ELOQUENT”; “HELL-HOUND OF ABOLITION”

My hopes of a future life are all founded upon the Gospel of Christ and I
cannot cavil or quibble away [evade or object to]. . . . the whole tenor of His
conduct by which He sometimes positively asserted and at others countenances
[permits] His disciples in asserting that He was God.7

The hope of a Christian is inseparable from his faith. Whoever believes in
the Divine inspiration of the Holy Scriptures must hope that the religion of
Jesus shall prevail throughout the earth. Never since the foundation of the
world have the prospects of mankind been more encouraging to that hope than they
appear to be at the present time. And may the associated distribution of the
Bible proceed and prosper till the Lord shall have made “bare His holy arm in
the eyes of all the nations, and all the ends of the earth shall see the
salvation of our God” [Isaiah 52:10].8

In the chain of human events, the birthday of the nation is indissolubly
linked with the birthday of the Savior. The Declaration of Independence laid the
cornerstone of human government upon the first precepts of Christianity.9

John Quincy Adams

Sixth President of the United
States

The law given from Sinai was a civil and municipal as well as a
moral and religious code; it contained many statutes . . . of universal
application-laws essential to the existence of men in society, and most of which
have been enacted by every nation which ever professed any code of laws.

(Source: John Quincy Adams, Letters of John
Quincy Adams, to His Son, on the Bible and Its Teachings
(Auburn: James M.
Alden, 1850), p. 61.)

There are three points of doctrine the belief of which forms the
foundation of all morality. The first is the existence of God; the second is the
immortality of the human soul; and the third is a future state of rewards and
punishments. Suppose it possible for a man to disbelieve either of these three
articles of faith and that man will have no conscience, he will have no other
law than that of the tiger or the shark. The laws of man may bind him in chains
or may put him to death, but they never can make him wise, virtuous, or
happy.

(Source: John Quincy Adams, Letters of John
Quincy Adams to His Son on the Bible and Its Teachings
(Auburn: James M.
Alden, 1850), pp. 22-23.)

______________________

Senator Pryor asks for Spending Cut Suggestions! Here are a few!(Part 74)

Senator Mark Pryor wants our ideas on how to cut federal spending. Take a look at this video clip below:

Senator Pryor has asked us to send our ideas to him at cutspending@pryor.senate.gov and I have done so in the past and will continue to do so in the future.

On May 11, 2011,  I emailed to this above address and I got this email back from Senator Pryor’s office:

Please note, this is not a monitored email account. Due to the sheer volume of correspondence I receive, I ask that constituents please contact me via my website with any responses or additional concerns. If you would like a specific reply to your message, please visit http://pryor.senate.gov/contact. This system ensures that I will continue to keep Arkansas First by allowing me to better organize the thousands of emails I get from Arkansans each week and ensuring that I have all the information I need to respond to your particular communication in timely manner.  I appreciate you writing. I always welcome your input and suggestions. Please do not hesitate to contact me on any issue of concern to you in the future.

Here are a few more I just emailed to him myself:

GUIDELINE #3: Privatize activities that could be performed better by the private sector.
Over the past two decades, nations across the globe have reaped the benefits of privatization, which empowers the private sector to carry out functions that had been performed by government. In the 1980s, British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher saved taxpayers billions of dollars and improved the British economy by privatizing utilities, telecommunications, and airports. More recently, the former Soviet republics and China have seen the promise of privatization. The United States, however, has been uncharacteristically timid in recent years.
There is little economic justification for the government to run businesses that the private sector can run itself. Even when there is a compelling reason for government to regulate or subsidize businesses, it can do so without seizing ownership of them. Government failures are often larger than market failures, and anyone who has dealt with the post office, lived in public housing, or visited a local department of motor vehicles understands how wasteful, inefficient, and unresponsive government can be.
Furthermore, government ownership crowds out private companies and encourages protected entities to take unnecessary risks. After promising profits, government-owned businesses frequently lose billions of dollars, leaving the taxpayers to foot the bill.
Entrenched opposition to privatization, which comes mostly from interest groups representing government monopolies, has been overcome elsewhere by (1) working with government unions and relevant interest groups to design privatization proposals, (2) offering low-cost stock options to current employees, and (3) ensuring a transparent, open bidding process.
Candidates for privatization are numerous.4 Congress should:
  • Sell the remaining Power Marketing Administrations through a stock offering (2004 spending: $155 million, discretionary);5
  • Require that the Corporation for Public Broadcasting fund itself as all other television networks do ($437 million, discretionary);
  • Privatize the Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation ($14 million, discretionary);
  • Allow government agencies to accept bids on government printing jobs instead of having to use the Government Printing Office (GPO) ($130 million, discretionary);
  • Shift the National Agricultural Statistics Service to the private sector ($124 million, discretionary);
  • Sell Amtrak through a stock offering ($1,334 million, discretionary);
  • Privatize the next-generation high-speed rail program ($27 million, discretionary);
  • Turn over the foreign market development program to the assisted industries ($24 million, mandatory);
  • Privatize ineffective applied research programs for energy conversation research, fossil fuels, and solar and renewable energy ($1,640 million, discretionary);
  • Sell many of the federal government’s 1,200 civilian aircraft and 380,000 non-tactical, non-postal vehicles;
  • Shift the Energy Information Agency’s duties to the private sector ($78 million, discretionary);
  • Privatize the Architect of the Capitol ($534 million, discretionary); and
  • Privatize-commercialize air traffic control operations and fully fund with user fees.
Government-owned enterprises are not the only candidates for privatization. In 2003, taxpayers were on the hook for the federal government’s $249 billion in outstanding direct loans and $1,184 billion in outstanding guaranteed loans. Government loans typically undercut the financial services industry, which has sufficient resources to provide loans to businesses and
individuals.
Even worse, government often serves as a lender of last resort to organizations that private banks do not consider qualified for loans, and the low-cost nature of government loans encourages recipients to take unnecessary risks with their federal dollars. Consequently, a high percentage of federal loans are in default, and taxpayers were saddled with $17 billion in direct loan write-offs and guaranteed loan terminations in 2003.6
Therefore, Congress should:
  • Begin selling government direct loan programs and create new agency loan guarantees such as those of the Rural Utilities Service, Small Business Administration, Export-Import Bank, and Rural Housing Service.

