Podcast Review of Borat 2: Camera Epistemology

Welcome to Light On Light Through, Episode 152, in which I review Borat 2: Borat Subsequent Moviefilm.

Check out this episode!

Borat 2 (Borat Subsequent Moviefilm): Camera Epistemology

My wife and I just saw Borat 2 aka Borat Subsequent Moviefilm on Amazon Prime Video.  As with the first Borat movie in 2006, it was at turns and sometimes all together (and altogether) hilarious, horrifying, over the top, sobering, and vulgar.  And there's the already infamous Rudy Giuliani scene near the end.

As always, the question -- Giuliani aside -- is how much the people in the movie, other than Borat and his daughter Tutar -- knew about what was going on, i.e., that they were appearing in a movie.  The two guys who took Borat into their home and spouted dangerous conspiracy theories, the woman who genuinely tried to help Tutar, the various women and men who tried to understand Tutar and Borat, however outrageous or insane their stories, until these marks either broke or continued to work with varying degrees of discomfort inside this horror-show amusement-park universe -- were they really marks or were they part of the paid, unacknowledged, scripted acting cadre?

The people singing the at once very funny and deeply disturbing Covid-19 song were at a rally, and they most likely were real.  They wouldn't have wondered what the cameras that were recording them were doing there.  But what about the conspiracy duo -- who were also at this rally -- what did they think when Sacha Baron Cohen entered their home with not just his mustache but some kind of camera crew?  Or, again, that wonderful woman who took Tutar under her wing, and tried to give her guidance?  I sure hope she was real -- she showed there's still some hope for humanity -- but what did she make of the cameras?  Or, did both Cohen and Maria Bakalova who played his daughter have some kind of super-micro cameras tucked somewhere into their shirts?   Which brings us to Giuliani.

The good thing about Pence and Giuliani -- good, that is, as far as their roles in the movie -- is that neither would have been surprised by cameras in the contexts in which they were filmed, and of course there's no way they would have agreed to play along with Cohen, anyway.   So about Giuliani:  He consents to go into Tutar's hotel room, leering during the interview, and for some reason lies back on the bed (I'd rather not say "lay" here, and who knows exactly if that's grammatically right) and then either (a) tucks his shirt down the front of his pants or (b) you be the judge (this is Cohen's advice to viewers of his movie).  It probably doesn't really matter - Giuliani is a sleaze either way, just a worse sleaze if he's not tucking in his shirt.

Anyway, a brilliantly funny and all too instructive movie by Cohen, wonderfully acted by him and by Bakalova as his daughter.  And as for the rest of people who appear in this movie?  Brilliantly acted or real? Follow Cohen's helpful advice:  See the movie and decide.

For Life 1.1: For Sure!

We just caught the first episode of For Life, on ABC-TV this past Tuesday.  It's a powerful narrative, with real heart, and real relevance to these times, notably the corruption we see in the Attorney General of the United States almost every day - even though For Life is about justice in New York State, and, so far, not explicitly political.

What For Life is manifestly about is a man sentenced to life imprisonment for a crime he didn't commit.  He becomes a lawyer - not just a jailhouse de facto lawyer, but a lawyer with a degree, and with a plan to win his freedom: start winning cases against the corrupt, power-hungry DA who convicted Wallace.   The hope is that Wallace will slowly destroy the DA's reputation by winning overturns of the DA's convictions, which would open the gate on all his convictions, including Wallace's.

It might sound like a far-fetched premise, but it's based on a true story, and backed up by Curtis Jackson aka 50 Cent, who executive produces.  Wallace is perfectly played by Nicholas Pinnock, who played so well in Fortitude, Marcella, and Counterpart, to name just a few.  Indira Varma, who also has a stellar career ranging from Rome to Luther, plays the warden who can be counted on to help Wallace, at least some of the time.  Boris McGiver (who could play the Rudy Giuliani story, not because they look alike but McGiver's character and Giuliani have the same persona) plays the despicable DA to a tee.   And Joy Bryant does a good job as Marie, Wallace's former wife (or maybe they're still married, but she's living with someone else, Wallace's best friend, so not completely clear).

I don't usually have much patience with network TV shows.  But For Life will get you really angry at the bad guys, cheer for the good guys, and make you feel good about the hope for our world we so much need in these troubled times.

Timeless 1.10: An End in the Middle

An excellent Timeless 1.10 tonight - as befits a mid-season finale - which does a bunch of crucial things, but pitches us into another loop, to be pursued when Timeless resumes in early 2017.

[Lots of spoilers follow.]

First and foremost, David Rittenhouse, the founder of Rittenhouse, is revealed, during the American Revolution, and killed.  He's played by someone who looks like Rudy Giuliani (Armin Shimerman of Star Trek fame, made up to look like Giuliani), which means he makes an apt-looking villain.  His killing is tied up with Benedict Arnold, who's also killed, as is the British high-commander, Lord Cornwallis, who also had things to do a few decades in the future in his and our known history.  But Timeless has already established its penchant for changing some major things in history - with no big effects in the future (2016) - that is, no big effects in our known present and history, but serious changes in the personal lives of our heroes.

