Monthly Archives: July 2011

Senator Pryor asks for Spending Cut Suggestions! Here are a few!(Part 91)

 

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 Senator Pryor myself:

Government auditors spent the past five years examining all federal programs and found that 22 percent of them—costing taxpayers a total of $123 billion annually—fail to show any positive impact on the populations they serve. 

  • Examples from multiple Government Accountability Office (GAO) reports of wasteful duplication include 342 economic development programs; 130 programs serving the disabled; 130 programs serving at-risk youth; 90 early childhood development programs; 75 programs funding international education, cultural, and training exchange activities; and 72safe water programs.
  • A GAO audit classified nearly half of all purchases on government credit cards as improper, fraudulent, or embezzled. Examples include gambling, mortgage payments, liquor, lingerie, iPods, Xboxes, jewelry, Internet dating services, and Hawaiian vacations. In one extraordinary example, the Postal Service spent $13,500on one dinner at a Ruth’s Chris Steakhouse, including “over 200 appetizers and over $3,000 of alcohol, including more than 40 bottles of wine costing more than $50 each and brand-name liquor such as Courvoisier, Belvedere and Johnny Walker Gold.” The 81 guests consumed an average of $167 worth of food and drink apiece.

Dan Mitchell discusses Republican’s possible responses to Debt Ceiling Crisis

House Republican Leaders gather after a GOP Conference meeting to discuss the growing need for a resolution to the continued debt crisis that America is facing. The president and previous Congress have been on a spending binge and House Republicans are putting forth a plan- “Cut, Cap and Balance” in order to save our economy for future generations.

_____________________________________

I am really upset that the Republicans seem to be suggesting stupid alternatives like the one that Mitch McConnell suggested. Dan Mitchell of the Cato Institute seems to hold the same negative views that I do. Take a look at the article below:

I Hope I’m Wrong, But Here’s Why Republicans Will Lose the Debt-Limit Fight

Posted by Daniel J. Mitchell

There are three reasons why I’m not very hopeful about the outcome of the debt-limit battle.

1. There is no unity in the GOP camp.

Republicans have been all over the map during this fight. Some of them want a balanced budget amendment. Some want a one-for-one deal of $2 trillion of spending cuts in exchange for a $2 trillion increase in the debt limit. Others want some sort of spending cap, akin to Senator Corker’s CAP Act. Some want to mix all these ideas together in a cut-cap-balance package. Others want Obamacare repeal.  And the latest proposal is Sen. McConnell’s proposal to let Obama unilaterally raise the debt limit.

These are mostly good ideas, but the failure to coalesce around one proposal – preferably one that is easy to understand – has made the Republican position difficult to define, defend, or advance.

2. The fear of demagoguery is high.

As I explained months ago, Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke and Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner are trying to spook financial markets with hyperbolic warnings about a risk of default. This is blatant dishonesty and demagoguery, but Republicans are nervous that this tactic might be successful if there is a high-stakes showdown as the government’s borrowing authority runs out.

For those with short memories, this is what happened with TARP back in 2008. The initial bailout proposal was rejected, leading to short-run market gyrations, and many Republicans panicked and switched their votes to yes.

3. Republicans don’t control the Senate or the White House.

I’m stating the obvious, of course, but people seem to forget that any debt limit increase will need to get through the Senate and get signed by Obama.

Imagine you are Harry Reid or Barack Obama. Is there any reason why you would acquiesce to Republican demands? Yes, you need to at least pretend to care about big government, wasteful spending, and red ink, but why not hold firm and then strike a deal based on make-believe spending cuts? That’s exactly what happened during the “government-shutdown” debate earlier this year.

This post, incidentally, is not an attack on Republicans. I’m very willing to attack GOPers when they do the wrong thing, but I’m not sure they deserve to get hammered in this case.

Simply stated, I don’t think there’s a winning strategy, so I don’t see any point in going nuclear.

If nothing else, at least Republicans resisted the siren song of tax increases, which is not a trivial achievement since Democrats clearly were hoping to trick GOPers into giving up one of their strongest political positions.

President Obama July 15, 2011 Press Conference with Video Clip

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – President Barack Obama and Republicans traded demands for a serious deficit plan on Friday, underscoring the lack of progress and acrimony plaguing negotiations to avert a looming government default.

Obama used a White House news conference to keep the pressure on leaders of Congress to produce a framework for a deficit-reduction plan that will head off a default on August 2.

Five rounds of White House talks this week produced no agreement and much partisan bickering. The talks may resume over the weekend.

“Show me a plan in terms of what you’re doing in terms of debt and deficit reduction. If they show me a serious plan I’m ready to move even if it requires me to make some tough decisions,” Obama said.”

House of Representatives Speaker John Boehner, the top Republican, said Obama and Democrats had still not put a serious deficit plan on the table.