The Characters referenced in Woody Allen’s “Midnight in Paris” (Part 21,Versailles and the French Revolution)

In Woody Allen’s movie “Midnight in Paris” Gil and his friends take a tour of Versailles (pictured below). In a comical scene from that movie the detective that is following Gil finds himself at Versailles back at the time of the French Revolution and he intrudes in on the king and queen of France. Then he runs for his life because the king sends the guards after him with the instruction “Off with his head.”

What actually happened in the French Revolution? Did you know that Robespierre, who was the leader of the French Revolution, was himself executed? He was held in the same containment chamber where Marie Antoinette, the wife of King Louis XVI, had been held.  On July 28, 1794, Robespierre was guillotined without trial in the Place de la Révolution. Why did the French Revolution include 40,000 executed – many of them peasants? It could be traced back to philosophical origins of the French Revolution and the rejection of what Francis Schaeffer calls the Reformation base.

Robespierre was a follower of Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712-1778) and Rousseau advocated the idea of autonomous freedom: that “man was born free,” but that “everywhere he is in chains.” What man must do, therefore, is to throw off the fetters of culture and religion. Therefore, there was no Reformation base (which the Bible gives) to make moral judgements concerning society. Schaeffer notes, “If there is no moral absolute by which to judge society, then society is absolute.” One is only left with what is, and as Marquis de Sade recognized, this leads to the conclusion that what is is right (cruelty to women for instance according to Marquis de Sade).

allen_woody

I am a big Woody Allen movie fan and no other movie better demonstrates man’s need for God more  than Allen’s 1989 film  Crimes and Misdemeanors. This film also brought up the view that Hitler believed that “might made right.” How can an atheist argue against that?  Basically Woody Allen is attacking the weaknesses in his own agnostic point of view!! Take a look at the video clip below when he says in the absence of God, man has to do the right thing. What chance is there that will happen?

Crimes and Misdemeanors is  about a eye doctor who hires a killer to murder his mistress because she continually threatens to blow the whistle on his past questionable, probably illegal, business activities. Afterward he is haunted by guilt. His Jewish father had taught him that God sees all and will surely punish the evildoer.

But the doctor’s crime is never discovered. Later in the film, Judah reflects on the conversation his father had with Judah’s unbelieving Aunt May during a Jewish Sedar dinner  many years ago:

“Come on Sol, open your eyes. Six million Jews burned to death by the Nazi’s, and they got away with it because might makes right,” says Aunt May.

Sol replies, “May, how did they get away with it?”

Judah asks, “If a man kills, then what?”

Sol responds to his son, “Then in one way or another he will be punished.”

Aunt May comments, “I say if he can do it and get away with it and he chooses not to be bothered by the ethics, then he is home free.”

Judah’s final conclusion was that might did make right. He observed that one day, because of this conclusion, he woke up and the cloud of guilt was gone. He was, as his aunt said, “home free.”

The basic question Woody Allen is presenting to his own agnostic humanistic worldview is: If you really believe there is no God there to punish you in an afterlife, then why not murder if you can get away with it?  The secular humanist worldview that modern man has adopted does not work in the real world that God has created. God “has planted eternity in the human heart…” (Ecclesiastes 3:11). This is a direct result of our God-given conscience. The apostle Paul said it best in Romans 1:19, “For that which is known about God is evident to them and made plain in their inner consciousness, because God  has shown it to them” (Amplified Version).

Crimes and Misdemeanors (Woody Allen – 1989) – Final scenes

It’s no wonder, then, that one of Allen’s fellow humanists would comment, “Certain moral truths — such as do not kill, do not steal, and do not lie — do have a special status of being not just ‘mere opinion’ but bulwarks of humanitarian action. I have no intention of saying, ‘I think Hitler was wrong.’ Hitler WAS wrong.” (Gloria Leitner, “A Perspective on Belief,” The Humanist, May/June 1997, pp.38-39). Here Leitner is reasoning from her God-given conscience and not from humanist philosophy. It wasn’t long before she received criticism.

