Maybe She Meant the Canadian Border...

Every once in awhile, someone puts truth to the axiom "It's better to keep one's mouth shut and be thought a fool, than to open it and remove all doubt."



I mean, really: what are they teaching up there?

Pardon the Dust

The Woundup was in need of spring cleaning. Fresh coat of paint, new look, streamlined gadgets in the sidebar.

Got rid of things like the "Twitter" gadget. I fell in and out of love with Twitter pretty durned quick, truth to tell. It encourages thinking in sound bites. If it can't be said in 140 characters, it's not worth saying? Thanks, but I can't even tell you my name in less than 140 characters.

Likewise I have severed my temporary ties with Haloscan's annointed (and annoying) successor, Echo.com. Comments have reverted back to Blogger control, and that's fine. I'll probably enforce a little more moderation on comments because the Google spammers are coming out of the woodwork again.

One change, strictly for fun, was to turn the labels display into a cloud. Kind of fun to see which ones I use over and over. Equally dismaying to see how many I've created over time that have never been used more than once or twice.

Anyway, I like this new layout, I think. It's cleaner and feels less crowded. Now if only I could think of something worth writing about...

UPDATE: Full comment moderation now. The spammers seem to feel they've wasted their time if they haven't slipped in all sorts of links to malware, porn, or other dangerous content.

Curmudgeon's Guide for Young Conservative Voters - 2010 Primary Edition

It's time once again, boys and girls, for Uncle Woody's "Curmudgeon's Guide for Young Conservative Voters;" the only voters guide that has consistently provided the fewest possible facts in election after election while still claiming to know what it's talking about. The only such guide that could, if nominated, do a better job at governing than most of the current slate of candidates. The only guide that could conceivably cause severe headaches and abdominal swelling if ingested. The only guide with a preamble that should have ended about three sentences ago.

This is primary season, Young Conservatives, and as such it's important to realize that NOTHING YOU DO NEXT TUESDAY WILL MAKE A LICK OF DIFFERENCE. Oh, sure, certain people may be forced to drop out of the race, and our entire political process may change irrevocably for the foreseeable future, BUT THE HIDEOUS POLITICAL COMMERCIALS WILL STILL INFEST YOUR TELEVISION. Let us be clear, Young Conservative Voters: if Uncle Woody hears the phrase "let us be clear" one more time, he will sue President Obama and his estate in perpetuity for the next twenty five generations. Uncle Woody has heard that phrase in every commercial, news report, and radio commentary for what feels like the last fifty seven years, and Uncle Woody is NOT THAT OLD. Not yet, anyway.

But you're not here to listen to Uncle Woody carp about election advertising, Young Conservatives. You're here to listen to Uncle Woody carp about the carp for which you're expected to vote next Tuesday. So let's get to it, beginning with the inevitable and ad nauseum

California Ballot Propositions

There are only four of them this time around, but there's a lot of stealth politics embedded in these little jewels. They're supposed to cure everything from lazy voters to how electricity is generated and provided to new customers. In other words, lots of pork, plenty of chicanery, and almost zero accountability for wasting our taxpayer-subsidized time. First up:

Proposition 14 - Elections, Increases Right to Participate in Primary Elections

The most telling statement related to this boondoggle-in-boondoggle's clothing comes straight from (WARNING: Incipient Fact Notification) the California "Official Voter Information Guide." Right there, on page 14, bold as brass, are the words "Encourages increased participation in elections for congressional, legislative, and statewide offices by changing the procedure by which candidates are selected in primary elections." This proposition even includes a graphic showing how that process would, in fact, be changed. Bottom line: this is less about motivating "participation" than it is a pathetic attempt to winnow the number of players that reach the General Election stage by limiting the final slate to two candidates of "any party," meaning you could conceivably wind up with two Democrats in the General Election, or, worse still, two Green Party candidates.

At least one analysis that I've read calls this a move towards a "caucus" system for California. The only way you'll get this state to become a caucus is if you equip everyone's SUV or Prius with video conferencing equipment. Uncle Woody says absolutely not!

Proposition 15 - California Fair Elections Act

Call this the "Leveling the Playing Field" proposition. It sounds very high-minded and altruistic except for one teensy little flaw: it would never work. Certainly not in California, to put it mildly. What this really seeks to do is pump more taxpayer money into the campaign coffers of more politicians during an election so that everyone has equal abilities to spew lies like used car salesmen on television and over the internet.

Uncle Woody never fails to be amazed at how surprised everyone is when a candidate says "I will never accept money from lobbyists," only to find out exactly three minutes after his opponent concedes the election that they did, in fact, accept money from XYZPac for the express purpose of having wind turbines built in the middle of Lake Tahoe. Do we honestly think that employing legislation of this nature is suddenly (after numerous failed attempts at the federal level) going to result in "fair" elections? If Uncle Woody is stupid enough to donate money to a candidate, he deserves whatever he gets. Keep our taxes out of it, thanks. Uncle Woody says no way.

Proposition 16 - Imposes new two-thirds voter approval requirement for local public electricity providers. Initiative constitutional amendment.