“They’ve been unwilling to put a real plan on the table. Without serious spending cuts … this problem is not going to be solved,” Boehner said after a meeting of House Republicans.

Congress must raise the $14.3 trillion limit on America’s borrowing by August 2 or the government will run out of money to pay its bills. Republicans have insisted the government commit to cutting the deficit before they sign on for more debt.

But talks have been deadlocked over spending and taxes. Obama said he has agreed to large spending cuts and wants Republicans to accept some tax increases on wealthier Americans to help bring down America’s record $1.4 trillion budget deficit. Republicans refuse.

Obama suspended budget negotiations for Friday, telling congressional leaders to come up with a “plan of action” on how to unblock talks meant to cut deficits and avert a U.S. debt default.

Republican leaders on Friday said they will pass legislation next week that would link a debt-ceiling increase with deep, immediate spending cuts, a cap on future spending levels and a constitutional amendment that would require Washington to balance its budget each year.

The balanced-budget amendment has little chance of reaching the two-thirds vote needed to pass the Senate.

TIME RUNNING SHORT

House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi called it “outrageous.”

With time running short, the House and Senate seem to be coalescing around sharply contrasting legislation.

Democratic and Republican leaders in the Senate are working on a plan that would allow Democrats to raise the debt ceiling without Republican support. Democrats were working to add measures that would give them some political cover, such as spending cuts and a special deficit-reduction committee.

Obama, who warned earlier in the week that senior citizens might not receive Social Security checks if the country goes into default, said interest rates would also be affected in a default, increasing costs to Americans for home and car loans and beyond.

It would be, he said, “effectively a tax increase on everybody.”

Financial markets are starting to worry that Republicans and Democrats are too far apart to reach a major budget agreement by the August 2 deadline.

Ratings agencies Moody’s and Standard & Poor’s have signaled they may cut the gold-plated U.S. credit rating if the borrowing limit is not raised and bills are not paid. Even if the United States does not default, its rating will be under pressure if negotiators do not agree to long-term deficit reduction.

Failure to seal a deal by then would cause turmoil in global financial markets and could force the United States into another recession.

(Additional reporting by Jeff Mason, Deborah Charles, David Morgan and Lesley Wroughton; writing by Steve Holland; Editing by Eric Beech)

Picture of CIA Bin Laden Hunter

The New York Observer reports that the man who hunted Osama bin Laden has been identified.

The mystery started to unravel after the AP wrote a story about the man on July 5, noting that he was “hidden from view, standing just outside the frame of that now-famous photograph” of President Obama’s national security team watching the raid that took down the 9/11 mastermind.

According to the Observer, John Young, a writer for Cryptome.org noted a man’s yellow tie in that photo, then matched that tie with one worn by a man whose full face is revealed in other photos released by the White House.

From there, the Observer sought to put a name to the face and wrestled with the question about whether to publish it if they did. The piece is a classic detective story — read the whole thing.

Fox News quotes former CIA operations officer Charles Faddis, who contends that revealing the man’s identity “is a real serious matter.”

“It’s not entertainment, some people may think it is, but it’s not … There are real people out there that are going to be killed because of this.”

“I implore you, do not publish this man’s name,” former deputy director of central intelligence John McLaughlin told the Observer.

Other related Posts:

Mike Huckabee to Osama bin Laden: “Welcome to Hell” (Part 6)Woody Allen’s movie “Crimes and Misdemeanors” is a perfect example of why hell the only “enforcement factor”

Crimes and Misdemeanors: A Discussion: Part 1 Adrian Rogers – Crossing God’s Deadline Part 2 Jason Tolbert provided this recent video from Mike Huckabee: John Brummett in his article “Huckabee speaks for bad guy below,” Arkansas News Bureau, May 5, 2011 had to say: Are we supposed to understand and accept that Mike Huckabee is […]

Osama bin Laden knew big body count on level of 9/11 was needed to get U.S. forces to withdraw

    Next Back BroadcastAs the U.S. fought wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, bin Laden periodically released audio and video recordings (like this one, from 2007) calling for the destruction of America and its allies. Kimberly Dozier of the Associated Press reported today in her article, “Bin Laden’s diary shows he eyed new targets, big […]

2007 Interview with Jane Felix-Browne concerning her husband Omar bin Laden (pictures included)

  Jane Felix-Browne, a 51-year-old grandmother and parish councillor from Cheshire has married a son of Osama bin Laden after a holiday romance       A British divorcee said Wednesday she has married Omar bin Laden, the al-Qaida leader’s fourth son, after they met in Egypt last fall.Jane Felix-Browne, a 51-year-old grandmother from Moulton, […]