Humanist Abigail Ann Martin responded, “Neither am I an advocate of Hitler; however, by whose criteria is he evil?” (The Humanist, September/October 1997, p. 2.). Humanists don’t really have an intellectual basis for saying that Hitler was wrong, but their God-given conscience tells them that they are wrong on this issue.

Below is a study by Francis Schaeffer that makes the point that the French Revolution and the Communist Revolution in Russia should be compared.

E P I S O D E 5

How Should We Then Live Pt 5

T h e

REVOLUTIONARY AGE

I. Bible as Absolute Base for Law

A. Paul Robert’s mural in Lausanne.

B. Rutherford’s Lex Rex  (Law Is King): Freedom without chaos; government by law rather than arbitrary government by men.

C. Impact of biblical political principles in America.

1. Rutherford’s influence on U.S. Constitution: directly through Witherspoon; indirectly through Locke’s secularized version of biblical politics.

2. Locke’s ideas inconsistent when divorced from Christianity.

3. One can be personally non-Christian, yet benefit from Christian foundations: e.g. Jefferson and other founders.

II. The Reformation and Checks and Balances

A. Humanist and Reformation views of politics contrasted.

B. Sin is reason for checks and balances in Reformed view: Calvin’s position at Geneva examined.

C. Checks and balances in Protestant lands prevented bloody resolution of tensions.

D. Elsewhere, without this biblically rooted principle, tensions had to be resolved violently.

III. Contrast Between English and French Political Experience

A. Voltaire’s admiration of English conditions.

B. Peaceful nature of the Bloodless Revolution of 1688 in England related to Reformation base.

C. Attempt to achieve political change in France on English lines, but on Enlightenment base, produced a bloodbath and a dictatorship.

1. Constructive change impossible on finite human base.

2. Declaration of Rights of Man, the rush to extremes, and the Goddess of Reason.

3. Anarchy or repression: massacres, Robespierre, the Terror.

4. Idea of perfectibility of Man maintained even during the Terror.

IV. Anglo-American Experience Versus Franco-Russian

A. Reformation experience of freedom without chaos contrasts with that of Marxist-Leninist Russia.

B. Logic of Marxist-Leninism.

1. Marxism not a source of freedom.

2. 1917 Revolution taken over, not begun, by Bolsheviks.

3. Logic of communism: elite dictatorship, suppression of freedoms, coercion of allies.

V. Reformation Christianity and Humanism: Fruits Compared

A. Reformation gave absolutes to counter injustices; where Christians failed they were untrue to their principles.

B. Humanism has no absolute way of determining values consistently.

C. Differences practical, not just theoretical: Christian absolutes give limited government; denial of absolutes gives arbitrary rule.

VI. Weaknesses Which Developed Later in Reformation Countries

A. Slavery and race prejudice.

1. Failure to live up to biblical belief produces cruelty.

2. Hypocritical exploitation of other races.

3. Church’s failure to speak out sufficiently against this hypocrisy.

B. Noncompassionate use of accumulated wealth.

1. Industrialism not evil in itself, but only through greed and lack of compassion.

2. Labor exploitation and gap in living standards.

3. Church’s failure to testify enough against abuses.

C. Positive face of Reformation Christianity toward social evil.

1. Christianity not the only influence on consensus.

a) Church’s silence betrayed; did not reflect what it said it believed.

b) Non-Christian influences also important at that time; and many so-called Christians were “social” Christians only.

2. Contributions of Christians to social reform.

a) Varied efforts in slave trade, prisons, factories.

(1) Wesley, Newton, Clarkson, Wilberforce, and abolition of slavery.

(2) Howard, Elizabeth Fry, and prison reforms.

(3) Lord Shaftesbury and reform in the factories.

b) Impact of Whitefield-Wesley revivals on society.

VII. Reformation Did Not Bring Perfection

But gradually on basis of biblical teaching there was a unique improvement.

A. With Bible the ordinary citizen could say that majority was wrong.

B. Tremendous freedom without chaos because Bible gives a base for law.

Questions

1. What has been the role of biblical principles in the legal and political history of the countries studied?

2. Is it true that lands influenced by the Reformation escaped political violence because biblical concepts were acted upon?

3. What are the core distinctions, in terms of ideology and results, between English and American Revolutions on the one hand, and the French and Russian on the other hand?

4. What were the weaknesses which developed at a later date in countries which had a Reformation history?

5. Dr. Schaeffer believes that basic to action is an idea, and that the history of the West in the last two or three centuries has been marked by a humanism pressed to its tragic conclusions and by a Christianity insufficiently applied to the totality of life. How should Christians then approach participation in social and political affairs?

