Time for yet another roundup of pertinent news and commentary.
Many American city planners have been influenced by Richard's Florida's seminal book Rise of the Creative Class, which postulates that "creative" groups of individuals, such as architects, engineers, artists, and (especially) gays are the true driver of urban economic growth. WorldNetDaily's Jack Cashill, however, suspects a major flaw in Dr. Florida's thesis, on the principle that when creative folks number one too many, things can start to quickly move downhill. A fascinating analysis that could have major implications for city-dwellers everywhere.
Another must-read article is a piece by Victor Davis Hanson on the frighteningly barbaric and pre-modern behavior of so many in the fundamentalist Islamic world. This should serve as a stark reminder (espcially to liberals) that, no matter how technologically advanced the world has become, human nature has always remained the same, and the survival of the modern Western world is never a given. Only by actively defending our values can America and the West overcome the enemies of civilization.
VDH also discusses the war in Iraq...and why we must stay the course.
Meanwhile, both Front Page Magazine and noted Norwegian blogger Fjordman offer sensible prescriptions for winning the war on jihad overall. Anyone interested in Western civilization prevailing over Islamofascism (and I certainly hope that includes all of us) should find these pieces absolutely essential.
On a similar note, Malaysian civilization is fighting back as well; in wake of pressures to introduce Sharia law to the historically moderate Muslim state, many Muslims have simply decided to opt out of the faith. And the numbers are increasing.
Blog of the Day: I'd give it to Fjordman himself, but he no longer posts at his own site. Therefore, it'll have to be a prominent site where he guest blogs, the Brussels Journal.
Friday, October 27, 2006
Thursday, October 26, 2006
Leftism and Hollywood's Unprofitable Business Model
For the first time in recent memory, the upcoming holiday season will feature few big-name Hollywood films. Apart from a new James Bond title (which, with unknown actor Daniel Craig debuting as 007, is no certain hit), the Tinseltown slate appears quite low-key, with the young adult fantasy Eragon, Sylvester Stallone's Rocky sequel Rocky Balboa, and the animated penguin comedy Happy Feet emerging as the most prominent of an otherwise unassuming bunch.
Some may call this an anomaly (blockbusters did, after all, reign last year with King Kong, Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire, and The Chronicles of Narnia all grossing upwards of $200 million), but a growing cadre of industry insiders actually believe it is the wave of the future. No less an authority than George Lucas, for example, has announced plans to save large sums of money by producing only smaller films.
So what is the Star Wars head honcho thinking? Larger productions are riskier because most Hollywood films actually lose money. The studios' hit-miss ratio is so poor, in fact, that fully 90% of all theatrical motion pictures fail at the box office. Profit comes only from the other 10%, which perform so stunningly well as to (ideally) both cover the other films' losses and generate profitable additional revenue. Sound like a solid business model? Countless spurned film investors would argue a resounding "no".
But while Hollywood has accepted this financial model for many years, it was not always the name of the game. Before the mid-1960s, a far larger percentage of films made money, primarily because many more Americans regularly attended screenings. In 1960, for example, fully 45% of all Americans went to the movies weekly.
Alas, however, this was not to last, as moviegoing nosedived dramatically in the late '60s to about 10% of Americans each week, a level that has remained consistent to the present time. Resultingly, most films can no longer command the audience numbers required to turn a profit. Even today's blockbusters depend largely on high ticket prices for much of their revenue; adjusted for inflation, the box office grosses of the modern era's most popular films lag far behind those of classics like Gone With The Wind and The Wizard of Oz .
So what happened? Why have audiences deserted theaters in droves? Some blame the rise of alternative entertainment such as video games, DVDs, and the Internet. But really, the box office exodus began long before those media became popular (or were even invented).
The answer I believe, rather, is that starting in the late '60s, Hollywood films began to assume a leftist bent far out of touch with the average American's sensibilities. Industry critics loved it, but most moviegoers simply felt shunned and tuned out. This pattern has continued to the present day, with numerous leftist darlings (to name merely a recent few, the gay cowboy story Brokeback Mountain and the anti-Iraq war polemic Jarhead) regularly winning heaps of critical acclaim but flunking at the ticket counters.