Uncle Woody really wants to like this one, Young Conservatives. It requires a two-thirds vote before a municipality can provide or expand service to new customers, and that sounds really nifty. Gee! They want my approval before they're allowed to act! But a closer reading of this proposition leads Uncle Woody to believe that what they're really trying to do is limit the availability of public funds and bonds for what may be necessary expansion of service into territory currently claimed and serviced by existing utilities. Truth to tell, Uncle Woody thinks they're barking up the wrong tree here. Far better in Uncle Woody's mind would be to eliminate the existing Public Utilities Commission and create a board that has enough teeth to actually punish utilities when they're found in collusion for hiking rates without justification. This proposition will actually end up costing us more by having long and expensive court battles over such issues in the long run. Uncle Woody says vote this one down and come back with something that works.

Proposition 17 - Allows auto insurance companies to base their prices in part on a driver's history of insurance coverage. Initiative statute.

Pardon Uncle Woody while he yawns and lies down for a quick nap. Insurance regulations frankly bore Uncle Woody because he's old enough and experienced enough to have earned his Good Driver discounts and tries to drive safely. This proposition wants to allow insurance companies to come up with another new "magic" discount for drivers who have a continuous history of coverage. The problem here is that we're trying to reward behavior that is already required by law. Period. If you don't have insurance, you're not supposed to be driving. So even though he has insurance, and has had insurance (with extremely brief lapses here and there because he forgot a payment) for his entire adult life, why on earth should Uncle Woody receive any monetary consideration for obeying the law in California? This sounds like entitlement run amok to Uncle Woody.

The other problem, of course, is that thanks to Obama Care, we have no idea what the insurance industry in general is going to look like in a few short years, and Uncle Woody certainly wouldn't want people to get addicted to discounts that may just as suddenly disappear because the companies are going belly up at a frightening rate. But that's mere conjecture on Uncle Woody's part. Vote no, Young Conservatives, and tell the insurance-mongers to get a real job.

Finally, Young Conservatives, Uncle Woody actually has one or two recommendations for elected officials this time around. Uncle Woody normally avoids recommending one candidate over another, but this election has been a little different. Specifically, this is the first time Uncle Woody can remember in recent years that Republican candidates are calling each other "liberal" on any number of issues, and trying to remember when the last time was that we could get away with making "liberal" a dirty word. So, Uncle Woody's two key picks:

For Governor

Uncle Woody has to side with Steve Poizner on this one. Meg Whitman has some very impressive credentials, Young Conservatives, and Poizner has his history of unreliable alliances with the Dark Side. But Poizner has a necessary stand on illegal immigration that Whitman does not share, and Whitman refuses to acknowledge that taxpayer-subsidized abortions ought to be verboten. For those two reasons, Poizner gets the nod. Fiscally, Uncle Woody doesn't believe California is poised to achieve any significant growth until the nation as a whole begins to recover in a meaningful way, and there's just no telling how long that will take. Uncle Woody doesn't see economic recovery as Priority One for our next Governor. Important, certainly, but not as important as doing more to control the flood of immigrants into a state (and country) that has insufficient resources to support them.

(As a sidebar, Young Conservatives, Uncle Woody doesn't really care who you pick for the largely ceremonial job of Lt. Governor, so long as it isn't Abel Maldonado. He had his chance and blew it.)

For United States Senator

You might think, Young Conservatives, that Uncle Woody would be happy to throw his support to anyone who could unseat Barbara Boxer this November, but you would be wrong. At this point, the odds seem to favor Carly Fiorina, of dubious Hewlett-Packard repute. But there are facets to Fiorina's personality that worry Uncle Woody. Perhaps it's a sexist thing and Uncle Woody is somehow threatened by Fiorina's decidedly feminist statements. Or perhaps it's because Fiorina seems to Uncle Woody to really be just a Republican version of Boxer herself with an affinity for large government and dangerous open borders leanings. Whatever the case, Uncle Woody just can't pull the lever in her favor.

Neither can he support Tom Campbell. Uncle Woody had high hopes early for Campbell, but those hopes faded with Campbell's opposition to Proposition 8 and that's all you really need to know about him.

That leaves Chuck DeVore. DeVore appears to have the conservative creds that Fiorina lacks, particularly in fiscal management. He also sports endorsements from some high-powered conservatives whom Uncle Woody admires. Chuck DeVore gets Uncle Woody's vote next week.

* * * * * * * * * * *
So that's about it for this edition of the Guide, Young Conservatives. The Curmudgeon, as always, just encourages you to get out next Tuesday and vote. Please! But vote your conscience, because after this election it may be all you have left.

State Superintendent of Public Instruction

Jack McConnell is being "termed out" as California State Superintendent of Public Instruction this year, and the field of potential replacements is large. Education is, rightly, an area where folks tend to have strong emotional preferences, and this particular slate of candidates is no exception.