Killing Rittenhouse, of course (also a real person, 1732-1796, by the way, a clock maker, Rittenhouse Square in Philadelphia was named after him - I hope none of his descendants take umbrage to his character in the series), won't eliminate Rittenhouse the organization.  David says others are already part of the nefarious group, and then there's his son.   In a great scene in the woods, Flynn can't quite bring himself to kill the son, but then he turns and levels his gun, and Lucy is shielding the boy.  Flynn can't quite bring himself kill Lucy, either, and the son escapes.   The scene harkens to the chestnut of a question in many time travel stories - if you had a chance to kill Hitler when he was still a young, innocent child, would you do it? Preventing his parents from ever meeting would be a less brutal, more ethical way of preventing Hitler's rise, but that option may not be available to the time traveler.

Meanwhile, in a touching scene in the future, Denise gives Lucy a thumb drive with Denise's family history in case something Lucy and company do in the past erases Denise's family, the way that something they did erased Lucy's sister.  It's a memorable moment - which also raises the unspoken question of:  what happens if something Lucy does in the past erases not Denise's family but Denise? The moment is also significant because it shows that Lucy, as a time traveler, not only possesses memories of people erased, but traces of them in the form of photos and videos can survive in her possession,

The final scene is good, too, with Flynn kidnapping Lucy - he said they'd be working together.  See you back here with more reviews of the good and evil they do next year.

See also Timeless 1.1: Threading the Needle ... Timeless 1.2: Small Change, Big Payoffs ... Timeless 1.3: Judith Campbell ... Timeless 1.4: Skyfall and Weapon of Choice ... Timeless 1.5: and Quantum Leap ... Timeless 1.6: Watergate and Rittenhouse ... Timeless 1.7: Stranded! ... Timeless 1.8: Time and Space ... Timeless 1.9: The Kiss and The Key



a time-travel agency in Riverdale ....

Four Rudy Giuliani's on Twitter

I saw this earlier today on Meet the Press, and meant to write about it.

Rudy Giuliani is being interviewed by Chuck Todd, who cites a tweet from Giuliani.

Giuliani says that tweet wasn't by me - that there are four accounts impersonating him on Twitter. Todd says ok, drops the question, and moves on to something else.

What's going on?

Well, if you look for Giuliani on Twitter, you'll indeed find four accounts - actually, more than four - none of which have the coveted blue check mark, which indicates that the account was verified in some arcane way by Twitter.  Donald Trump's account has the check - and that's how we know that @realDonaldTrump  is really Donald Trump and @realDoneldTrump  is not.

I'm too lazy to paste the four bogus Giuliani accounts here - you can easily find them yourself - but, since indeed none have verifying check marks, I'll buy that none are really Giuliani.  But this begs the question of: why doesn't Giuliani get his own, real verified account?

Chuck Todd, as he often does, failed to follow up when Giuliani denounced the tweet as not his.   So we're left guessing why Giuliani doesn't have a check mark.   Is he on Twitter by some other name? Did Twitter not deign to give Giuliani a check mark?  (Hey, it happens - I don't have check mark on my @PaulLev account either.)

But whatever the reason, the result led to a signal moment in television news today, when the flagship Sunday news show of them all - Meet the Press debuted on NBC in 1947 - had to withdraw a question to a guest because it was about a tweet that in fact the guest didn't make, even though there are four accounts on Twitter tweeting under the guest's name.

More evidence for what I've said in McLuhan in an Age of Social Media about Twitter having toppled television as the cutting edge medium for delivery of news, and everyone other than the people on television knowing this.

Black Lives Matter ALSO

Racists and perhaps some well meaning people have been proclaiming on television and the Internet that "Black Lives Matter" is racist, because it excludes the lives of other ethnic groups as mattering. As an example of a racist, former NYC Rudy Giuliani, whose record on police brutality directed against African-Americans was deplorable, point blank said on CBS's Face the Nation yesterday that "Black Lives Matter is inherently racist" and "anti-American".

At very best, such a claim misses the crucial context of Black Lives Matter, which is not that ONLY Black Lives Matter, but quite the opposite: Black Lives Matter ALSO.   In fact, though this argument has been become searingly heated with the awful murders of African-Americans in Louisiana and Minnesota and murder of police officers in Dallas last week, I've been seeing people point out this all-important "also" subtext on the Web and TV ever since the Black Lives Matter movement began in 2013, to finally address a problem that has been going on for centuries.

Why have so many people missed this obviously implied "also"?  A better question would be why has anyone?   As Marshall McLuhan pointed out back in the 1960s, everyone who communicates does so on two levels, a figure and a ground.   When someone says some music is cool, people intuitively understand that you don't need to put on an extra shirt or an overcoat to enjoy it.