Hamza bin Laden wants to keep his father’s family business of terror going

AP Osama’s youngest son, Hamza, is believed to have escaped the compound where his terror fiend dad was killed by SEALs. Chuck Bennett of the NY Post in his article “Osama’s youngest son escaped capture,” wrote this morning: Osama bin Laden’s youngest known son — a budding teen terrorist groomed since childhood to wage jihad […]

Osama bin Laden’s sons think U.S. broke international law

  Omar bin Laden, son of Osama bin Laden, in his apartment in Al-Rahad city near Cairo in 2008 The New York Times reported today: The adult sons of Osama bin Laden have lashed out at President Obama over their father’s death, accusing the United States of violating its basic legal principles by killing an […]

Woody Allen’s search for God in his latest movie “Midnight in Paris”(Part 37)

In Woody Allen’s latest movie “Midnight in Paris,” the reference is made to the cold heartless universe. This points out that Woody Allen is trying to look for some hope in this universe somewhere. Did he find any lasting answers? The review of the movie below notes: “The call of the artist is to find an antidote to the emptiness of the present.” Actually that is the instruction that Gertrude Stein gives to Gil during the movie. I agree totally and I have suggestions to offer Mr. Allen.

I read an excellent article by David Mishkin concerning Woody Allen’s search for God and I wanted to share a portion of it with you.

God and Carpeting: The Theology of Woody Allen by David Mishkin

March 1, 1993

This is an archived article. It originally appeared on March 1, 1993. Some information may be outdated. 

A red-haired boy sits next to his mother in the psychiatrist’s office. She is describing her son’s problems and expressing her disappointment in him. Why is he always depressed? Why can’t he be like other boys his age? The doctor turns to the boy and asks why he is depressed. In a hopeless daze the boy replies, “The universe is expanding, and if the universe is everything…and if it’s expanding…someday it will break apart and that’s the end of everything…what’s the point?”

His mother leans over, slaps the kid and scolds: “What is that your business!”

This scene from Annie Hall typifies Woody Allen’s quest for understanding! Allen touches on various topics and themes in all his cinematic works, but three subjects continually resurface: the existence of God, the fear of death and the nature of morality. These are all Jewish questions or at least theological issues. Woody Allen is a seeker who wants answers to the Ultimate Questions. His movie characters differ, yet they are all, in some way, asking these questions he wants answered. They are all “Woody Allens” wrestling with the same issues. He explains:

Maybe it’s because I’m depressed so often that I’m drawn to writers like Kafka, Dostoevski and to a filmmaker like Bergman. I think I have all the symptoms and problems that their characters are occupied with: an obsession with death, an obsession with God or the lack of God, the question of why we are here. Almost all of my work is autobiographical—exaggerated but true.1

But Woody Allen does not allow himself to dwell too long on these universal problems. The mother’s response to her red-haired son’s angst is typical of the comedic lid the filmmaker presses over his depressing outlook to close the issue. True, Woody Allen has made his mark by asking big questions. But it is the absence of satisfactory answers to those questions that causes much of the angst—and humor—we see on the screen. Off screen we see little difference.

Allen’s (authorized) biography, published in 1991, sheds some light on his life and times. Woody Allen, whose given name was Allan Konigsberg, was born and raised in Brooklyn, New York. Allen describes his Jewish family and neighborhood as being from “the heart of the old world, their values are God and carpeting.”2 While he did not embrace the religion of his youth, his Jewishness is ever present in his characters, plots and dialogue. Jewish thought is intrinsic to his life and work.

One can see this in the 1977 film Annie Hall, where Allen’s character, Alvy, is put in contrast to his Midwestern, gentile girlfriend. In one scene he is visiting Annie’s parents. Her grandmother stares at him, picturing him as a stereotypical Chasidic Jew with side locks, black hat and a long coat. The screen splits as Alvy imagines his family on the right and hers on the left. Her parents ask what his parents will be doing for “the holidays”:

“We fast, to atone for our sins,” his mother explains.

Annie’s mother is confused. “What sins? I don’t understand.”

Alvy’s father responds with a shrug: “To tell you the truth, neither do we.”

Nothing worth knowing can be understood by the mind.3

Allen suggests that the greatest thinkers in history died knowing no more than he does now.

In Crimes and Misdemeanors Woody Allen tackles the issue of morality on a much more serious level. Wealthy ophthalmologist Judah Rosenthal has been having an extramarital affair for two years. When he attempts to end his illicit relationship, his mistress threatens to tell his wife. When backed into an impossible corner and offered an easy way out, Judah finds himself thinking the unthinkable.

Judah’s moral confusion is presented against a backdrop of the religion of his youth. Though he has long since rejected the Jewish religion, he is continually confronted with memories that activate his conscience. He remembers the words of his childhood rabbi:

“The eyes of God are on us always.”