While Uncle Woody is busy priming the pump for the inevitable "Curmudgeon's Guide for Young Conservative Voters" in support of the June primaries, allow me to share with you the thoughts of one particular candidate for SSPI this year, Leonard J. Martin. He wrote the following to Michelle Huele, a homeschooler in Yucca Valley:

Home schooling's appropriate for children who have special difficulties that make it impossible for them to participate in traditional schooling. But under California law, a parent has the right to home school provided the parent is qualified to offer instruction. Personally, I believe nearly all kids would benefit more from being in traditional schools. Many parents home school for religious reasons, because they still hold outdated views on race or ethnicity, or for what they consider to be moral reasons. Since we have provisions for students to attend a school outside of their local community when there are legitimate reasons to do so, home schooling as an alternative to "unsafe" campuses is hardly a legitimate alternative. For the most part - overwhelmingly - the public schools of California are not only safe but are providing a high quality education. Yucca Valley should be no exception. If it is, as Superintendent I would like to hear the complaints.

There has also been a tremendous amount of fraud connected with home schooling. Corporate organizations have sprung up to drain precious taxpayer dollars from the state budget to "supervise" home schooling. That has been to the detriment of those children, who by necessity, must be home schooled.

My advice? Send the kids to a traditional public school.

http://leonardmartin.us/wordpress/

Best Regards,
Leonard J. Martin
Home (661) 297-4815
Cell (661) 400-0059

If McConnell was no friend to homeschoolers, he at least had sense enough to not try to enforce a liberal interpretation of the "law" mentioned by Mr. Martin in his letter. The real problem with that law is, of course, that the label "qualified" is highly ambiguous and, of greatest interest to homeschoolers, does not include the word "credentialed." McConnell made some noise early on as he "fretted" over the unregulated masses of homeschoolers infesting the Golden State, only to back down under pressure from numerous homeschooling support groups and the Home School Legal Defense Association.

I bring attention to Mr. Martin, however, because his statements are quite typical of public education elitists, and reflect the fear-mongering approach that such politicians (and political hopefuls) always enlist when discussing the vastly complex issue of homeschooling.

Note that his very first statement brings up the taboo of homeschooling only being appropriate for kids with "special difficulties." This is particularly telling of Mr. Martin's predisposition to anti-homeschool bigotry. We instantly understand that homeschooling is something to be sneered at; a mess on the sidewalk over which we carefully step. Only "disadvantaged" children would ever "require" homeschooling; the rest must submit themselves to Dickensian workhouse-like apparatuses where the collective will of the children can be better molded to a carefully state-approved curriculum.

Let us never forget that, however well-intentioned and altruistic the concept of public education may have begun, it has over the years become nothing more than a union-run autocracy, sponsored by the state, and dominated by liberal think-tank elitists. This is why our schools have become the sorry ghosts of what they once were. Mr. Martin's attitude strongly suggests maintenance of the status quo, so far as political exigency is concerned. He will not rock the union boat, except to threaten to "fire bad teachers."

His bigotry is further revealed in this statement: "Many parents home school for religious reasons, because they still hold outdated views on race or ethnicity, or for what they consider to be moral reasons." Now, having raised these "reasons" for homeschooling, you might think that Mr. Martin would then address them. He does not. Instead, he focuses on school safety. Not only does he pooh-pooh the idea that schools may be unsafe (they are "overwhelmingly" safe, he believes), he also uses the canard of being able to attend a school "outside of their local community" where "legitimate reasons" exist. This is patently absurd. Anyone who has tried to get an exception just to attend another school intradistrict can tell you that the local education bureaucrats tightly control those movements, and "unsafe" schools are not one of the politically correct reasons for granting such a request. The moment you threaten one school's per-child budget, they start digging the moat and raising the drawbridge.

The final shaft in his quiver is to decry the "tremendous amount of fraud" in homeschooling. He brings up something he calls "corporate organizations" that have sprung up that "drain precious taxpayer dollars" to "supervise" homeschooling.

Huh? To what organizations does he refer, and why haven't I heard about these things before now? Certainly such corrupt corporations would be big news in a money-starved state like California! More amusing to me is the idea of supervising homeschoolers. The only possible reason I can even think of for supervising a homeschool family is where that family chooses to participate in a school district-sponsored homeschool program where supervision is the trade-off for having use of district resources and district-sponsored testing. Would those school districts qualify as the "corporate organizations" being vilified by Mr. Martin? Even were that so, it wouldn't affect me or my subversive academy because we answer to no one. We file our little Private School Affidavit form every October, in return for which the Great State of California valiantly ignores us. Every other effort to supervise homeschoolers necessarily fails because, as I have mentioned before, homeschoolers are the most unorganized bunch you'll ever come across. (Caveat: there are, Uncle Woody admits, some fabulous homeschool organizations in California. They tend to be aberrations.)

At the end of the day, even a politically dangerous candidate like Mr. Martin will have his hands full if he wins the election. Our public schools are undoubtedly in a serious decline. Whoever takes that office will be so busy balancing the needs of a voracious union with the seriously under-regulated public school cuisine requirements that there will be precious little time available to go after those seditious homeschoolers.

He won't be getting my vote, though.

Cameron moving to Wordpress

Howdy, Greg. Just on the off chance you see this before you see my notice on Facebook, I'm moving the bulk of my blogging activity over to Wordpress.

Would you mind removing me as a participant on Woody's Woundup? Nothing personal, of course. I'm just in a real serious Let's Get Organized! moods right now.