There is some minimal education needed to get the ground, the context, of any given statement.  A child would not instantly know that cool music has nothing to do with literal temperature.

Bur how could any sentient human being alive the past decade or longer not immediately get the context of Black Lives Matter - not immediately understand that it's a plea for black lives having as much worth less as white lives, and, yes, as much worth as lives of police?

As much worth, not more worth, and the fact that Giuliani and others somehow miss this, and say that Black Lives Matter is racist, only demonstrates, once again, that they are the racists themselves.

First 2016 GOP Presidential Debate: My Ranking of the Performances

Continuing my tradition of reviewing the Republican Presidential Debates (and Democratic Debates), which goes back to 2007,  here's my take on what happened on Fox News in Cleveland tonight.

First, as a preamble, I thought the 5pm appetizer debate, consisting of the seven contenders whose polling numbers didn't qualify them (by Fox's standards) for the main event, was one of the most boring political debates I've ever seen.   Sad to say, that debate made pretty clear why those seven candidates polled so poorly.

But on to the debate of 10, which took place from 9 to 11 tonight, I'll appraise this by ranking the performances from worst to best, on all the issues:

10. Ben Carson, neurosurgeon was amiable enough, but clearly out of his depth.  I'll be amazed if his polling numbers don't dip below one percent in the weeks ahead.

9.  Gov. Scott Walker, who was seen in reaction shots agreeing enthusiastically with whatever Carson was saying, didn't do very well himself.   I can't think if a single surprising or memorable point he made.

8. Sen.  Rand Paul came on strong with an attack on Trump at the beginning, and had a few good moments, but let Gov. Christie get the better of him in an exchange about hugs - Paul slammed Christie for hugging Obama, Christie responded that the hugs he most remembered were those of 9/11 victims.  This reprised, in effect, the exchange about national security between Ron Paul (Rand's father) and Giuliani in 2007, except tonight Christie did much better than Giuliani.

7. Gov. Huckabee had some strong moments - his best his joke at the end, in which he talked scathingly about someone leading in the polls with no valid ideas, whom we expected to be Trump, but turned out to be Hillary - but for the most part Huckabee looked and sounded tired.

6. Sen. Ted Cruz was clear and dynamic, but I can't think of an original or commanding idea expressed by him.

5. Christie had a surprisingly good debate, getting the best of Paul, as I said above, but also making powerful points about his success as Governor of New Jersey (and, fortunately for him, no one brought up Bridgegate).

4. Gov. Jeb Bush, as second in the polls after Trump, had more than anyone other than Trump to lose. He accounted well for himself  - spoke well, and came across as the compassionate conservative, especially on immigration, which is where he wants to be.

3. Sen. Marco Rubio came across as the man of the future - showing an understanding of the digital age - as well as compassionate and savvy on a variety of issues.   He was well-spoken, genial, and incisive.

2, Donald Trump held his own, including even in his answer to Megyn Kelly's question about the vicious and demeaning things he's said about women, and later defending his declared bankruptcies in response to a question from Chris Wallace.   For someone with zero experience debating and running in elections, Trump, whatever you may think of his views, stood strong up on that stage.

1. Gov. Kasich was the biggest surprise of the night.  He was powerful without being belligerent, and like Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio displayed what seemed like a real compassion for humanity.

So there you have it - an honest appraisal, without reference to my own political views, which are mostly in disagreement with everyone on the stage (I voted twice for Obama).

Rick Tyler's Good Defense of Anti-Romney Ads and Movie

I just saw Rick Tyler (on Andrea Mitchell's MSNBC show) give  a spirited, excellent defense of the Gingrich PAC-group attacks ads and movie directed against Mitt Romney.  You've no doubt seen them - "When Romney Came to Town" - a scathing portrayal of what Romney did at Bain Capital, destroying rather than creating jobs in the companies Bain acquired.

Republicans ranging from  Limbaugh to Giuliani have condemned the ad and the anti-Romney campaign, saying it plays right into Obama's hands.  That would be enough to make me kindly disposed towards the ad - I can't recall the last time I agreed with anything Limbaugh and Giuliani have said - but Tyler made some good, objective points that make a lot of sense.

We're in a primary, not a general election, he said of the contest now going on among Republican contenders.   This is a time when candidates are supposed to be vetted by the press, and then voters.

Some economists have joined the critique of the ads, saying that what Romney did at Bain embodies Schumpeter's notion of "creative destruction," as one of the necessary, healthy engines of capitalism.  I'm Darwinian in my theory of media evolution - see my The Soft Edge - so I'm well aware of Joseph Schumpeter's work.   But Tyler had a valid response to this, too:  it doesn't matter whether you dress up what Romney did at Bain in sophisticated economic theory.  Romney did preside over the dismantling of weak companies Bain had acquired, and profited from this.  

And Romney apparently enjoyed it.  Vultures may be part of the natural world, and play a role in evolution and survival of the fittest.  But that doesn't mean we have to like them, or want one to be President.