Key Events and Persons

Calvin: 1509-1564

Samuel Rutherford: 1600-1661

Rutherford’s Lex Rex: 1644

John Locke: 1631-1704

John Wesley: 1703-1791

Voltaire: 1694-1778

Letters on the English Nation: 1733

George Whitefield: 1714-1770

John Witherspoon: 1723-1794

John Newton: 1725-1807

John Howard: 1726-1790

Jefferson: 1743-1826

Robespierre: 1758-1794

Wilberforce: 1759-1833

Clarkson: 1760-1846

Napoleon: 1769-1821

Elizabeth Fry: 1780-1845

Declaration of Rights of Man: 1789

National Constituent Assembly: 1789-1791

Second French Revolution and Revolutionary Calendar: 1792

The Reign of Terror: 1792-1794

Lord Shaftesbury: 1801-1855

English slave trade ended: 1807

Slavery ended in Great Britain and Empire: 1833

Karl Marx: 1818-1883

Lenin: 1870-1924

Trotsky: 1879-1940

Stalin: 1879-1953

February and October Russian Revolutions: 1917

Berlin Wall: 1961

Czechoslovakian repression: 1968

Further Study

Charles Breunig, The Age of Revolution and Reaction: 1789-1850 (1970).

R.N. Carew Hunt, The Theory and Practice of Communism (1963).

Charles Dickens, A Tale of Two Cities (1957).

Peter Gay, ed., Deism: An Anthology (1968).

John McManners, The French Revolution and the Church (1970).

Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, Manifesto of the Communist Party (1957).

Louis L. Snyder, ed., The Age of Reason (1955).

David B. Davis, The Problem of Slavery in Western Culture (1975).

J. Kuczynski, The Rise of the Working Class (1971).

Edmund S. Morgan, The Puritan Dilemma (1958).

John Newton, Out of the Depths. An Autobiography.

John Wesley, Journal (1 vol. abridge).

C. Woodham-Smith, The Great Hunger, Ireland, 1845-1849 (1964).

Some may argue that Paris is one of the most beautiful cities in the world. Midnight in Paris takes you on a magical tour of the city in this Twilight Zone style.

Gil (Owen Wilson) is a screenwriter feverishly working on his first novel while in Paris with his fiancée Inez (played by the stunning Rachel McAdams). After leaving a wine tasting, Gil stumbles into an old fashioned cab and is transported into 1920’s Paris. While in this strange time portal Gil comes face to face with some of the great minds of our culture like Gerald and F. Scott Fitzgerald, Ernest Hemingway, Pablo Picasso, and Inception’s Marion Cotillard as Adriana. Each character Gil runs into allows him to develop his novel even further. He begins to travel each night to continue writing and soak up more of the Parisian culture.

Midnight in Paris may look and feel like a 100 minute postcard for Paris most of the film, but underneath it all, Woody Allen snuck in a thought provoking concept on how we view nostalgia. Allen questions the concept of nostalgia and how we view it. It was so nicely woven into the story that you don’t even realize it.

I’ve watched enough sci-fi to know the time travel logistics don’t really make sense. The film doesn’t even bother explaining it. I’m sure Woody Allen could take time to tell us, but who really cares? Any reason to visit 1920’s Paris was good enough. The characters were poorly developed – that didn’t matter either. All that matters is we watched the characters walked the beautiful streets at night. The most entertaining character is Corey Stoll as Ernest Hemingway. He plays Hemingway as a hilarious blend of Don Draper and Indiana Jones. It’s not how I pictured Hemingway nevertheless I did enjoy it.

My Grade B-

If you’ve been to Paris, this film will make you want to go back. If you’ve never been, it will make you want book a flight immediately. The shots of the city are amazing. The two-minute intro doesn’t even seem that long because the shots are so breathtaking. Midnight in Paris may not be the summer’s best movie, but it’s the cheapest vacation to Paris you’re ever going to get.

Other posts on “Midnight in Paris”:”

The Characters referenced in Woody Allen’s “Midnight in Paris” (Part 21,Versailles and the French Revolution)

In Woody Allen’s movie “Midnight in Paris” Gil and his friends take a tour of Versailles (pictured below). In a comical scene from that movie the detective that is following Gil finds himself at Versailles back at the time of the French Revolution and he intrudes in on the king and queen of France. Then […]

The Characters referenced in Woody Allen’s “Midnight in Paris” (Part 20, King Louis XVI of France)

  I am presently going through all the historical figures that are mentioned in the Woody Allen movie “Midnight in Paris.” Today I am discussing Marie Antoinette’s husband King Louis XVI of France. Pictured above you can see Gil and Inez on their visit to tour Versailles with their snobby friend Paul. Paul goes on to […]

The Characters referenced in Woody Allen’s “Midnight in Paris” (Part 19,Marie Antoinette)

Marie Antoinette: The Last Queen of France (part1/12) I am presently going through all the historical figures that are mentioned in the Woody Allen movie “Midnight in Paris.” Today I am discussing Marie Antoinette. In the movie you can see Gil and Inez on their visit to tour Versailles with their snobby friend Paul. Paul goes on […]

The Characters referenced in Woody Allen’s “Midnight in Paris” (Part 18, Claude Monet)

The British gardener who’s taking care of Monet’s water lilies   By John Lichfield in Paris Thursday, 5 May 2011 PA/ REX FEATURES James Priest, the new head gardener at Giverny. Monet’s White Water Lilies, 1899, right British gardener is to take over one of the most venerated plots of ground in the world: the […]