Finally, however, it seems filmmakers and producers are taking note, and perhaps the tide is at last turning the other way. In addition to Mr. Lucas's new direction, family-friendly Disney has achieved tremendous recent popularity, certain production houses (such as billionaire Philip Anschutz's Walden Media) now specialize only in morally upright films, and conservative filmmakers have even launched their own festival. It's far from a complete makeover, but signs of a Hollywood renaissance certainly exist.
If the studios want to continue creating elaborate productions, then they must mitigate risk by catering to mainstream American tastes. Otherwise, the era of smaller films appears here to stay. And Luke Skywalker would not be happy.
Some may call this an anomaly (blockbusters did, after all, reign last year with King Kong, Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire, and The Chronicles of Narnia all grossing upwards of $200 million), but a growing cadre of industry insiders actually believe it is the wave of the future. No less an authority than George Lucas, for example, has announced plans to save large sums of money by producing only smaller films.
So what is the Star Wars head honcho thinking? Larger productions are riskier because most Hollywood films actually lose money. The studios' hit-miss ratio is so poor, in fact, that fully 90% of all theatrical motion pictures fail at the box office. Profit comes only from the other 10%, which perform so stunningly well as to (ideally) both cover the other films' losses and generate profitable additional revenue. Sound like a solid business model? Countless spurned film investors would argue a resounding "no".
But while Hollywood has accepted this financial model for many years, it was not always the name of the game. Before the mid-1960s, a far larger percentage of films made money, primarily because many more Americans regularly attended screenings. In 1960, for example, fully 45% of all Americans went to the movies weekly.
Alas, however, this was not to last, as moviegoing nosedived dramatically in the late '60s to about 10% of Americans each week, a level that has remained consistent to the present time. Resultingly, most films can no longer command the audience numbers required to turn a profit. Even today's blockbusters depend largely on high ticket prices for much of their revenue; adjusted for inflation, the box office grosses of the modern era's most popular films lag far behind those of classics like Gone With The Wind and The Wizard of Oz .
So what happened? Why have audiences deserted theaters in droves? Some blame the rise of alternative entertainment such as video games, DVDs, and the Internet. But really, the box office exodus began long before those media became popular (or were even invented).
The answer I believe, rather, is that starting in the late '60s, Hollywood films began to assume a leftist bent far out of touch with the average American's sensibilities. Industry critics loved it, but most moviegoers simply felt shunned and tuned out. This pattern has continued to the present day, with numerous leftist darlings (to name merely a recent few, the gay cowboy story Brokeback Mountain and the anti-Iraq war polemic Jarhead) regularly winning heaps of critical acclaim but flunking at the ticket counters.
Finally, however, it seems filmmakers and producers are taking note, and perhaps the tide is at last turning the other way. In addition to Mr. Lucas's new direction, family-friendly Disney has achieved tremendous recent popularity, certain production houses (such as billionaire Philip Anschutz's Walden Media) now specialize only in morally upright films, and conservative filmmakers have even launched their own festival. It's far from a complete makeover, but signs of a Hollywood renaissance certainly exist.
If the studios want to continue creating elaborate productions, then they must mitigate risk by catering to mainstream American tastes. Otherwise, the era of smaller films appears here to stay. And Luke Skywalker would not be happy.
Tuesday, October 17, 2006
North American Union? Terrible Idea.
Want to hear something crazy? Not just a little crazy, but something so outrageous and ridiculous it's hard to even believe?
Get this: Serious plans exist to merge the U.S., Canada, and Mexico into a single North American entity a la the European Union.
(Here's a pause for everyone's jaws to drop.)
Yes, that's right - our national sovereignity is in potentially serious danger right under our noses. The proposal, devised at American University (or should we now call it North American University?) by faculty subsidized by the U.S. State Department, calls for a similar entity to the EU, with a united economy, new currency (the Amero, which would replace the dollar), and collaborative militaries. This would not, of course, happen overnight, but rather over a gradual fifty-year integration process, similar to the beginnings of the EU.
This all may sound too far-fetched to be true, but be assured - it is genuine. Earlier this year, top American officials such as Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, former Secretary of State George Shultz, and former CIA director R. James Woolsey met with similarly high-ranking counterparts from Canada and Mexico to discuss the issue. Furthermore, American University's website exposes the agenda for all to see.