Beyond that, as I said last week about Gingrich's handwringing about Romney Pac-group attack ads on Gingrich:  people are not that influenced by them, anyway, people can separate truth from falsity, stop whining.
 

Heroes 3 Begins: Best Yet, Riddled with Time Travel and Paradox

Time travel and its marvelous paradoxical complications has always been my favorite part of Heroes - my favorite part of any science fiction, actually - which is why I found the two-hour opener of Heroes, Season Three, the best in the series so far. In addition to other goodies, Episodes 1 and 2 were riddled with time travel, drenched the bone with paradox.

In two somewhat separate though no doubt ultimately intersecting stories, actually -

1. Hiro learned his lesson about the damage that traveling to the past can bring. So he travels to the future - only to see himself killed by - Ando. He travels back to the present, and finds that travel to the future is no bed of roses, either, and carries its own paradoxical wallop. We the audience also see how Hiro, in reacting in the present to what he saw in the future - Ando killing him - is actually unbeknowingly starting to turn Ando against him. (But there's a nice new speedster hero in this story - she's blond, travels at the speed of sound, and may be Hiro's nemesis.)

Meanwhile -

2. Peter has not yet learned how dangerous changing something in the past may be - but he learns tonight. Turns out he shot Nathan, in an effort to stop the awful future we saw in Season 2 from happening, since it was due to what Nathan was about to tell the world from the podium. Nathan is not killed. But Claire, seeing Nathan shot on television, calls Peter - who tells her to stay home. Not a good idea - her being home lets Sylar get to her. And in a nice unnerving twist, he takes her recuperative power but cannot kill her, because (according to Nathan) she cannot die. Does his mean she will would survive a bomb that blew her to bits? Always the question with Claire.

But Claire's the least of what Peter's intervention unleashes in the past. Probably the worst are the bad dudes set free from Level 5 - the truest villains in Heroes. But it was good to Jamie Hector - the cool killer Marlo from The Wire - amongst them, playing Benjamin "Knox" Washington.

There's also some fun stuff that (so far) apparently has nothing to do with time travel. Nikki is somehow back - but she claims to be someone else, and her claim seems sincere, even though there's no mistaking Ali Larter. Parkman is somehow in a desert - in Africa - but how knows when. Mohinder may have finally made himself a physical as well metaphorical hero. And Peter's younger self - the one who was already in the present in which Nathan was shot - has somehow been embedded by his older self in someone who looks like former NYC Police Commissioner Bernie Kerik (sorry to say he's a real person in our world - appointed by Giuliani - not a character in Heroes, I'm not kidding).

Which does bring us back to time travel. One of its exquisite problems is making sure, if you travel back to the past, that you stay the hell away from your younger self, lest you trigger a cascade of infinite regress paradoxes that will make you totally crazy.

That's why I enjoy time travel so much, why I named this blog Infinite Regress, and why I'm really looking forward to more of Heroes this season.

I want to understand, for example, if Hiro tries to change the present so the future he saw does not come into being, how he could have seen that future tonight in the first place?

Time travel never grows old.



See also Heroes 3.2: Sylar's Redemption and Further Heroes and Villains Mergers

Reviews of Season 2 Heroes: Episode 2 ... 3
... 4 ... 7. Heroes Meets 12 Monkeys ... 9. How Immutable Are Fate and Isaac's Futures? ... 10. Penultimate for the Fall ... Heroes 2 Finale: Heroes Who Didn't Survive

---

The Plot to Save Socrates

"challenging fun" - Entertainment Weekly

"a Da Vinci-esque thriller" - New York Daily News

"Sierra Waters is sexy as hell" - curled up with a good book

more about The Plot to Save Socrates...





Read the first chapter of The Plot to Save Socrates .... FREE!

Republicans Bash Media for Covering Palin, Who Gives Sarcastic Speech at GOP Convention

Joe Klein has an important post on his Time blog in which he details Republican attempts in the past few days to make the media back off their legitimate political coverage and vetting of Sarah Palin.

Klein concludes -

There is a tendency in the media to kick ourselves, cringe and withdraw, when we are criticized. But I hope my colleagues stand strong in this case: it is important for the public to know that Palin raised taxes as governor, supported the Bridge to Nowhere before she opposed it, pursued pork-barrel projects as mayor, tried to ban books at the local library and thinks the war in Iraq is "a task from God."

Klein has not only called attention to important truths about Palin, but about a perennial Republican technique that goes at least as far back as Richard Nixon and Spiro Agnew: when things get rough, attack the media.

We heard a lot of that tonight at the Republican convention. Giuliani gave one of the most energetic speeches of his career, in which he lashed out at the "left wing" media. Does that include Fox News? (At least his speech was comprehensible, in contrast to Huckabee's.)

And Sarah Palin in effect gave two speeches tonight. One introduced her life and family - fair enough. The other offered a stream of sarcastic comments about Barack Obama, including a jab at the media: "If you're not a member in good standing of the Washington elite, then some in the media consider a candidate unqualified for that reason alone."