The Characters referenced in Woody Allen’s “Midnight in Paris” (Part 17, J. M. W. Turner)

J. M. W. Turner Biography   View Larger Image > ( 1775 – 1851 ) I have enjoyed going through the artists referenced in Woody Allen’s movie “Midnight in Paris.” Paul is the snobby expert on impressionist art that talks about Monet at the museum but he notes that Turner was actually really the author […]

The characters referenced in Woody Allen’s “Midnight in Paris” (Part 16, Josephine Baker)

I have been going through the characters in Woody Allen’s movie “Midnight in Paris,” and now I am posting about Josephine Baker. By the way, I know that some of you are wondering how many posts I will have before I am finished. Right now I have plans to look at Van Gogh, Picasso, Man […]

Brummett: Real reason the debt is so big is because the rich are not taxed enough (Real Cause of Deficit Pt 13)

John Brummett asserts that liberals are right about the cause of the deficit. He asserts in his article “Harry let us down,” Arkansas News Bureau, April 4, 2011:

He is right that the actual deficit is caused by direct government spending exceeding income, an imbalance mostly caused, he will tell you with some justification, by the fact that we don’t tax rich people as much as we did in happier and more prosperous times.

We have heard the liberals say for years that Bush put us into this horrible position of deficits because of his tax cuts of 2001 and 2003. However, if Bush was responsible for taking the 236 billion surplus he inherited in 2000 and turning everything downward because of the tax cuts, then why did we only have a budget deficit of 161 billion in 2007?

Brian Riedl is the author of the article “The Three Biggest Myths About Tax Cuts and the Budget Deficit,” (Heritage Foundation, June 21, 2010), and I have enjoyed sharing this article with you in the last few days. I also found a lot of good information in the Appendix too. Here it is below.

Brian Riedl is The Heritage Foundation’s lead budget analyst and has built a solid reputation for interpreting, explaining and reforming the often arcane realm of federal budget policy.

Indeed, much of the current backlash against runaway federal spending can be attributed to Riedl’s work. As far back as 2002 and 2003, his writings exposed the beginnings of a federal spending spree that was pushing real federal spending to more than $20,000 per household for the first time since World War II.

Appendix

Methodology

The purpose of this study was to create a budget baseline reflecting an extension of current tax and spending policies. The budget baseline is presented in Appendix Table 1.

Revenues

Revenue calculations begin with the January 2010 CBO current-law baseline and incorporate extensions of:

  1. The 2001 and 2003 tax cuts,
  2. The AMT patch, and
  3. Other expiring tax cuts that are typically extended annually, all using January 2010 and March 2010 CBO data.

The calculations also incorporate the CBO estimate of revenues from the new health care law through 2019, with the 2020 figure estimated.

Discretionary Spending

Discretionary spending figures are from the CBO’s January 2010 alternative scenario, which assumes that regular discretionary appropriations grow with the nominal GDP and that Iraq and Afghanistan spending remains on the “fast drawdown” scenario.

Entitlement Spending

Entitlement spending figures are the CBO’s January current-law baseline, adjusted to reflect:

  1. The annual Medicare physician payment fix,
  2. The outlay effects of 2001 and 2003 tax cut extenders, and
  3. The new health care law.

Medicare spending is net of offsetting receipts.

Net Interest Spending

Net interest spending figures are from January 2010 CBO current-law baseline, adjusted to include the CBO estimate of the interest costs of all of the above adjustments.

Historical Averages

Historical tax and spending averages are the averages for 1960 through 2009.

Current-Policy Budget Baseline - Nominal Dollars

Current-Policy Budget Baseline - Percentage of GDP

_____________________________________

What does the Heritage Foundation have to say about our potential choices concerning federal spending:Study released May 10, 2011 (Part 2)

Government Must Cut Spending

 

“Saving the American Dream: The Heritage Plan to Fix the Debt, Cut Spending, and Restore Prosperity,” Heritage Foundation, May 10, 2011 by  Stuart Butler, Ph.D. , Alison Acosta Fraser and William Beachis one of the finest papers I have ever read. Over the next few days I will post portions of this paper, but I will start off with the section on federal spending reform.

The Details

Returning Most Non-Defense Discretionary Spending to 2008 Levels.
Non-defense discretionary spending has expanded 21 percent faster than
inflation over the past three years. Returning to 2008 levels still leaves
typical programs nearly one-third larger than they were in 2000 (adjusted for
inflation). Freezing this spending at 2008 levels through 2015 and then capping
subsequent growth at the inflation rate would save more than $2 trillion in the
first decade and even more thereafter.

Many of these savings are achieved by reducing the size of the federal
bureaucracy, overhauling the federal pay system, permanently eliminating many
earmarked accounts, and consolidating duplicative functions. Yet not all
programs are affected equally. For example, Coast Guard and other important
security spending rises under the plan, while lower-priority spending, such as
subsidies to public broadcasting, AmeriCorps, the National Endowment for the
Arts, and the National Endowment for the Humanities, is left to the private
sector.