Now you may be asking yourself - what's the big deal? Surely such a move could not occur without majority voter consent in all three nations.
But while that is certainly true, the plan could sneak by more easily than perhaps thought. This point also reveals why such a merger would best benefit Mexico and most hurt the United States. America's per capita GDP stands well above Canada's and towers over Mexico's. And because the plan intends to achieve North American economic integration by funneling money from wealthier areas to poorer regions, hundreds of billions of our tax dollars will be taken to fund development in Mexico and Canada. Quite naturally, then, both Canadian and Mexican citizens may be inclined to vote for such a bill.
For ordinary Americans, however, it would be a tremendous loss. In addition to higher taxes, we would face an even larger government bureaucracy and all its significant shortcomings. Such an entity is currently ruining Europe, and it could easily drag down the dynamic individualism and grass-roots work ethic that largely underlie America's optimistic exceptionalism and phenomenal general success.
Nevertheless, a massive media campaign will no doubt be prepared in order to sway American voters. It worked in Europe, and like them, we could fall under the sway of a North American Union almost before we know it.
The battle, however, is far from lost. These developments can easily be halted in their tracks if the American people reject them. Given that the plan, if implemented, would erode our national identity at our own cultural and financial expense, I certainly believe most Americans would vote against it. And if we spread the word early enough, we can perhaps even prevent it from becoming a possibility.
A North American Union might work as, say, a sports league, but not as a political entity. The U.S., Canada, and Mexico have all functioned plenty well as separate countries, and there's no need to fix what isn't broken. Long live America...the United States of America.
Get this: Serious plans exist to merge the U.S., Canada, and Mexico into a single North American entity a la the European Union.
(Here's a pause for everyone's jaws to drop.)
Yes, that's right - our national sovereignity is in potentially serious danger right under our noses. The proposal, devised at American University (or should we now call it North American University?) by faculty subsidized by the U.S. State Department, calls for a similar entity to the EU, with a united economy, new currency (the Amero, which would replace the dollar), and collaborative militaries. This would not, of course, happen overnight, but rather over a gradual fifty-year integration process, similar to the beginnings of the EU.
This all may sound too far-fetched to be true, but be assured - it is genuine. Earlier this year, top American officials such as Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, former Secretary of State George Shultz, and former CIA director R. James Woolsey met with similarly high-ranking counterparts from Canada and Mexico to discuss the issue. Furthermore, American University's website exposes the agenda for all to see.
Now you may be asking yourself - what's the big deal? Surely such a move could not occur without majority voter consent in all three nations.
But while that is certainly true, the plan could sneak by more easily than perhaps thought. This point also reveals why such a merger would best benefit Mexico and most hurt the United States. America's per capita GDP stands well above Canada's and towers over Mexico's. And because the plan intends to achieve North American economic integration by funneling money from wealthier areas to poorer regions, hundreds of billions of our tax dollars will be taken to fund development in Mexico and Canada. Quite naturally, then, both Canadian and Mexican citizens may be inclined to vote for such a bill.
For ordinary Americans, however, it would be a tremendous loss. In addition to higher taxes, we would face an even larger government bureaucracy and all its significant shortcomings. Such an entity is currently ruining Europe, and it could easily drag down the dynamic individualism and grass-roots work ethic that largely underlie America's optimistic exceptionalism and phenomenal general success.
Nevertheless, a massive media campaign will no doubt be prepared in order to sway American voters. It worked in Europe, and like them, we could fall under the sway of a North American Union almost before we know it.
The battle, however, is far from lost. These developments can easily be halted in their tracks if the American people reject them. Given that the plan, if implemented, would erode our national identity at our own cultural and financial expense, I certainly believe most Americans would vote against it. And if we spread the word early enough, we can perhaps even prevent it from becoming a possibility.
A North American Union might work as, say, a sports league, but not as a political entity. The U.S., Canada, and Mexico have all functioned plenty well as separate countries, and there's no need to fix what isn't broken. Long live America...the United States of America.