Will people fall for this? Not likely, even though it's worked at times in the past. But there wasn't a word about foreign policy experience in Palin's speech tonight. Media criticism may get the Republican base cheering, but it's not much of a qualification for someone who would be Vice President to a 72-year President.



See also: Pat Buchanan Shows His True Colors to Chris Matthews ... A DA (Not) and a Democrat (Not) Address the Republican Convention

And Coverage of Democratic Convention:

Infinite Regress Democratic Convention Coverage from Day Four: Obama Deliver's New Kind of Speech: Calls McCain on "Temperament" ... Al Gore: The Two Lines of History Converge

Infinite Regress Democratic Convention Coverage from Day Three: America Moves Up - Obama Nominated! ... Biden Hits McCain on Everything from Afghanistan to Amtrak

Infinite Regress Democratic Convention Coverage from Day Two: Patrick Buchanan on MSNBC: Hillary Will Campaign Hard for Obama, But Won't Shed Tears If He Loses ... Hillary Speaks Powerfully at Democratic Convention, in a Scene for the Ages

Infinite Regress Democratic Convention Coverage from Day One: Olbermann to Scarborough on MSNBC: "Jesus, Joe, Get a Shovel!" ... Ted Kennedy at 2008 Democratic Convention: JFK Would Be Smiling ... Michelle Obama's Speech: Bringing Home America

Florida Primaries: McCain Wins, Giuliani Out, Hillary 'Wins' Non-Primary

Big news out of Florida tonight is not just that John McCain won the Republican primary, but that Rudy Giuliani came in third, and according to reports will formally withdraw from the race on the steps of the Reagan Library in California tomorrow.

I think that's good news for the country. As a New Yorker, I can testify to the autocratic way he ran this city. His contempt for everything from people in the street to art in the museums made his tenure as Mayor one of the most dangerous and unpleasant in our history.

Meanwhile, the Democrats held a non-primary in Florida tonight. As in Michigan, the Democratic high command ruled that these votes won't result in delegates being seated in the national convention. As I pointed out last month, that's about as counterproductive and undemocratic as you can get.

So, what was Hillary Clinton doing claiming "victory" in Florida tonight - after issuing a statement in Iowa that the results in Michigan and Florida, regrettably, wouldn't count?

The answer, obviously, is that she and her campaign are seeking to score some points against Obama, who did so well yesterday with Ted Kennedy's amazing endorsement.

To which I say: not a good move, at all, for the Clinton campaign. Rather than taking the high road, Hillary tonight on MSNBC spoke of "victories" in New Hampshire and Nevada (true) and Michigan and Florida (not true, since those "victories" are not supposed to count). Such political manipulation will only further put off Americans who are looking for the new type of politics that Barack Obama is attempting to build.

Republicans Debate on MSNBC in Florida: Romney Unveils New Cylon Expression

A lumpy, uneven Republican debate on MSNBC in Florida tonight - with some really boring stretches on the economy, but each of the candidates having some good moments.

First, our Cylon watch - otherwise known as, Is Mitt Romney A Cylon? - a question first introduced here on Infinite Regress back in June. The Cylons, of course, are cyborgs from Battlestar Galactica who look just like humans, and, with The Sarah Connor Chronicles now on television, we might just as easily ask Is Mitt Romney a Terminator? - or, more precisely, one of the more recent, post-Arnold models.

The most Cylon-like behavior in Romney tonight was his new, non-smiling expression. Take a look at clips from the debate when you have a chance. See what I mean? Since the last debate, someone programmed in a new, serious, concerned expression on Romney's face - probably found in some poll to be more effective than his more typical smile.

As to the words tonight -

Romney was clear in his economics, and got in a fine Republican line about Bill Clinton (possibly taken from Obama).

McCain seemed Presidential, especially when he came to Giuliani's defense about The New York Times' endorsement of McCain and its attack on Giuliani. (The New York Times also endorsed Hillary Clinton for the Democratic nomination. It's not clear to me who, other than The New York Times, cares about its endorsements any more.)

Giuliani gave a principled answer about his support of the war not being based on polls (though I disagree with that support).

Huckabee was more humorous than usual tonight - explaining that he didn't disagree with Chuck Norris' attack on McCain, because Norris was standing right next to Huckabee when he made the attack, and Huckabee didn't dare disagree...

And Ron Paul, as always, made the most sensible points - explaining yet again why we should not get involved in unconstitutional wars.

I'm beginning to think that we've gotten about as much as we can expect out of these Republican debates. The Democrats, having winnowed the field, certainly put on a far more spirited debate in South Carolina a few nights ago. There will certainly be fewer Republican contenders after February 5, and possibly even after Florida next week.

Spirited Republican Debate on Fox in South Carolina Tonight: Fred Thompson, Mike Huckabee, Ron Paul Come Out Best

A crisp, spirited Republican debate in South Carolina earlier tonight - one of the best so far, as good the Republican debate on ABC on Saturday - and Fox included Ron Paul, which it didn't do on Sunday.