Judah later speaks with another rabbi, a contemporary of his. The rabbi remarks on their contrasting worldviews:

“You see it [the world] as harsh and empty of values and pitiless. And I couldn’t go on living if I didn’t feel with all my heart a moral structure with real meaning and forgiveness and some kind of higher power and a reason to live. Otherwise there is no basis to know how to live.”

These words are ultimately pushed aside, as Judah succumbs to the simple solution of hiring a hit-man to murder his demanding lady in waiting. After the crime, Judah experiences gut-wrenching guilt. Judah Rosenthal finds the case for morality so strong that after the murder he blurts out:

“Without God, life is a cesspool!”

His conscience pushes him to great despair as, again, he examines the situation from a past vantage point. He envisions a Passover seder from his childhood. The conversation becomes a family debate over the importance of the celebration. Some of the relatives don’t believe in God and consider the ritual a foolish waste of time. The head of the extended family stoutly defends his faith, saying, “If necessary, I will always choose God over truth.”

Perhaps this is why Judah rejected his religion—he could not see faith as anything other than some sort of noble delusion for those who refuse to accept life’s ugly truths. As Judah continues to dwell on his crime, he has another vision in which his rabbi friend challenges him with the question: “You don’t think God sees?”

“God is a luxury I can’t afford,” Judah replies. There is a final ring to the statement as Judah decides to put the entire incident behind him.

Judah almost turns himself in; however, the price is too high and so he chooses denial, the most common escape. “In reality,” he says in the last scene, “we rationalize, we deny or else we couldn’t go on living.”

Another character, Professor Levy, speaks on morality in one of the film’s subplots. Levy is an aging philosopher much admired by the character played by Woody Allen, a filmmaker. The filmmaker is planning a documentary based on Levy’s life, and we first see the professor on videotape, discussing the paradox of the ancient Israelites:

“They created a God who cares but who also demands that you behave morally. This God asks Abraham to sacrifice his son, who is beloved to him.…After 5,000 years we have not succeeded to create a really and entirely loving image of God.”

Levy eventually commits suicide. Despite his great learning, his final note discloses nothing more than the obvious: “I’ve gone out the window.”

Professor Levy’s suicide leaves Allen’s character stunned. Still, his humor ameliorates the situation as the filmmaker protests,

“When I grew up in Brooklyn, nobody committed suicide; everyone was too unhappy.”

The final comment on Levy’s suicide is a surprising departure from Allen’s security blanket of humor:

“No matter how elaborate a philosophical system you work out, in the end it’s gotta be incomplete.”

Remember, all of the dialogue is written by Woody Allen. Though his own character supplies comic relief to this dark film, his conclusions are just as bleak. Everyone is guilty of something whether it’s considered a crime or a misdemeanor.

Yet, Allen’s theological questions rarely address the nature of that guilt. The word “sin” is reserved for the grossest offenses—the ones that make the evening news—or would, if they were discovered. Judah Rosenthal’s crime is easily recognizable as sin, while various other infidelities and compromises are mere misdemeanors.

Sin against God is not something Allen appears to take seriously in any of his films. When evangelist Billy Graham was a guest on one of Allen’s 1960s television specials, the comedian was asked (not by Graham) to name his greatest sin. He responded:

“I once had impure thoughts about Art Linkletter.”24

However, when he distances himself from the personal nature of sin and looks to crimes or sins against humanity, Allen speaks with a passion.

In Hannah and Her Sisters the viewer is introduced to the character of Frederick, an angry, isolated artist who is disgusted with the conditions of the world. Of Auschwitz, Frederick remarks to his girlfriend:

“The real question is: ‘Given what people are, why doesn’t it happen more often?’ Of course, it does, in subtler forms.…”

In Allen’s theology, all have fallen short to a greater or lesser degree, but ironically, his view of human imperfection never appears in the same discussion as his thoughts about God.

He does admit to being disconnected with the universe:

“I am two with nature.”25

But he doesn’t mention a connection with a personal God because he doesn’t see a correlation between human failures and the question of connectedness to God.

While Allen is a unique thinker, he seems to be pedestrian when it comes to wrestling with problems of immorality and even inhumanity. While he calls the existence of God into question, he does not deal with our responsibility in acknowledging God if he does exist.

It is simple to analyze sin on a human level. The more people get hurt, the bigger the sin. But the biblical perspective is quite different: Any and all sin causes separation from God. One cannot view such a cosmic separation as large or small based on degrees of sin. Ironically, one of Allen’s short stories underscores the foolishness of comparison degrees of sin:

“Astronomers talk of an inhabited planet named Quelm, so distant from earth that a man traveling at the speed of light would take six million years to get there, although they are planning a new express route that will cut two hours off the trip.”26

The biblical perspective of separation from God is similar. Having “better morals” than the drug pusher, the rapist or the ax murderer makes a big difference—in our society. We should all strive to be the best people we can be, if only to improve the overall quality of life. But in terms of a relationship with God, doing the best one can is like being two hours closer to Quelm. God is so removed from any unrighteousness that the difference between “a little unrighteous” and a lot is irrelevant.