My new blog is here.

Woody: We'll miss him here on the Woundup, but I understand the restless feeling. That's one reason why I moved "Inner Dad" to Wordpress last year. I just haven't killed the old site yet. The trick is what to call his new blog on the blog roll. His masthead says "Music. Literature. Stuff." But the URL says "culturalrumbles," which would be cool, too. Maybe I'll just compromise and call it "The Blog Formerly Known as Way Off Bass."

A Trudge through Drudge

I went wandering around Drudge today. Two items caught my limited attention. (Head cold, y'see.)

1. Drudgeline: "GROVE: Death of the White House Press Corps..."

Seems the White House press corps is feeling more like the White House press corpse these days. Not surprising, since the O hasn't given a formal press conference in, what, nine months now. Yet, buried in the angst as reported by Lloyd Grove for "The Daily Beast" was this chestnut:

Every so often, the president takes his revenge, as Obama did on Friday, mocking skeptical reporters who have been questioning the positive impact of health-care reform. "Can you imagine if some of these reporters were working on a farm and you planted some seeds and they came out next day and they looked—Nothing’s happened! There’s no crop! We’re gonna starve! Oh, no! It’s a disaster!" Obama told a town meeting in Maine. “It’s been a week, folks. So before we find out if people like health-care reform, we should wait to see what happens when we actually put it into place. Just a thought.”

And there it is in a nutshell. The real reason why the health care reform package so recently thrust upon us is so dangerous: the idiots who voted it into existence and signed it into law truly have no idea what will happen until it happens.

Remember all those promises? "If you like the coverage you have, you won't have to give it up." "Death squads? What death squads?" "This bill will provide universal coverage without causing a deficit." The problem with promises is that they're only valid if the one making the promises actually knows that he can deliver. Obama's request to "wait to see what happens when we actually put it into place" can (and should) be translated to mean: "We have no idea what we just created, but we want you to shut up about it until someone shows up at your door to arrest you for refusing to buy into it."

2. Drudgeline: "Reid mocks Palin during campaign speech..."

[Stunned silence]

Um... Matt? I kinda thought the whole reason for reporting things was to point out something that we didn't really know before. That's the definition of news, right? What's the old adage? "If a dog bites a man, that's not news. If a man bites a dog, that's news."

Well, Sir Drudge, I've got news for you: Reid (or any left-leaning politician and more than a handful of Republicans) mocking Sarah Palin is not news. Now, if Reid or any of his ilk actually said something like, "Hey, that Palin just might be a force to be reckoned with...," THAT would be news.

Sheesh.

Stick a Fork in the RNC

Take a good look. It's The Statement. The one to which all politicians resort whenever they've been caught being naughty.

Of course they always staff it out. Michael Steele will not "dignify" this atrocious claim with a direct response. His director of communications will do that for him. The smart money says you never directly acknowledge the problems in your own house. This makes you somehow "above" the fray.

Ridiculous. Michael Steele presides over a party that is bleeding itself dry. Having turned its back on its conservative "base" (whatever the heck that means anymore) it finds itself losing the confidence of its registered voters; the very voters that it desperately needs to pull off any real victory this November. It claims to need a bigger tent, to be somehow more inclusive of fringe voters that have been artificially elevated to an ethereal status of near omnipotence at the ballot box. Yet the tent itself is damaged. Far from providing any sort of shelter within which voters may take shelter, it has been ripped, torn, slashed, and haphazardly patched back together so that it provides no cover against the force of even the smallest political storms.

So now we find that the machine behind the politicians is dirty. It's not just the grease that's getting old; there's grit in the gears, and a few cogs are even missing.

It's not that the charges themselves are overly incredible. Heck, this is what political machines do, isn't it? They spend money promiscuously and indiscreetly, then pay staff to cover their tracks, or throw themselves under the bus when they don't do a good enough job. Someone, at some point, had to see a receipt in the expense accounts for a strip club and should have raised the roof at that point. But they didn't, and we are left with Larry, Moe, and Curly pointing fingers at each other, or poking each other in the eyes, while the national press have a field day with the committee's ethical lapses.

Mark me: If Republicans do not fare well, and I'm not ready to predict any sort of significant turnover in Congress this fall, fingers will correctly point back to this incident as the beginning of the end. It won't be the failure to prevent health care reform, it won't be the decided lack of economic recovery in the face of stimulus after stimulus, and it certainly won't be Sarah Palin. It will be the complete failure of the RNC to provide any meaningful support or direction to its candidates.

In fact, I might even go out on a limb here and say that if (IF) Republicans do at all well in the upcoming elections, it will be because they did so despite the best efforts of the RNC. Michelle Malkin has a running meme of "RNC Rejection Slips" where people who are disgusted with the RNC and its current direction are sending back requests for donations with all sorts of reasons why the committee doesn't deserve their hard-earned money. Their reasons largely echo my own: the committee has demonstrated time and time again that they have no interest in fronting for true conservatives. They seem to have pinned all their hopes on moderates who will give them plenty of rope with which to hang themselves. This is why we have so many "representatives" who refuse to represent my particular interests: secured borders; fiscal conservatism; a return to constitutional limits of government power.