Fred Thompson was the best he's been so far, responding with a sharp mix of passion, clarity, and humor. He took Mike Huckabee to task for being a Democrat in Republican clothing. Even though I agree with Huckabee's "Democratic" positions about education, etc., I had to admire Thompson's performance.

Huckabee, for his part, however, was also excellent. He came through again as likable and sincere, as well as vivid and saber-rattling in his response to the Iranian gunboat incident - warning Iranians and anyone that if they attack American boats, the next thing they'll be seeing are the gates of hell. (Thompson got in a good line about the Iranians being close to seeing the virgins they think await their heroes in the afterlife.) Again, I don't agree at all with this jingoism, but it was good Republican television.

As for what I do agree with, Ron Paul was incisive and right on target in his comparison of the Iranian gunboat incident with the Gulf on Tonkin incident off the coast of North Vietnam in the 1960s. Lyndon Johnson used it to push the US into an escalated (undeclared) war in Vietnam. But, as Ron Paul correctly alluded to, it turned out later that this incident had been set up and provoked by Johnson precisely for the purpose of increasing US military action in Vietnam - or, starting up a full-fledged (undeclared) war.

Ron Paul was also clear in disassociating himself and his candidacy from the 9/11 "truthers" - those who think that the U.S. brought down the Twin Towers on September 11, 2001.

Likely Ron Paul was so effective tonight because he was finally given some time to speak and make his points.

But the Southern weather agreed with all of the candidates. Guiliani was forceful in his defense of his immigration policy in NYC - how can you question the immigration status, he asked, of someone who is giving the police information a rape or a murder? You don't need a green card to commit those crimes, he added.

Romney sparred well, but once again came up with a science fictional, computational metaphor - making some point about three-dimensional chess (the first I ever saw of three-dimensional chess was when Spock was playing it on Star Trek). I don't know, it's a different series, but I'm still thinking Cylon...

And McCain was pretty good, too - though, in general, he seemed to assume the position as the most tired candidate, held until tonight by Fred Thompson.

***
After the debate: Ron Paul won the telephone poll, and of course Hannity didn't believe it. At least, this time, he knew better than to come up some story about Ron Paul's supporters voting multiple times.

A lot more debates in both parties coming up this month. It's good to see that they're getting sharper and more focused as the campaigns progress.

Hillary Edges Out Obama in NH: Why, As An Obama Supporter, I'm Not Too Unhappy

Well, Hillary Clinton edged out Barack Obama in the New Hampshire Democratic primary tonight. Although I'm an Obama supporter, I'm not really too unhappy about this, because:

1. I was moved by Hillary's emotional moment yesterday - I like seeing humanity in our Presidential candidates - and I was infuriated by the small-hearted, soulless response of some conservatives such as Bill Kristol on Fox News.

2. I think a woman in the White House would be almost as powerful a correction of an historic American injustice as an African-American President.

3. I like seeing pollsters and pundits proven wrong in their confident predictions - it shows that, in the end, the American people not the media decide who will serve in our public offices.

Meanwhile, Obama can hold his head up high. He won in Iowa and came in a close second in New Hampshire. He gave another great, inspiring speech tonight. I would be very happy with an Obama-Clinton ticket, and almost as happy with a Clinton-Obama combination.

As for the Republicans, I was disappointed that Ron Paul did not best Giuliani for 4th place, but Ron Paul did come close - which shows, once again, the dangerous folly of Fox News in excluding Ron Paul from Sunday's debate, and including Fred Thompson, who came a distant sixth in New Hampshire's Republican primary tonight.

Fox made this decision based on the national polls ....

Hmmm ... polls ... not worth all that much as valid measurements of voters, are they...

See also

Hillary's Tears

I'm Voting for Barack Obama

And the Pre-Primary Presidential Debates Ends With ... Almost a Snore, But a Great Line from Obama

The Republicans put on their last debate before the January 3, 2008 Iowa Caucuses yesterday - in Iowa - and the Democrats followed suit today.

I had trouble keeping my eyes open for the Republican debate, which is saying a lot, since the debate was on in the afternoon, I don't usually take siestas, and I had gotten a good night's sleep the night before.

But I can't think of anything new I heard from any of the candidates, except maybe Alan Keyes, who is an elegant speaker but somewhat out of his league (if not his mind). Huckabee seemed less exuberant than usual, Guiliani seemed tired, and I still can't help thinking that Mitt Romney may be a Cylon, quietly prepped in some Battlestar Galactica back room. I thought at the beginning of this crucially important election process that Ron Paul and his respect for the Constitution made him far and away the best Republican candidate, and the only one I could ever vote for, and I feel absolutely the same right now.

Meanwhile, I like just about all of the Democrats, more or less, in contrast to the Republicans. But none of the Democrats lit any new fires today. Actually, I thought Biden and Dodd were better than usual, and I would not be at all unhappy if either got the nomination, which seems highly unlikely at this point.