The question his films and essays never ask is: Could being alienated from God be the root cause of our alienation from one another…and even our alienation from our own selves?

“It’s hard to get your heart and your head to agree in life. In my case they’re not even friendly.”27

Woody Allen has a unique way of expressing the uneasy terms on which many people find their heads and their hearts. Perhaps that is why he has received 14 Academy Award nominations. Allen will shoot a scene as many as twenty times, hoping to capture the actors and scenery perfectly. His biographer says “he doesn’t like to go to the next thing until what he’s working on is perfect—a process that guarantees self-defeat.”28

Is filmmaking Woody Allen’s escape from the world at large? His biographer notes, “He assigns himself mental tasks throughout the day with the intent that not a moment will pass without his mind being occupied and therefore insulated from the dilemma of eschatology.”29

It is a continual process—writing takes his mind off of the ultimate questions, yet the characters he creates are always obsessed with those very same questions. Allen determines their fate, occasionally handing out a happy ending. And he seems painfully aware that he will have little to say about the ending of his own script.

There is much to be appreciated and enjoyed in Woody Allen’s humor, but it also seems as if he uses jokes to avoid taking the possibility of God’s existence very seriously. Maybe Woody Allen is afraid to find that God doesn’t exist, or on the other hand maybe he’s afraid to find that he does. In either case, he seems to need to add a comic edge to questions about God to prove that he is not wholehearted in his hope for answers.

Will Woody Allen tackle the problem of his own halfhearted search for God in a serious way in some future film or essay? Maybe, but if the Bible can be believed, it’s an issue that God has already dealt with. The prophet Jeremiah quotes the Creator as saying: “You will seek me and find me when you seek me with all your heart.” (Jer. 29:13).

____________________________________

Earlier I wrote a post about the “golden age fallacy” that Woody Allen destroys in this film. The thinking that things would be better if we lived in a different time or a different place. However, Allen is still searching for meaning in life and deep down he knows in his heart that God made him for a special reason and not to just live a life without any lasting meaning. That is the reason he keeps bringing up these issues in his films.

Here I wanted to make two further suggestions to Mr. Allen myself: 


1. You may not have as much resources as  Solomon but you can still start on a spiritual search for the afterlife. .

 A.  Go to the Grand Canyon and see if you can deny the outward witness of God’s handiwork. That leads me to the scripture in Ecclesiastes 3:11, “…{God} has planted eternity in the human heart…”

B.   Rent a dvd of the movie CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS by Woody Allen and see if you can answer this simple question: Do evil man like Hitler get off or will they be punished in an afterlife?
 

2. Read John 3:1-21 and see what happened when Jesus spoke to a true seeking skeptic of his day named Nicodemus. .
John 3:1-21

 1 There was a man named Nicodemus, a Jewish religious leader who was a Pharisee. 2 After dark one evening, he came to speak with Jesus. “Rabbi,” he said, “we all know that God has sent you to teach us. Your miraculous signs are evidence that God is with you.”  3 Jesus replied, “I tell you the truth, unless you are born again,[a] you cannot see the Kingdom of God.”  4 “What do you mean?” exclaimed Nicodemus. “How can an old man go back into his mother’s womb and be born again?”  5 Jesus replied, “I assure you, no one can enter the Kingdom of God without being born of water and the Spirit.[b] 6 Humans can reproduce only human life, but the Holy Spirit gives birth to spiritual life.[c] 7 So don’t be surprised when I say, ‘You[d] must be born again.’ 8 The wind blows wherever it wants. Just as you can hear the wind but can’t tell where it comes from or where it is going, so you can’t explain how people are born of the Spirit.”  9 “How are these things possible?” Nicodemus asked.  10 Jesus replied, “You are a respected Jewish teacher, and yet you don’t understand these things? 11 I assure you, we tell you what we know and have seen, and yet you won’t believe our testimony. 12 But if you don’t believe me when I tell you about earthly things, how can you possibly believe if I tell you about heavenly things? 13 No one has ever gone to heaven and returned. But the Son of Man[e] has come down from heaven. 14 And as Moses lifted up the bronze snake on a pole in the wilderness, so the Son of Man must be lifted up, 15 so that everyone who believes in him will have eternal life.[f]  16 “For God loved the world so much that he gave his one and only Son, so that everyone who believes in him will not perish but have eternal life. 17 God sent his Son into the world not to judge the world, but to save the world through him.  18 “There is no judgment against anyone who believes in him. But anyone who does not believe in him has already been judged for not believing in God’s one and only Son. 19 And the judgment is based on this fact: God’s light came into the world, but people loved the darkness more than the light, for their actions were evil. 20 All who do evil hate the light and refuse to go near it for fear their sins will be exposed. 21 But those who do what is right come to the light so others can see that they are doing what God wants.[g]