Devolving or Privatizing Most Transportation Spending. Under the
federal highway program, Washington collects the 18.3 cents-per-gallon gas tax
from states, subtracts a large administrative fee, and returns the remaining
funds to the states with numerous strings attached, including many requirements
to spend the dollars on congressional earmarks and for specific uses that may
not coincide with local needs. The Heritage plan reforms this inherently
wasteful system by devolving the highway program and gas tax to the states,
thereby eliminating the federal middleman and allowing states to retain the gas
tax revenues and spend them on their own highway priorities, provided they
maintain a minimum standard of interstate highway maintenance.

The Heritage plan ends federal funding for passenger rail, saving money on
projects that invariably have ridership that is far below projections and costs
that far exceed initial budgets. Amtrak subsidies are phased out over three
years, the President’s costly high-speed rail program is terminated, and
subsidies to for-profit freight railroads are ended. This relieves states of the
upkeep and maintenance burdens associated with rail programs that Washington is
currently pressuring them to undertake. The private sector and state governments
can either take over or terminate these rail programs as they see fit.

Finally, all non-safety functions of the Federal Aviation Administration
(FAA) are transferred to the private sector, and most FAA fees are eliminated.
The air traffic control system will be transferred to the private sector, where
it belongs, and financed by flight ticket user fees. The airport improvement
program is also terminated, with airlines, state government, and private
investment taking the place of the federal taxpayer.

Senator Pryor asks for Spending Cut Suggestions! Here are a few!(Part 73)

Senator Mark Pryor wants our ideas on how to cut federal spending. Take a look at this video clip below:

Senator Pryor has asked us to send our ideas to him at cutspending@pryor.senate.gov and I have done so in the past and will continue to do so in the future.

On May 11, 2011,  I emailed to this above address and I got this email back from Senator Pryor’s office:

Please note, this is not a monitored email account. Due to the sheer volume of correspondence I receive, I ask that constituents please contact me via my website with any responses or additional concerns. If you would like a specific reply to your message, please visit http://pryor.senate.gov/contact. This system ensures that I will continue to keep Arkansas First by allowing me to better organize the thousands of emails I get from Arkansans each week and ensuring that I have all the information I need to respond to your particular communication in timely manner.  I appreciate you writing. I always welcome your input and suggestions. Please do not hesitate to contact me on any issue of concern to you in the future.

Here are a few more I just emailed to him myself:

GUIDELINE #2: Turn local programs back to the states.
Only the federal government can handle national defense, international relations, and the administration of federal laws. But why should politicians in Washington decide which roads are built in Appleton, Wisconsin? Or which community development projects are funded in St. Louis, Missouri? Or how education dollars are spent in Cheyenne, Wyoming?
The federal government taxes families, subtracts a hefty administrative cost, and then sends the remaining tax revenues back to the state and local governmentswith specific rules dictating how they may and may not spend the money. In that sense, the federal government is merely an expensive middleman, contributing little more than meddling mandates that constrain the flexibility that state and local governments need to address their own issues creatively.
No distant bureaucrat in Washington, D.C., can know which policies are best for every state and locality. One-size-fits-all federal mandates rarely succeed as well as flexible programs designed by state and local officials who are closer to the people affected. Moreover, legislators have little incentive to design programs that work beyond their home constituencies.
State and local governments, which often consider federal grants “free money,” also lack sufficient incentives to spend this money well because they did not have to extract the taxes themselves. (Many seem to forget the high federal taxes that local residents paid for this “free money.”) Consequently, local officials rarely object to federal grants for unnecessary projects.
Few local governments, for example, would consider taxing their own residents to fund the following pork-barrel projects found in the 2004 federal budget:2
  • $725,000 for the Please Touch Museum in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania;
  • $200,000 for the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame in Cleveland, Ohio;
  • $150,000 for a single traffic light in Briarcliff Manor, New York;
  • $100,000 for the International Storytelling Center in Jonesborough, Tennessee;
  • $500,000 for the Montana Sheep Institute; and
  • $50 million to construct an indoor rainforest in Coralville, Iowa.
The federal government can promote accountability, flexibility, and local control by eliminating many of the mandates on how state and local governments address their own issues and letting them raise their own revenues and create their own programs without meddling Washington bureaucrats and politicians. Specifically, Congress should:
  • Turn back the federal gas tax, as well as all federal highway and mass transit spending, to the states (2004 spending: $37 billion, discretionary);3
  • Devolve federal housing programs to state and local governments and cut federal strings on how the programs are operated ($31 billion, discretionary);
  • Send job training programs back to the states ($5,600 million, discretionary);
  • Transfer economic development programs (e.g., Community Development Block Grants, the Appalachian Regional Commission, the Denali Commission, and the Tennessee Valley Authority) back to the regions that best know how to address their local economies ($5,952 million, discretionary);
  • Devolve Bureau of Reclamation and Army Corps of Engineers projects to state and regional authorities ($5,614 million, discretionary);
  • Allow states flexibility and control over their own education programs;
  • Send the Superfund program to the states and allow local flexibility in deciding how to clean contaminated sites ($1,108 million, discretionary);
  • Turn back law enforcement grant programs to the states ($3,041 million, discretionary);
  • Devolve the Natural Resources Conservation Service to the states ($3,046 million, discretionary);
  • Transfer the Institute of Museum Services and Library Sciences to the states ($262 million, discretionary);
  • Devolve Youth Opportunity Grants to local governments ($40 million, discretionary);
  • Send the Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation to the cities it affects ($114 million, discretionary); and
  • Eliminate the practice of earmarking federal funds for local projects.