Thursday, October 12, 2006
Condi Rice: Leftist Approach to Israel and Palestinians
From her own mouth, it's official. Condi Rice has apparently become a serious leftist. Because after all the terrorism, violence, and refusal to recognize Israel that the Palestinians have perpetrated, virtually no one but a leftist could have issued a statement like the one she unleashed this week to a Palestinian-American audience (Hat Tip: Meryl Yourish):
"The Palestinian people deserve a better life, a life that is rooted in liberty, democracy, uncompromised by violence and terrorism, unburdened by corruption and misrule and forever free of the daily humiliation of occupation. I believe there could be no greater legacy for America than to help bring into being a Palestinian state for people who have suffered too long, have been humiliated too long."
That's right, all this came from our United States of America's Secretary of State. Just unbelievable.
Well you know what? I must admit that I agree with her. The Palestinians indeed deserve a life unburdened by their own violence, their own terrorism, their own corruption, their own misrule, and their own humiliation of others created by their occupation of Jewish/Israeli land. They also indeed ought to get a state as well, given to them by their fellow Arabs and called Jordan.
If the Palestinians actually wanted to live in peace, recognize Israel, and quit the terrorism, then perhaps things could be different. But as long as the majority of their people refuse to do so, it's outrageous to demand that Israel offer them yet more concessions in exchange for purely empty promises (that in all likelihood will lead simply to more terrorism). Condi Rice's idea is disgustingly wrong, and as a high-ranking U.S. cabinet member, she should know better.
Israel must take all necessary steps to survive and thrive as a strong Jewish nation. No matter what Ms. Rice or any other left-leaning thinkers believe, this is the effective way to create a better, more peaceful Middle East.
"The Palestinian people deserve a better life, a life that is rooted in liberty, democracy, uncompromised by violence and terrorism, unburdened by corruption and misrule and forever free of the daily humiliation of occupation. I believe there could be no greater legacy for America than to help bring into being a Palestinian state for people who have suffered too long, have been humiliated too long."
That's right, all this came from our United States of America's Secretary of State. Just unbelievable.
Well you know what? I must admit that I agree with her. The Palestinians indeed deserve a life unburdened by their own violence, their own terrorism, their own corruption, their own misrule, and their own humiliation of others created by their occupation of Jewish/Israeli land. They also indeed ought to get a state as well, given to them by their fellow Arabs and called Jordan.
If the Palestinians actually wanted to live in peace, recognize Israel, and quit the terrorism, then perhaps things could be different. But as long as the majority of their people refuse to do so, it's outrageous to demand that Israel offer them yet more concessions in exchange for purely empty promises (that in all likelihood will lead simply to more terrorism). Condi Rice's idea is disgustingly wrong, and as a high-ranking U.S. cabinet member, she should know better.
Israel must take all necessary steps to survive and thrive as a strong Jewish nation. No matter what Ms. Rice or any other left-leaning thinkers believe, this is the effective way to create a better, more peaceful Middle East.
Tuesday, October 10, 2006
North Korean Nuclear Test and Defeating Iran
As the world now knows, North Korea has openly conducted a nuclear test. Some experts have questioned its success, but whether fully accomplished or not, the Communist state's intention is clear - to brandish nuclear bombs as an offensive weapon.
Writers from around the web have commented on the launch, from those who worry greatly, to others who virtually discount it, to yet others who write about larger implications and its relevance to American politics. Collectively, it seems, almost every viewpoint can be found.
Without too much rehashing, then, I'd like to offer my own perspective. America, I believe, can live with a nuclear North Korea. It's far from ideal, but we can likely manage the situation with proper deterrents, similar to those used against the Soviet Union.
What the U.S. also *must* do, though, is learn from its North Korea mistakes, so to stop a much more dangerous repeat with Iran.
Throughout the 1990s, as North Korean dictator Kim Jong-Il announced his nuclear aspirations, President Clinton responded diplomatically, signing a non-nuclear pact with him that naively demonstrated America's trust in his promises of peaceful intentions. Of course, however, Kim lied through his teeth, commencing atomic development the moment the ink was dry. The end result, to say the least, has been that a vicious anti-American state has gained power, its democratic neighbors Japan and South Korea feel existentially threatened, the entire region risks an unstable nuclear arms race, and terrorists have gained a potential WMD supplier. To call these developments a gigantic risk to the free world is an understatement.