The RNC is more than done. They are toast.

President Obama's Expired Promises Thus Far

Courtesy of Jim Geraghty, who, unless I'm mistaken, was the one who coined the meme that all of President Obama's promises come with expiration dates.

Enjoy.

Cameron's Gettin' All Political Again

Greg, If you don't want me posting on the blog, you better take the keys away pretty soon. I'm a-gettin' angry again.

I'm feeling a need to . . . say . . . things.

I promise to keep it clean.

Woody: Hey, the welcome mat is always out. That's probably why 'possums are always eating it.

The Oath of Office

Every United States Representative upon entering Congress after their election (or re-election) is administered the oath of office. The oath, once a much simpler fourteen words, was expanded in the days following the beginning of the Civil War in order to impress upon these elected officials the seriousness of their duties and responsibilities as legislators:

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.

In the past few days, many words have been written about the move by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to act upon the recommendation of Rep. Louise Slaughter and her Rules Committee to "deem passed" the Senate bill rather than have the members of the House actually vote upon it.

Forgive me, but I can't help wondering whether anyone else recognizes this act as a direct violation of the congressional Oath of Office. Being curious, I undertook to do a bit of research and found this nugget on the "Friends of Article V" web site:

5 U.S.C. 3333 requires members of Congress sign an affidavit that they have taken the oath of office required by 5 U.S.C. 3331 and have not or will not violate that oath of office during their tenure of office as defined by the third part of the law, 5 U.S.C. 7311 which explicitly makes it a federal criminal offense (and a violation of oath of office) for anyone employed in the United States Government (including members of Congress) to “advocate the overthrow of our constitutional form of government”. The fourth federal law, 18 U.S.C. 1918 provides penalties for violation of oath office described in 5 U.S.C. 7311 which include: (1) removal from office and; (2) confinement or a fine.

If I'm not mistaken, encouraging members of Congress to "deem passed" such a major piece of legislation which is, after all, the cornerstone of President Obama's entire domestic policy, appears to "advocate the overthrow of our constitutional form of government." And if that is true, then certainly it would not be improper to seek the immediate removal of Nancy Pelosi, Louise Slaughter, and every single Representative who allows this blatant violation of the Constitution to take place.

Should the House of Representatives follow the recommendations of Slaughter's committee, I hope someone will have the courage to begin impeachment proceedings against, at a minimum, Pelosi and Slaughter. By extension, anyone who likewise supports this action should also be held equally accountable for their own perfidies.

That about sums up my feelings on this one.

As Bad as Film Gets

So we're browsing through Blockbuster last weekend, looking for entertainment. We do that occasionally, and we're not too proud to scan the tables for bargains, either.

Whilst scanning the recent releases, I saw one called "The Bracelet of Bordeaux." Looked like one the Woodyettes might enjoy as it had a solve-the-mystery back story, and the girls tend to enjoy those. We decided to make this our dinner-time movie tonight (Del Taco taco night!) and settled in to watch.

Those in my family will appreciate this next statement. "The Bracelet of Bordeaux" is the Mrs. Miller of cinematic achievement. But less comical.

It is my habit with films of this caliber to check out IMDB for certain details. Two things caught my attention. It was previewed in 2007 at the "Austin Film Festival" (two and a half stars!). The Austin Film Festival purports to celebrate the "writers' contribution to film." This film must have been entered under the prestigious "Writers Not Yet Having Graduated Junior High School" category. The film apparently did so well that the producers required a full year and a half to recuperate enough to give the film a "limited" release last May.

Equally impressive was it's reported budget of $70,000. That's right: seven-zero thousand. I'm guessing most of that went toward bribing theaters to actually show the film. At $70K this film is clearly overpriced. I'm not entirely certain the producers didn't need to take out a second mortgage to cover the cost of pressing the two or three copies of the DVD that eventually found their way into unsuspecting homes like ours.

The thing is, it could have been fun. The premise, while not original, sounded fun: kids solve a local mystery with the aid of a magical bracelet. The set-up scene, by the way, was far more impressive than the rest of the film. A lady spy is seen at the end of World War II putting the bracelet into a trunk, after showing just a hint of the bracelet's power. Had the movie ended at that point I would have considered it a fair effort.

Sadly, they plowed ahead and finished it. Worse yet, so did we.

Now, the Woodyettes watch their fair share of fluffy kid movies. They have every kid movie of any note (that have girls in them, anyway) from the Spy Kids all the way down to every Barbie movie ever foisted on the public. They love Matilda. They lap up the American Girl films. Eloise was a big hit for them.

They could not WAIT for this one to be over.

Neither could I. In fact, I wrote this entire review in the closing fifteen minutes of the movie, including the big breakup of the dog-napping gang. At fifteen minutes, this column is entirely too generous to this film.

Avoid at all costs.

The Not-So-Cranky Reviewer

Your humble reviewer has occasion to immerse himself in theatrical experiences in a variety of venues covering a fairly broad expanse of this nation of ours. I've visited theaters throughout California, Arizona, Utah, Oklahoma, and Washougal, Washington.