It's pretty much between Obama and Hillary - with Edwards still a possibility - and I'd say the best exchange in either debate came when Obama was asked why, if he's such a future-focused contender, does he have several (Bill) Clinton administration appointees as advisers in the Obama campaign.

Before Obama could answer- Hillary quipped, I wanna hear that...

And Obama shot back- I'm looking forward to you advising me, as well...

That struck me as something JFK might have said - which in my book is a good thing, indeed...

And so the sun sets of this first chapter of the run for the White House, 2008 ...

I'm looking forward to what Iowa Caucuses tell us on January 3.

See also Something New: How About We Look for the Best Candidates in =Both= Parties?

Republican YouTube/CNN Debate in Florida

I didn't find tonight's Republican YouTube/CNN debate as refreshing and provocative as the first YouTube debate among the Democratic contenders for President a few months ago. Possibly the YouTube bloom is off the rose. More likely the questions weren't as humorous or provocative tonight as those received via YouTube for the Democrats.

Otherwise, it was a good, punchy debate which showed most of the candidates off to their best advantage. McCain, in particular, was more eloquent and forceful than usual in his support of the war and his denunciation of torture. Romney was on the receiving end of McCain's torture lecture - Romney falling back on his all-too-typical letting the experts decide - but Ron Paul had a fine moment in his cogent explanation, back to McCain, on the difference between being an isolationist and a non-interventionist (Ron Paul is the latter). And Ron Paul also spoke truth about why violence has decreased in southern Iraq - that has happened because the British have left.

But Romney was excellent in knocking down Giuliani's attack on Romney's alleged employment of illegal aliens - Romney reasonably replied that he contracted with a company to work on his home, he did not directly hire illegal aliens.

I should note here, however, that although I admired Romney's rhetoric in this exchange - a rarity - I think most of the Republicans and many of the Democrats are making too big a deal about illegal aliens (which, not that terminology matters all that much, but I can't help thinking of people from outer space whenever I hear that phrase). One of America's greatest strengths has always been its openness to people from other countries and cultures.

Huckabee was probably the best on stage about this issue, refusing to back down from his funding of education for children of illegal immigrants.

Giuliani, other the exchange with Romney on the employment of illegal immigrants, was pretty much on top of his game, and Fred Thompson was a little more animated than usual tonight, too.

So where do we stand: Huckabee is personable and gaining in the polls and could conceivably pull an upset in Iowa. Even if he comes close, he could be a good running mate for Giuliani. I'd say it's too late for McCain and Thompson, whatever they do or say from now on. Romney is still Giuliani's major competition.

And Ron Paul still has by far the best positions. He alone among the Republican candidates continues to speak to truth to authority about war. We'll soon find out how many votes this translates into in the primaries.

Republicans on Economics and More on CNBC: Thompson, Romney, Giuliani and Ron Paul

Here are some of the highlights and lowlights that struck me in the Republican Presidential debate which concluded a few minutes ago in Michigan. It was on CNBC, and will be repeated tonight at 9pm on MSNBC:

Fred Thompson: started out almost comatose, and then settled in. But he's fuzzy on most of the issues, and looks like Dwight David Eisenhower on a bad day. His best moment was responding to a pretty good crack by Romney, about the Republican debates being like Law and Order - a big cast, goes on forever, and Fred Thompson comes in at the end. Thompson smiled and said, not bad, and I thought I was going to be the best actor up here.

Mitt Romney: his response to whether the President needs to consult Congress before going to war - Romney said he'd leave that to the attorneys - was one of the lowest points, not only in this debate, but in American history, period. (See Ron Paul's response to this, below.)

Rudy Giuliani: his response about whether the Internet required FCC-like cultural policing was troubling, to say the least. He's not in favor of creating new government agencies, but he might look into it, if the problem doesn't subside. But, what's the problem? No one disputes the need of police to go after predators, on and off line. The question was about the "cultural" problems of the Internet (porn?) and what should be done about that. A better answer would have been: "The FCC is unconstitutional even as a regulator of broadcasters. The last thing I would do is extend its violation of the First Amendment to the Internet." Too bad Ron Paul didn't get a chance to answer that question. Fortunately, Ron Paul did get a chance to respond about the President going to war...

Ron Paul: his finest moment was his outrage over Romney's gibberish about consulting attorneys. Read the Constitution, Ron Paul said - it clearly says that Congress, not the President, has the power to declare war.

You don't need to be a lawyer to understand that. You need to be just minimally literate.

Also admirable was Ron Paul's unwillingness to blindly support whoever gets the Republican nomination - that nominee would need to stop following Bush's disastrous and unconstitutional foreign policy.

It's rare indeed to hear a political candidate in either party speak such plain truth to the American people, and to the world.