And if we think that's bad, we could be headed for deja vu all over again with Iran, unless America and the West approach the fanatical Mullahs much more strongly. We cannot risk such weapons in the hands of rulers who aim to be even more tyrannical than Kim.
The lesson, therefore, couldn't be more clear: Autocratic regimes cannot be trusted in negotiations, and any ruler who openly declares a desire to attack the United States holds a perfectly serious intent. Negotiating with Iran is an absolute capitulation to the Mullahs' goals. America's only choice is to push for regime change and/or attack the Islamic republic's nuclear facilities. These measures may seem harsh and risky, but they utterly pale compared to the world war that could occur otherwise.
President Clinton's foreign policy greatly failed with North Korea. President Bush has the chance to correct such mistakes. For the sake of the entire free world, he must immediately get moving.
Writers from around the web have commented on the launch, from those who worry greatly, to others who virtually discount it, to yet others who write about larger implications and its relevance to American politics. Collectively, it seems, almost every viewpoint can be found.
Without too much rehashing, then, I'd like to offer my own perspective. America, I believe, can live with a nuclear North Korea. It's far from ideal, but we can likely manage the situation with proper deterrents, similar to those used against the Soviet Union.
What the U.S. also *must* do, though, is learn from its North Korea mistakes, so to stop a much more dangerous repeat with Iran.
Throughout the 1990s, as North Korean dictator Kim Jong-Il announced his nuclear aspirations, President Clinton responded diplomatically, signing a non-nuclear pact with him that naively demonstrated America's trust in his promises of peaceful intentions. Of course, however, Kim lied through his teeth, commencing atomic development the moment the ink was dry. The end result, to say the least, has been that a vicious anti-American state has gained power, its democratic neighbors Japan and South Korea feel existentially threatened, the entire region risks an unstable nuclear arms race, and terrorists have gained a potential WMD supplier. To call these developments a gigantic risk to the free world is an understatement.
And if we think that's bad, we could be headed for deja vu all over again with Iran, unless America and the West approach the fanatical Mullahs much more strongly. We cannot risk such weapons in the hands of rulers who aim to be even more tyrannical than Kim.
The lesson, therefore, couldn't be more clear: Autocratic regimes cannot be trusted in negotiations, and any ruler who openly declares a desire to attack the United States holds a perfectly serious intent. Negotiating with Iran is an absolute capitulation to the Mullahs' goals. America's only choice is to push for regime change and/or attack the Islamic republic's nuclear facilities. These measures may seem harsh and risky, but they utterly pale compared to the world war that could occur otherwise.
President Clinton's foreign policy greatly failed with North Korea. President Bush has the chance to correct such mistakes. For the sake of the entire free world, he must immediately get moving.
Friday, October 6, 2006
National Intelligence Estimate - Correct on Iraq?
This past week, newspapers reported that a National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) had concluded that the Iraq War has created more terrorists and hence has contributed to endangering the United States.
Naturally, supporters of the war have doubted the claim, while opponents have largely trumpeted it. These positions, of course, are to be expected, but beyond them, a very serious objective question must be answered - is the report correct? If the Iraq war has indeed created more terrorists, then perhaps it's time to update our strategy there. If, on the other hand, the report erred, then our Armed Forces may be best off by continuing in their current direction. How can we properly evaluate the claim?
Washington Post columnist Charles Krauthammer has reached an unexpected conclusion to this question in a recent essay. His answer: We don't know if the report is correct or not. But regardless, wars make us less safe, and the only way to restore that safety is through victory.
I agree with Mr. Krauthammer's contention. Taking his outcome further, in fact, I'd argue that the report's accuracy is irrelevant. Regardless of how many jihadists the Iraq war may or may not have created, the fact remains that they fight primarily in Iraq and not in America or anywhere else. The Iraq war, then, prevents terrorism nonetheless by forcing would-be perpetrators to fight our army as opposed to our civilian population elewhere. No matter the NIE report's accuracy, this principle clearly stands.
As a result, no matter how we view the report, we must for the sake of all Americans continue our Iraqi efforts. Ultimately, doing so should create not additonal terrorism, but victory and success.