If you're anywhere near the Vancouver/Portland (the other Vancouver!) area today or next weekend, you owe it to yourself to enjoy "Beauty and the Beast" as presented by the Christian Youth Theater group. This is, of course, the Disney version of the show and is being staged in the Washburn Performing Arts Center at Washougal High School, about twenty minutes' drive from Vancouver, Washington.

Back in the day, yours truly was privileged to participate in the Teenage Drama Workshop. This was a summer drama camp that presented several musical productions throughout Simi Valley, California. The format was that of a true workshop; classes were given in various stage techniques, including set design and construction, as well as music and acting. It was all-inclusive and gave the students a chance to participate in all of the theatrical disciplines. The Christian Youth Theater is similar to this concept, except that it runs throughout the school year. They offer ten week sessions, at two hours per week, and an opportunity to participate in a major production. (I use "major" in the sense of "one humongous headache for the producers, but one thrilling show for the actors.")

The results are impressive.

Director Starleen Benke has crafted a wonderful children's fairy tale that can be enjoyed by audiences of all ages. This is possible because the kids, typically aged 10 through 18, have tremendous energy and not an insignificant amount of talent. The casting was extremely well balanced as to the ages and abilities of the principals. The chorus performed with tremendous gusto. On the one hand it's possible to argue that it's hard to go wrong with a Disney score, but it's altogether too easy to over-do such things. In the case of an iconic Disney characterization with so many familiar and favorite characters (Belle, the Beast, Cogsworth, Lumiere, and so on) it's even easier to fall into the emulation trap.

However, Benke largely succeeded in making the show her own, and allowing the kids to develop some wonderful characterizations along the way. My only quibble was with Belle (Abby Thompson). A wonderful actress with the chops required for the songs, they tried too hard to make her sound like Belle from the animated original. Indeed, it's hard to do any such production without at least trying to somewhat emulate these characters, but a female voice like Belle's is unique with its own timbre and cadence. Trying so hard to match those vocal qualities is akin to all those child actors of the 30's and 40's trying to sound just like Shirley Temple. It grates on the nerves after awhile. Still, such things are the responsibility of the director, and Ms. Thompson's performance was in all other respects equal to the task. Her singing left nothing to be desired, and she played a perfectly delightful Belle.

Also delightful was Casey Pitel as the Beast. A tall, good-looking young man, Casey brought a nice touch of vulnerability to his cantankerous exterior. He was also quite athletic in leaping about the stage, and highlighted the skills and talents of the ever-unseen set designers and carpenters.

All other support characters, from the pompous and fragile Cogsworth, to the effervescent and over-the-top Lumiere, down to the "Silly Girls" who titter and giggle endlessly over Gaston were all well casted and fun to watch. Mrs. Potts had to reach down in her range to handle the eponymous "Beauty and the Beast" number, but did a very credible job. Also worth mentioning are LeFou (Alex Low), Madame De La Grand Bouche (Janelle Harriman), Cogsworth (Scott Bradner), Lumiere (Caleb Adderly) and a wonderfully flirtatious Babette (the very French feather duster from the original) played by Aimee Hogan.

The production numbers were all comprised of a terrific form of controlled chaos, including some better-than-average dancing.

All in all, this show is well worth the $10 per seat. My entire family enjoyed themselves tremendously, and I'm pretty sure you will, too.

Blogging for the Sake of Blogging

New glasses are like the vernal equinox. Or not.

Today's Sports Glossary

Super Bowl, The

An annual event wherein two performance-enhanced teams compete to see who can score the most points in between commercial advertisements of costly yet dubious quality. Known more for "entertainment" involving "wardrobe malfunctions" during half-time than for the actual game.

Yikes!

Ushering in the holiday season last month, my extended family participated in a creche exhibit/concert series for the Simi Stake. We called ourselves "The Kindred Carolers," and we may have a return engagement this year if they get desperate enough or have very short memories. Anyway, Cameron links to a duet that we did (following a solo effort by yours truly) that was actually quite fun. We haven't sung together for about 20 years. In my own defense, I will only say that I was trying to ward off a very nasty case of bronchitis, and hadn't quite recovered my full upper register when we performed this in early December.

If you're feeling adventurous, scroll to the bottom of his post and check the video. There are others if you care to hear the whole family in action. We had a good time, all things considered.

Miracle? In Massachusetts? Hardly.

I've been reading with interest the bloggy reactions to Scott Brown's unprecedented win today, and I have to say: Don't over-do it, folks.

Scott Brown is, except for a few pithy quotes that you'd never have heard from a Democrat, largely an unknown quantity. Folks in Massachusetts may know this guy, but the rest of us are waiting to see what he does once he occupies the "Peoples' Seat."

It is nice to know that we have that critical 41st vote available, but of course that only applies when the rest of the senators on that side of the aisle actually act like Republicans. With Snowe, Collins, and Voinovich still in control of 3 of those votes, heaven only knows when all 41 will work in lock-step on the really important issues. We're still not convinced that Voinovich, for example, will hold to his stated intent to vote against Obamacare when the next opportunity arises.

Also, as my brother so eloquently puts it, the GOP has a fairly predictive pattern of screwing up every advantage they ever gain in Congress. In other words, we ain't holdin' our breath.