Subtler Mistreatments of Ron Paul - and Remedies

Disinformation and propaganda are rarely isolated, outrageous incidents. Rather, they are usually part of a much larger, continuous tapestry, in which a series of subtle, lower profile attacks support and pave the way for the high-profile, over-the-top distortions. In and of themselves, these softer mistreatments might not be so serious. But given the larger picture of the way Ron Paul (and Dennis Kuninich) has been treated, these low-level smack-downs need to be called out.

In this spirit, I list three that occurred in the Wednesday night Republican debate on Fox. And, always trying to be helpful and educational, I suggest some remedies...


Snickering While Ron Paul Was Talking: You couldn't have missed it. Someone - most likely Giuliani - was snickering lots of the time Ron Paul was speaking.

remedy: Brit Hume, chief moderator, should have called Giuliani out on this. Ideally, Hume could have said, "what are you, eight years old, Mr. Mayor?" But even a less blunt reprimand would have worked.


Chris Wallace Debating Rather Than Questioning Ron Paul: Actually, I hate to tell questioners to go more easy, since usually the problem is that questions aren't tough enough. But


remedy: make an effort to be equally combative with all the candidates. Ron Paul's position that we got into Iraq in violation of our Constitution is actually the correct one. If anything, it's all the other candidates who support he war who deserve the most probing, sarcastic questions...

This next is all over the web, but you can - and hear - it for yourself, right here...



So ... Ron Paul is talking ... and being cheered ... and boos are heard when Giuliani's face goes on the split screen. But, for the people at home - in contrast to the people in the auditorium - all we see and hear is Ron Paul talking, with some boos coming in .... Certainly a distortion of what actually happened.

remedy: Brit Hume, again - do your job - and tell us what the boos are really in response to. Part of being a network that provides commentary over events - unlike, say, CSPAN, which just lets them roll - is you have a responsibility to tell your viewers what's really happening ...

====================

In sum: Fox, get a clue. It's not that hard, really, to do the right thing. Don't go the sad way of ABC News (which, actually, has shown some recent signs of improvement). You have a responsibility, when you're hosting a debate, to be even-handed, correct misimpressions certainly not commit them - as Hannity and Colmes did) - and call-out snickerers and other wrong-doers.

You report, we decide, is right - the American people will be watching you, and evaluating your future performance.

Fred Thompson Declares Candidacy on the Tonight Show

And here's a clip of Fred Thompson's announcement on the Tonight Show, tonight, that he's running for President. With a little Jay Leno humor thrown in, too...

Makes sense, given Thompson's creds as an entertainer as well as a politician.

As I indicated in my Fred Thompson and the Fame Game piece here in June, Thompson's recognizability and public clout as an actor will make him hard but by no means impossible to beat. On the one hand, Thompson has a lot of what Reagan and Arnold had and have going for them. On the other hand, because of the Internet, I don't think network television is quite as important now as it was for Reagan (along with movies) or movies for Schwarzenegger.

I think Thompson's candidacy will most hurt Giuliani, Romney, and McCain - with little effect on Ron Paul, who has such a different wellspring of support.

Republicans Now Thumb Noses at YouTube as Well as Evolution

What do you expect? Remember that three of the Republican Presidential candidates - Brownback, Huckabee, and Tancredo - don't even believe in evolution. You expect them to understand the advantages of YouTube?

The Washington Post reported yesterday that only John McCain and Ron Paul have committed to the September YouTube/CNN debates. Ron Paul makes sense. As I've said many times, he is far and away the best of the Republican candidates. He is a rarity in both parties, because of his devotion to the U.S. Constitution. This makes him unaccepting of the FCC and Congress's attempts to trample the First Amendment, and to going to war without the required declaration.

Ron Paul's supporters have also shown considerable Internet savvy - and I expect we'll be seeing even more in the months ahead.

I'm glad John McCain sees the value of the YouTube debates. It's easy to be cynical, and say McCain is so desperate that he'll try anything, but he still deserves credit for recognizing this step forward in democracy.

As for the rest, and in particular the other front runners, Giuliani and Romney? Giuliani is said to be leaning against participating, and Romney (who is acting more than ever like a Cylon) offered this gem of wit, according to the Washington Post: "I think the presidency ought to be held at a higher level than having to answer questions from a snowman." (This presumably was a reference to the global warming question asked in the Democratic YouTube/CNN debate).

If these Republicans fail to come around to the YouTube debate, if they thumb their noses at all the questions YouTube will no doubt get for them, they will only be greasing their downhill skids.

I predict that most if not all of the recalcitrants will come around on this. Democracy is moving forward this summer. It will be a very interesting August for the Republicans.

See also - July 26, 2007 article in the Houston Chronicle - "Debate Praised as Fresh and Original", in which I and other media commentators rave about the success of this first YouTube debate...

First YouTube/CNN Presidential Debate

Is Mitt Romney A Cylon?

Three Republican Candidates Deny Evolution

How About We Look for the Best Candidates in Both Parties? (discovering Ron Paul) ...