Endnotes

  1. Eric Lax, Woody Allen, (New York: Knopf Publishing, 1991), p. 179.
  2. Ibid., p. 166.
  3. Manhattan, 1979.
  4. Lax, p. 141.
  5. Stardust Memories, 1980.
  6. Lax, p. 150.
  7. Sleeper, 1973.
  8. Hannah and Her Sisters, 1986.
  9. Woody Allen, “My Speech to the Graduates,” Side Effects, (New York: Random House Publ., 1980), p. 82.
  10. Sleeper.
  11. Lax, p. 183.
  12. Woody Allen, “Death (A Play),” Without Feathers, (New York: Random House Publ., 1975), p. 106.
  13. Woody Allen, “My Philosophy,” Getting Even, (New York: Warner Books, 1971), p. 25.
  14. Allen, “Early Essays,” Without Feathers, p. 108.
  15. Allen, “Selections From the Allen Notebook,” Without Feathers, p. 10.
  16. Allen, “My Apology,” Side Effects, p. 54.
  17. Stardust Memories.
  18. Allen, “My Speech to the Graduates,” Side Effects, p. 82.
  19. Sleeper.
  20. Allen, “Selections From the Allen Notebook,” Without Feathers, p. 8.
  21. Allen, “Examining Psychic Phenomena,” Without Feathers, p. 11.
  22. Lax, p. 41.
  23. Love and Death, 1975.
  24. Lax, p. 132.
  25. Ibid., p. 39.
  26. Allen, “Fabulous Tales and Mythical Beasts,” Without Feathers, p. 194.
  27. Crimes and Misdemeanors, 1989.
  28. Lax, p. 322.
  29. Ibid., p. 183.
  30. Josh Goller’s Take a Trip to the Darkside: Midnight in Paris

    Midnight in Paris

    with JOSH GOLLER

    The call of the artist is to find an antidote to the emptiness of the present. So goes the pulse of Woody Allen’s latest feature Midnight in Paris. Allen’s trademark themes of existential angst, restlessness, and fear of death permeate this film as well, but with a charm that’s a welcome departure from the more formulaic and forgettable pictures he’s added to his stable in recent years. A writer/director as prolific as Allen (who manages to churn out a new movie yearly) can’t avoid hits and misses, but his work has been trending toward the latter in the autumn of his career.

    Not so with Midnight in Paris. Once obsessively fixated in New York, he’s found a voice in Europe of late, and this latest endeavor glorifies Paris almost as fawningly. Standing in for the character Allen certainly would have played himself in his prime, Owen Wilson portrays Gil Pender, a restless Hollywood hack with literary aspirations on holiday with his fiancée Inez (Rachel McAdams) in the City of Light.

    Gil and Inez may mesh when it comes to the little things (they both enjoy the “pita bread” at Indian restaurants, for instance) they butt heads on the grander scale. He enjoys walking through the rain and regrets never having moved to Paris when he once had the chance, while she’d prefer to furnish their home in Malibu with $20,000 desks.

    Though not explicitly revealed in the film’s trailers, it’s no great secret that Gil winds up stumbling into the Paris of the past, much like Jeff Daniels walked off the silver screen in Allen’s The Purple Rose of Cairo. Inexplicably, Gil finds himself rubbing elbows with his late artistic heroes, the likes of Hemingway (Corey Stoll), Fitzgerald (Tom Hiddleston), Gertrude Stein (Kathy Bates), and Dali (Adrien Brody). He’s soon smitten by Picasso’s muse Adriana (Marion Cotillard), while wrestling his own displeasure with the present day.

    Wilson carries the picture as Gil, innocent and likable as he subtly shifts through time without the need of a vortex or DeLorean or hot tub. And he’s much more suited and capable of the Allen stand-in role than predecessors such as Will Ferrell or Larry David. Cotillard is warm and alluring while McAdams is cold but no less stunning. The film itself is shot with soft light but vivid colors and the story enchants without carrying too much philosophical heft.

    With a feast of literary and art references, the humor is of an esoteric brand and much of the film will be lost on the uninitiated. Still, Allen creates a world within a world that will delight even those who might not grasp why others in the theater are laughing. As usual, we may have to endure several more years of lesser works before arriving at another gem, but with Midnight in Paris Allen proves that, though we may yearn for the golden age, he can still make us happy in the present.

What does the Heritage Foundation have to say about the saving the American dream project released May 10, 2011? (Part 1)

Limiting Government …and Cutting What It Can’t Do Well — Saving the American Dream

“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, and today are some of the conclusions of this study.