The fact is, Brown's election is just one step toward a much-needed reform of the GOP. If Brown can deliver on the promise, that's all to the good. From statements made by Barney Frank, Jim Webb and others, it may already have the effect of making legislators take a deep breath and admit that perhaps they've been a bit hasty in ramrodding this health care fiasco down our taxpaying throats. Too bad this comes too late to do the same for the "stimulus."

Now it remains to be seen whether the GOP can capitalize on voter unrest in the independent and moderate Democrat ranks in the November elections this year, and put a few more right/center-right fannies in more of the Peoples' seats. If they can, just please promise me that we won't have any of that Contract On America nonsense that torpedoed us back in the good ol' days.

That means, of course, that Michael Steele must go. Quickly.

We Won't Win California.

The GOP will screw it up, even with all momentum Scott Brown's win has just given us. On that note, Happy Celebrating!

ccwbass be bloggin' again

Yup. I'm back.

Have No Fear

So, with one exception my blogs have been more or less dormant for the past two months. Illness and the holiday season are the obvious reasons. Yet there's also been a metamorphosis of thought and feeling during this period. I'd hate to say that my recent bout with bronchitis (or, as I suspect, perhaps even walking pneumonia) made me somehow more introspective, but it's at least a possibility.

As with most conservatives, I've spent the better part of this year of Hope and Change hoping that change wouldn't come about too quickly, but fearing tremendously that it would. With liberal thought firmly in control of two branches of government it seemed a foregone conclusion that radical legislation would be enacted as quickly as possible while they still have the keys to the family car. And it's been true. 2009 saw the passage of a wildly irresponsible "stimulus" package that didn't stimulate anything but Congress' express desire to enact even more irresponsible (and even reckless legislation) in the guise of health care "reform."

Most troubling of all is the speed with which these acts have been committed. There is not one single member of Congress that can look America in the eye and declare that 1) they have read and fully comprehend the health care bill that their respective chamber passed last year and 2) that it will do everything that it is purported and has been told to America that it will do. Of course, there are many of us that are fearful that it will do everything it's purported to do. It has nothing at all to do with my being a huge fan of the health care "industry" as currently defined by our legislators. It has everything to do with my hard-earned understanding that everything the government administers, it ruins. Everything. Even Social Security is unlikely to be running as smoothly and efficiently as it probably could be given the fact that it is a government-administered program.

Given the government's track record on welfare, education, housing, transportation security, border security, and budget management, I find it highly improbable that they will have any better results with the administration of health care in this country. I do believe that our health care system will go the way of Canada and other socialized nations with outlandish waiting lists, fewer qualified doctors in highly specialized areas of medicine, and overall increased costs of medical care. Whether or not we have to pay those costs up front is immaterial: as taxpayers we will pay in the end.

I've had my share of restless, even sleepless nights this past year thinking about all of this. It makes absolutely no sense for Congress to be in such an all-fired hurry to do this. It would be far more prudent to take their time and get it right, rather than ramrod it down our throats with cries of "people are dying every day" by way of scaring us into submission. Well, guess what — people will be dying even after it is implemented and, perhaps, may die at a faster rate than before. Because one thing we've noticed about government-run programs: they always seem to exacerbate whatever problems they were designed to fix. Has the stimulus solved whatever problems got us into this mess in the first place? It has not. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are still issuing high-risk loans to people who cannot now and possibly never will be able to afford a house, and we will be required to pay for these people for the rest of our natural lives. Way to go, Congress!

I needed to say these things in order to clarify my next statement: I'm no longer all that worried about any of this. My opinions of what has happened and what will likely happen this year have not changed one iota. I still believe the Democrats and their Republican enablers in Congress are rushing headlong into turning us into just another socialized country among so many others in the world today. May as well join the European Union while we're at it. I firmly believe that between the stimulus and health care legislation we will find ourselves giving up more and more of our precious constitutional rights because the government will be in control of two things that make it possible for us to grow individually: our health and our money.

So why do I not fear as I did this time a year ago? Simply because we are Americans and there is one precious right they have not undertaken to cripple: my freedom to think and believe as I choose. So long as I enjoy this most basic of freedoms, I can survive this congressional tomfoolery. While I have the ability to raise my heart and voice in prayer to God, I have assurance that all will be well with my house. "Well" is, of course, a relative term, and I can only hope that we don't get seriously ill once the government controls our access to the care we need. But one thing the government cannot and will never control is my spirit.

Even if we were to assume the worst and find that the government had imposed itself into our public worship, we have the lessons of history to guide us. The year 1987, for example, reminds us that any wall, no matter how well constructed or what its intended purpose, can be torn down. The American Revolution teaches us that people, even those who are reluctant to do so, can join together and defend themselves from assaults on their God-given rights. Congress would do well to remember that had King George III ever relented and admitted that his colonies deserved the full rights and representation as his subjects in England, the outcome of the Revolution might have been very different. They would do even better to remember what happened to His Majesty's empire because he refused to do so.