The Characters referenced in Woody Allen’s “Midnight in Paris” (Part 20, King Louis XVI of France)

I am presently going through all the historical figures that are mentioned in the Woody Allen movie “Midnight in Paris.” Today I am discussing Marie Antoinette’s husband King Louis XVI of France. Pictured above you can see Gil and Inez on their visit to tour Versailles with their snobby friend Paul.

Paul goes on to discuss Marie Antoinette and her husband. Also later in the film the detective that is charged with following Gil actually finds himself in the presence of the king and queen. They are upset at this and they tell the guards to take his head off!!!

Louis XVI, 1781 Louis XVI, 1781  © Louis was king of France when the monarchy was overthrown during the French Revolution. He was guillotined in 1793.

Louis was born at Versailles on 23 August 1754. In 1770, he married Marie Antoinette, daughter of the emperor and empress of Austria, a match intended to consolidate an alliance between France and Austria. In 1774, Louis succeeded his grandfather Louis XV as king of France.

Louis initially supported attempts by his ministers Jacques Turgot and later Jacques Necker to relieve France’s financial problems. French support for the colonists in the American War of Independence had brought the country to the verge of bankruptcy. Meanwhile, accusations of frivolity, extravagance and scandalous behaviour against the queen, Marie Antoinette, further discredited the monarchy.

In 1789, to avert the deepening crisis, Louis agreed to summon the ‘estates-general’ (a form of parliament, but without real power) in order to try and raise taxes. This was the first time the body had met since 1614. Angered by Louis’ refusal to allow the three estates – the first (clergy), second (nobles) and third (commons) – to meet simultaneously, the Third Estate proclaimed itself a national assembly, declaring that only it had the right to represent the nation.

Rumours that the king intended to suppress the assembly provoked the popular storming of the Bastille prison, a symbol of repressive royal power, on 14 July 1789. In October, Louis and his family were forced by the mob to return to Paris from their palace at Versailles. In June 1791, they attempted to escape, which was considered proof of Louis’ treasonable dealings with foreign powers. He was forced to accept a new constitution, thereby establishing a constitutional monarchy.

Nonetheless, against a background of military defeat by Austria and Prussia, the revolutionary leadership was becoming increasingly radicalised. In September 1792, the new National Convention abolished the monarchy and declared France a republic. Louis was found guilty of treason and executed at the guillotine on 21 January 1793. Marie Antoinette was executed nine months later.

KYW Newsradio 1060

(6/2/11)

As the old joke says, nostalgia just ain’t what it used to be. And here’s Woody Allen’s latest comedy to prove it.

3 skirt Movie Review: Midnight in ParisIt wouldn’t be fair or accurate to call Midnight in Paris a comeback for prolific and accomplished Allen, even though his last outing, You Will Meet a Tall Dark Stranger, was certainly subpar.

That’s because the two films of Allen’s that preceded that one — Vicki Christina Barcelona and Whatever Works — were strong and memorable.

So we shouldn’t be surprised that Midnight in Paris, the writer-director’s 44th film, is a delightful and witty wish-fulfillment fantasy, a tightrope act that impresses us all the way across.

Like Clint Eastwood, Allen keeps delivering, going strong in the twilight of his directorial career.  And no longer anchored in New York, he has now concocted cinematic chronicles in London, Barcelona, and Paris as well.

Midnight in Paris opens with a montage, a tribute that celebrates the City of Light in the same way that the opening of Allen’s Manhattancelebrates the City That Never Sleeps.

Owen Wilson stars as Gil, a successful Hollywood screenwriter who wishes he could be the novelist he has always aspired to be.  He is writing a novel about a guy who owns a nostalgia shop, but he is stuck.

He has come to Paris with his fiancée (a thankless role played by a miscast Rachel MacAdams) and her parents.  They want to see the expected tourist attractions, but Gil — who idealizes and yearns for the Paris of days gone by (the Golden Age of the 1920s, to be precise) when artists would flock to Paris and would turn out important, lasting work in each other’s company, prefers to wander the streets.

Which he does, late at night, and suddenly finds himself in the company of some vaguely familiar writers and artists who couldn’t possibly still be partaking of Paris nightlife.

Because a good deal of the fun of Midnight in Paris is discovering just who Gil runs into and how and by whom they are depicted, let’s drop the narrative description at this point except to say that the literary Paris of the 1920s — of, say, Hemingway and Fitzgerald — is just that, and that Allen’s terrific supporting cast includes such luminaries as Kathy Bates, Adrien Brody, Michael Sheen, and Marion Cotillard.