Economic and Fiscal Results

Scoring Fiscal Plans

The Heritage plan produces strong economic growth by reducing burdens on
taxpayers and businesses, reducing the government debt, increasing investment,
and encouraging competition. It also brings federal spending into balance and
maintains revenues over the next decade at the average historical level of 18.5
percent of GDP, which as noted earlier is the upper limit that Americans have
indicated a willingness to pay. The economy typically has grown quite well under
this average level of taxation. Taxes above this level often have had a negative
impact on the economy.

With the expansion of the federal government not just slowed but reversed,
the economy grows swiftly, creating new jobs and raising incomes for Americans.
A stronger economy strengthens the tax base and helps to achieve the plan’s
revenue targets. When combined with sharp reductions in spending, the Heritage
plan’s revenues are sufficient to reduce deficits and, thus, the debt.

As a part of its Solutions Initiative,[4] the Peter G.
Peterson Foundation asked Heritage and the five other organizations to prepare
their own solutions to the long-term budget crisis and to score their plans
using the same baseline. Thus, The Heritage Foundation’s Center for Data
Analysis (CDA) modeled the Heritage plan using a “static” scoring against a
close approximation of the Congressional Budget Office’s (CBO) extended baseline
that was developed by the Peterson Foundation.[5]

A static score assumes some behavioral changes by
individuals and markets, but leaves the overall economy unchanged. A dynamic
model assesses the economic effects of policy changes, and the CDA will
separately publish a dynamic scoring of the Heritage plan, using the CBO’s
alternative fiscal scenario as the baseline.[6] This alternative scenario, widely used in
budget discussions and comparisons, assumes that Congress will continue its
current policy and thus practices, such as adjusting the unindexed Alternative
Minimum Tax (AMT) threshold, suspending payment reductions to Medicare
physicians (the “doc fix”), and extending the 2001 and 2003 tax relief.

When available, the CDA used and updated reform proposals analyzed by the
CBO, such as the effect of some policy changes to Medicare. For analysis of the
impact of tax changes, the CDA used its tax and health care models.

A number of important insights into the fiscal effects of the Heritage plan
can be obtained by examining the static, or conventional, changes in federal
revenues and outlays resulting from fully implementing the Heritage plan under
this Peterson/CBO baseline. However, the methodology for static scoring does not
account for macroeconomic changes that result from changes such as higher tax
rates or lower spending. These economic changes can significantly affect fiscal
items, including revenue, because in reality more economic growth will increase
the tax base. Thus, policies that create more economic growth also generate more
tax revenue than a static model would indicate. To show the full benefits of the
Heritage plan, the CDA will publish a separate dynamic analysis of the plan to
supplement the static analysis presented in this report.

Senator Pryor asks for Spending Cut Suggestions! Here are a few!(Part 90)

 

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 Senator Pryor myself:

Government auditors spent the past five years examining all federal programs and found that 22 percent of them—costing taxpayers a total of $123 billion annually—fail to show any positive impact on the populations they serve.

 

  • The Congressional Budget Office published a “Budget Options” series identifying more than $100 billionin potential spending cuts.
  • Because of overstaffing, the U.S. Postal Service selects 1,125 employees per day to sit in empty rooms. They are not allowed to work, read, play cards, watch television, or do anything. This costs $50 millionannually.
  • Washington will spend $2.6 milliontraining Chinese prostitutes to drink more responsibly on the job.
  • Stimulus dollarshave been spent on mascot costumes, electric golf carts, and a university study examining how much alcohol college freshmen women require before agreeing to casual sex.

Brummett: Time for backup plans on debt ceiling debate

I know that a lot of people are getting nervous about the potential problems that may come from a government shutdown on August 2, 2011. However, I really am not worried and I think things will turn out fine if the Republicans do not blink. Nevertheless, Brummett is right when he says it appears that they are blinking.

John Brummett in his article, “Your hero is the one blinking,” Arkansas News Bureau, July 14, 2011 observed:

So it happened on Tuesday that Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, bless him, blinked.

He’d already blinked a little, declining to filibuster a debt ceiling solution by which Republicans could kill any deal by invoking 60 votes. But this time he told a news conference that, while it was all Obama’s fault, the nation needed an escape hatch, a parachute, so that America would meets its debt obligations in the likely event a spending-cut compromise couldn’t be reached by Aug. 2.

So he proposed that, for a last gasp, Republicans would reject any real debt ceiling resolution and merely vote to give Obama periodic authority to make unilateral and short-term adjustments in the debt ceiling.

That would permit America to make its debt payments on time while permitting Republicans to run against Obama as the wild socialist spender who keeps personally piling up our innocent grandchildren’s unsustainable debt.

Remember that McConnell is on record saying the sole purpose of his Senate service is to get Obama beat.