Laws that are enacted by men can be undone by men. We've seen this time and time again. Granted, it's harder to do so once those laws have become entrenched in the fabric of our society, but it can be done. All it takes is the election of men and women that have the courage to foment true reform of the government and return that government to its constitutional limits. I know I make that sound far more simple than reality might otherwise dictate, but it's true nonetheless. We need to find courageous people to counteract the cowardice that permeates our Congress today. Find them, elect them, and hold them accountable for their actions in office.

Finally, as a spiritual creature, I of course turn to God and the church to guide my thinking. As a Latter-day Saint, I have the unique privilege of having a living prophet on the earth today. That prophet has not told me to live in fear of health care reform or despair of our becoming a second-rate power among the nations of the earth. He has told me to be prepared for an uncertain future, as his predecessors have also done for many, many years now. He has told me to make myself right with God, confess my sins, and live worthy of His blessings. So long as I do this, President Obama and his cronies in Congress can do whatever they will. Their (and my) day of accountability will come, sooner or later, and many will be found lacking.

I just pray that I won't.

Chariots of the Insects

Sometimes it's just weird where memories come from or why they infest our brains. Take, for example, two movies that my brain suddenly became desperately interested in remembering more than thirty five years after I'd seen them.

The year was 1971, and I was very nearly a teenager. It was, in fact, the summer before my 13th birthday if I'm not mistaken. In those days we weren't too hung up about sending our youngsters alone to the theater, and our lone walk-in theater in town was less than a mile from the house. This meant that I alternately walked or cajoled Mom into taking me. Then, for a buck-fifty we got a double feature, and another seventy-five cents got you popcorn.

For purposes of this narrative, I should point out that my mother was and is a voracious reader. She went through phases in her reading, though. One year it was romances, for example. Another year she went all Margaret Mead on us and started buying or checking out books like "Ishi: The Last of His Tribe." She became absolutely fascinated by tribes or races of people that no longer existed. But her most fascinating period for me was the "faux science or explorer" genre of books that were becoming ubiquitous in the late 60's and early 70's. Not to say that there weren't some legitimate scientists or explorers among them. Thor Heyerdahl, for example, had become famous for demonstrating that ancient peoples could very well have navigated across the vast Pacific ocean in boats manufactured entirely of reeds. Mom snapped up all of his books. However, for every legitimate author Mom patronized, there were plenty of supermarket pulp paperbacks to balance them out.

I remember Mom picking up a copy of Erich von Daniken's "Chariots of the Gods," and I decided to read it. I think it was primarily because we Latter-day Saints are fascinated with the whole premise of the Book of Mormon and its depiction of life in ancient America, and von Daniken devoted many chapters to those ancient cultures as part of his "research." It was pretty heady stuff for a young post-Star-Trekian male such as myself.

So you'll understand that, as soon as the movie by the same name was released, I was keen to see it. Back in those days movies would hit the theaters and hang around for absolutely months before disappearing into the void of TV "Movie of the Week" features. So it's not surprising that I didn't get around to seeing "Chariots of the Gods" until nearly a year after it first came out. By that time, it was being paired with a relatively newer film called "The Hellstrom Chronicle," and I decided to see them both.

"The Hellstrom Chronicle" was another faux documentary that was supposed to sound like a scientific treatise on the survivability of insects compared with mankind in a post-apocolyptic world. What it was, really, was a science fiction thriller designed to creep 13 year old boys out by making their skin crawl even faster than the insects were crawling. At least, that's the effect it had on me.

"Chariots" was first in the lineup that day, as I recall. I remember happily chowing down on popcorn during the movie and loving all the footage of ancient artwork that von Daniken kept trying to compare with astronauts or alien beings. The movie was every bit as entertaining as the book, although it may be indirectly responsible for the propogation of every nut-job UFO conspiracist and ET truther that we have out there today. Didn't quite convince me, but I was there for the entertainment value more than anything else.

Then came "Hellstrom." Now, for sheer cinematography, "Hellstrom" was hard to beat. The cameras did a nearly miraculous job of getting up close and personal with several species of insects that I never knew existed and have spent the past 38 years trying to forget. But that's the problem: It's a film I desperately needed to forget. The basic premise was, quite simply, that the earth would devolve back into some sort of tropical rainforest kind of planet (Al Gore had nothing on these people) and that it would be a race for survival between Man and Insects. And Insects (all of which were magnified to the size of industrial construction equipment) would win. (This is where I learned for the first time that cockroaches are pretty much indestructible. Thanks for that, guys.) I can also tell you that, even 38 years later, just thinking about this film can make my skin crawl. Now imagine spending an entire movie that way, and you'll understand why I resolved as a 13 year old boy never to think of that film again.

So why is it, 38 years later, that my brain suddenly, at 1:00 in the stinkin' A.M., decided it needed to remember the name of that film that played as a double-header with "Chariots of the Gods" (a film I don't really mind remembering) just so I could experience that skin-crawling sensation once again? There is no logical or even illogical reason that I can think of, except that it's one of those useless chores in which the brain engages from time to time, like trying to comprehend Congress, or staying awake in staff meeting.

Oh, well. One good thing has come out of this reminiscence. I'm tired enough now to go to bed and get some decent sleep. Assuming I can get these locusts the size of Mack trucks out of my head.