In related news:
Jihad Watch's Hugh Fitzgerald believes in withdrawing from Iraq. As you can probably guess, I certainly disagree, but I'd like to present his essay due to the remainder of its content - speculation on how to divide and conquer our jihadist enemies. One suggestion: encouraging non-Arab Muslims to reclaim their pre-Islamic cultural identities. Here, I fully agree, and actually wrote an essay arguing this very point several months back. Not sure if Mr. Fitzgerald happened to see it, but it's great to see others on the same strategic page.
Naturally, supporters of the war have doubted the claim, while opponents have largely trumpeted it. These positions, of course, are to be expected, but beyond them, a very serious objective question must be answered - is the report correct? If the Iraq war has indeed created more terrorists, then perhaps it's time to update our strategy there. If, on the other hand, the report erred, then our Armed Forces may be best off by continuing in their current direction. How can we properly evaluate the claim?
Washington Post columnist Charles Krauthammer has reached an unexpected conclusion to this question in a recent essay. His answer: We don't know if the report is correct or not. But regardless, wars make us less safe, and the only way to restore that safety is through victory.
I agree with Mr. Krauthammer's contention. Taking his outcome further, in fact, I'd argue that the report's accuracy is irrelevant. Regardless of how many jihadists the Iraq war may or may not have created, the fact remains that they fight primarily in Iraq and not in America or anywhere else. The Iraq war, then, prevents terrorism nonetheless by forcing would-be perpetrators to fight our army as opposed to our civilian population elewhere. No matter the NIE report's accuracy, this principle clearly stands.
As a result, no matter how we view the report, we must for the sake of all Americans continue our Iraqi efforts. Ultimately, doing so should create not additonal terrorism, but victory and success.
In related news:
Jihad Watch's Hugh Fitzgerald believes in withdrawing from Iraq. As you can probably guess, I certainly disagree, but I'd like to present his essay due to the remainder of its content - speculation on how to divide and conquer our jihadist enemies. One suggestion: encouraging non-Arab Muslims to reclaim their pre-Islamic cultural identities. Here, I fully agree, and actually wrote an essay arguing this very point several months back. Not sure if Mr. Fitzgerald happened to see it, but it's great to see others on the same strategic page.
Tuesday, October 3, 2006
Washington PAC and the 2006 Senate Elections
For all Americans who support Israel, an excellent resource is the Washington PAC, a political action committee founded by former AIPAC executive director Morrie Amitay. While less publicly known than AIPAC, Washington PAC well holds its own as one of Israel's strongest political supporters in America. At the same time, the organization is important not only to the Jewish state; Mr. Amitay clearly recognizes, as per his group's mission statement, that "a strong and secure Israel is in America's best interest" as well.
I have written about Washington PAC before (I met them through TheSolidSurfer.com's Washington correspondent "K-Swiss", and their website is a "My Heroes" link at left), but I'd like to showcase them again due largely to a recently updated document on their site.
Every quarter, Washington PAC publishes a newsletter that compares Israel support amongst upcoming Senate election cycle candidates and their opponents. Many, of course, are well known such as Joe Lieberman and Ted Kennedy. But beyond this, a large number of Senators remain largely unknown outside their home states, and it is very informative to see details and analyses of their Washington PAC support.
The newsletter provides an excellent barometer of how the 2006 political races could potentially impact the Jewish state. No matter where in America one lives, your Senatorial (and Congressional) elections highly matter.
I have written about Washington PAC before (I met them through TheSolidSurfer.com's Washington correspondent "K-Swiss", and their website is a "My Heroes" link at left), but I'd like to showcase them again due largely to a recently updated document on their site.
Every quarter, Washington PAC publishes a newsletter that compares Israel support amongst upcoming Senate election cycle candidates and their opponents. Many, of course, are well known such as Joe Lieberman and Ted Kennedy. But beyond this, a large number of Senators remain largely unknown outside their home states, and it is very informative to see details and analyses of their Washington PAC support.
The newsletter provides an excellent barometer of how the 2006 political races could potentially impact the Jewish state. No matter where in America one lives, your Senatorial (and Congressional) elections highly matter.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)