_____________________

I had been hopeful that the Republicans would stay the course. Chris Edwards of the Cato Institute expresses my views below on this debate.

McConnell’s Cave-In and Boehner’s Opportunity

Posted by Chris Edwards

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell has offered the president a way to raise the debt ceiling by $2.5 trillion without having to cut spending. The WaPo reports that “McConnell’s strategy makes no provision for spending cuts to be enacted.”

This appears to be an epic cave-in and completely at odds with McConnell’s own pronouncements in recent months that major budget reforms must be tied to any debt-limit increase.

House Republicans should obviously reject McConnell’s surrender, and they should do what they should have done months ago. They should put together a package of $2 trillion in real spending cuts taken straight from the Obama fiscal commission report and pass it through the House tied to a debt-limit increase of $2 trillion. Then they shouldn’t budge unless the White House and/or the Senate produce their own $2 trillion packages of real spending cuts, which could be the basis of negotiating a final spending-cut deal.

For those who say that House tea party members won’t vote for a debt increase, I’d say that $2 trillion in spending cuts looks a lot better than the alternative of having Democrats and liberal Republicans doing an end-run around them with McConnell’s no-cut plan.

For those who say that House members are scared of voting for specific spending cuts, I’d say that they’ve already done it by passing the Paul Ryan budget plan. I’d also say that you can’t claim to be the party of spending cuts without voting for spending cuts.

Obama’s Fiscal Commission handed Republicans ready-made spending cuts on a silver platter—Republicans will never get better political cover for insisting on spending cuts than now.

Tommy Smith is back on the air at 103.7 the buzz in Little Rock this morning

On the way into work this morning I heard Tommy Smith back on the radio at 103.7 the buzz this morning for the first time since he had been arrested. He told David and Roger that he was sorry for all the lies and he never wanted to lie again about drinking. He never wanted to take another drink in his whole life.

He is back from Palm Springs, California where he was at a facility to treat his addiction. Fifty days later he is back and last night he went to bed at 9:30pm but did not get but an hour and half of sleep because he was so nervous about this morning.

Smith said he was sorry for what he did. At first he resented the local media for blowing the whistle on him, but he realized about 5 days later that it was not their fault, but in fact their job to report everything that happened.

Smith got to watch TV every night in Palm Springs two hours every night . One hour every night after dinner then another hour after their last class of the evening. Smith also mentioned that he had found God and had been praying a lot.

A lady caller noted that she had been alcohol free for about 5 years now in a very emotional call. She noted a rainbow over Little Rock this morning and wished Tommy good luck.

Here is the report from earlier:

Popular Little Rock DJ Tommy Smith has been arrested for DWI, leaving the scene of an accident, possession of a controlled substance and failure to stop. According to Arkansas Online, the 56-year old co-host of “The Show with No Name” on 103.7 The Buzz, an Arkansas State Police officer caught up with Smith after a hit and run on Interstate 430 was called in. The driver had crossed the median. That driver turned out to be Smith
who appeared drunk and admitted to drinking two pints of liquor and taking a Xanax. He refused a breathalzyer. Bond was set at $500.

What does the Heritage Foundation have to say about saving Medicare:Study released May 10, 2011 (Part 7)

Michael F. Cannon on Government Run Health Care

“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 Medicare.

The Bottom Line

By moving to a premium-support program, Congress can introduce the powerful
forces of consumer choice and competition into Medicare, forcing health plans
and providers to deliver value for taxpayer and beneficiary dollars. Similar
approaches to health care financing and delivery have been used in Medicare Part
D and the FEHBP, the program that covers Members of Congress. The record shows
that this approach can successfully control and slow the growth of health care
costs while increasing patient satisfaction.

Medicare today is less a traditional social insurance program, in which
beneficiaries pay for their benefits, and is becoming more of an income transfer
program. Today’s enrollees are not, in fact, “paying for” their Medicare
benefits, since it is really a “pay as you go” system with today’s workers
paying for today’s beneficiaries. Even so, payroll taxes pay for just a portion
of one part of Medicare, and the premiums that seniors pay for the other parts
cover less than a quarter of those costs.

Taxpayer subsidies account for 85 percent of total Medicare program costs. If
Medicare is left unreformed, our children and grandchildren will pay those
higher taxes even as they work and save to provide for their own families.

By reducing the level of tax subsidies for seniors with higher incomes, the
Heritage plan reduces both the burden on future taxpayers and dependence on
government. By adding catastrophic protection against serious illness and
targeting funding to those who are most in need, the plan strengthens Medicare
as safety-net insurance for all Americans and guarantees them better health and
economic security. Finally, by reducing the role of bureaucracy and red tape in
the delivery of medical care, the Heritage plan makes the practice of medicine
more attractive, thereby encouraging dedicated and talented individuals to join
the health professions.