Amazed, charmed, seduced, excited, and powerless to resist, and on the verge of some sort of romantic involvement of one sort or another, Gil finds reasons to return late each night — to the consternation and disappointment of his fiancée and her parents — eager to re-experience the good old days while the denizens of the 1920s look back longingly at the turn of that century.

The theme of depending on, and retreating into, fantasy beyond the point of reason has been an abiding one throughout Allen’s writing and directing careers, and this film plays as a companion piece to his earlier and similarly wistful comic fantasy, The Purple Rose of Cairo,in which a fictional Jeff Daniels reached out to living and breathing Mia Farrow from the other side of the movie screen.

Allen has addressed the theme in a winning, playful way, finishing off the soufflé with just a dash of magical realism, a pinch of time travel, and a sprinkling of in jokes and one-liners.

The ensemble is in good form, but it should be mentioned that Wilson, who does not come immediately to mind as a Woody Allen alter ego, does a splendid job of capturing the angst and yearning of his character, and getting the intended laughs with his incredulity and surrender, and does so without abandoning his style or persona by imitating the delivery of his director in the way of quite a few actors before him.

So we’ll always have 3 stars out of 4 for Woody Allen’s fine flight of fancy, Midnight in Paris, a lighthearted and clearheaded comedy that also serves as a love letter to Paris.

Play it again, Woody!

Other posts on “Midnight in Paris”:”

The Characters referenced in Woody Allen’s “Midnight in Paris” (Part 21,Versailles and the French Revolution)

In Woody Allen’s movie “Midnight in Paris” Gil and his friends take a tour of Versailles (pictured below). In a comical scene from that movie the detective that is following Gil finds himself at Versailles back at the time of the French Revolution and he intrudes in on the king and queen of France. Then […]

The Characters referenced in Woody Allen’s “Midnight in Paris” (Part 20, King Louis XVI of France)

  I am presently going through all the historical figures that are mentioned in the Woody Allen movie “Midnight in Paris.” Today I am discussing Marie Antoinette’s husband King Louis XVI of France. Pictured above you can see Gil and Inez on their visit to tour Versailles with their snobby friend Paul. Paul goes on to […]

The Characters referenced in Woody Allen’s “Midnight in Paris” (Part 19,Marie Antoinette)

Marie Antoinette: The Last Queen of France (part1/12) I am presently going through all the historical figures that are mentioned in the Woody Allen movie “Midnight in Paris.” Today I am discussing Marie Antoinette. In the movie you can see Gil and Inez on their visit to tour Versailles with their snobby friend Paul. Paul goes on […]

The Characters referenced in Woody Allen’s “Midnight in Paris” (Part 18, Claude Monet)

The British gardener who’s taking care of Monet’s water lilies   By John Lichfield in Paris Thursday, 5 May 2011 PA/ REX FEATURES James Priest, the new head gardener at Giverny. Monet’s White Water Lilies, 1899, right British gardener is to take over one of the most venerated plots of ground in the world: the […]

The Characters referenced in Woody Allen’s “Midnight in Paris” (Part 17, J. M. W. Turner)

J. M. W. Turner Biography   View Larger Image > ( 1775 – 1851 ) I have enjoyed going through the artists referenced in Woody Allen’s movie “Midnight in Paris.” Paul is the snobby expert on impressionist art that talks about Monet at the museum but he notes that Turner was actually really the author […]

The characters referenced in Woody Allen’s “Midnight in Paris” (Part 16, Josephine Baker)

I have been going through the characters in Woody Allen’s movie “Midnight in Paris,” and now I am posting about Josephine Baker. By the way, I know that some of you are wondering how many posts I will have before I am finished. Right now I have plans to look at Van Gogh, Picasso, Man […]

Madison, WI Union Debate (part 3)

A helpful primer on the rise of government unions and the monopoly power given to them through collective bargaining.

Chris Edwards wrote an excellent article “Madison Protest: Unions are Angry– but Wisconsin Should Go Even Further,” Feb 18, 2011, Cato Institute and I will posted portions of that article the next few days.

High cost of “generosity”
Defined benefit pension plans are available to about four-fifths of state and local workers but just one-fifth of private workers. And public sector plans are typically about twice as generous as remaining private plans. That generosity has led to a $3 trillion funding gap in public sector pensions. That gap will create a huge burden on future taxpayers unless benefits are cut, and unions often stand in the way of such reforms.

Unions increase government costs in other ways. They often protect poorly performing workers, and they usually push for larger staffing levels than required. Unions typically discourage the use of inexpensive volunteers in government activities, and they create a more bureaucratic and inefficient workplace.

Unionism seems to coincide with poor state government management. States with higher public sector union shares tend to have higher levels of government debt. And the states with higher union shares do more poorly on grading by the Pew Center regarding the quality of public sector management.

Public sector unions are powerful special interest groups. The teachers unions, the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, and the Service Employees International Union have more than seven million members combined. They have well-financed political war chests and are very active in political campaigns.

Disaster emergency vehicle drives

A disaster emergency vehicle drives through debris in Minamisanriku, northern Japan, on snowy Wednesday, March 16, 2011, after Friday’s earthquake and tsunami

A disaster emergency vehicle drives through debris ...