Monday, November 23, 2009

Daily duh! "You cannot legislate the poor into freedom by legislating the wealthy out of freedom"

From Boortz:
Dr. Adrian Rogers was born in 1931, right before our imperial federal government began its massive FDR induced expansion. In 1996 Rogers wrote "Ten Secrets for a Successful Family." He wrote that "by and large our young people do not know either the importance or the value of honest labor." I think Dr. Rogers got this one right ..... at any rate:

The quote: Here you go:

"You cannot legislate the poor into freedom by legislating the wealthy out of freedom. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that is about the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it."

Precisely! Wealth is a product of work. Socialism removes the motivation to work. Duh!

Health-care is really death avoidance

Clinic with two doors, a symbol of two-tier care:
On Manhattan's fashionable Upper East Side, the door on 77th Street says Lenox Hill Radiology. It's a busy place, with 20 or 30 people typically waiting in chairs. It takes insurance.

But if you walk a few steps down the block to Madison Avenue, and one block up to 78th Street, you'll walk through the door of New York Private Medical Imaging. The waiting room has only four chairs, usually empty. It takes cash, checks and credit cards. You can try to recoup some of your money later if you have insurance.

Both doors ultimately lead to the same area of changing rooms and scanning equipment. The same technicians perform PET scans and MRIs on the same machines. The employees are warned, in a written policy, not to tell the patients about the other door.
...
To see how it works, msnbc.com sent two reporters, Linda Carroll and Helen Popkin, for their routine mammograms on the same afternoon to document their experiences. And later we returned to interview doctors on both sides.

The purpose: to determine if both women received the same care. And if there were any differences, were they meaningful or superficial?

At the Lenox Hill clinic, on the insurance side, Helen waited 15 days to get an appointment. On the day of her mammogram, she stood in line at the reception desk in a crowded waiting room.
...
The technician was friendly and efficient, though Helen didn't see a doctor. She went home not knowing whether she was healthy or not, and waited nine days for her results. But it was good news, a clean bill of health. Though the list price was $350, Helen's insurance paid the clinic $140 and she paid nothing, because her health insurance covers preventive care such as mammography.

At the Private Imaging clinic — the boutique side — Linda was able to get an appointment in two days. She was greeted immediately in the private reception area. She changed into a comfy spa robe. Her technician was also friendly and efficient, then the doctor read the scan after a few minutes, reassuring her, “Your mammogram's negative. Nothing to worry about. See you next year.” Linda walked out carrying a copy of her X-rays. Linda wrote a check to the clinic for $350; if she'd had the same insurance plan as Helen, Linda's net cost would have been $210.
Premium-pay medical practices grow as doctors seek more control, cash:
The result, critics say, is a segregated system that offers extra access for extra cash, even as it escalates a looming health care crisis for everyone else. And there’s nothing in the current health reform bills being considered in Congress to stop it.
...
Here’s how concierge medicine works: Doctors charge anywhere from $1,500 per person per year up to $25,000 or more for a family. This fee acts as a retainer on top of all the insurance-covered services.

In some programs, those who don’t pay are forced to leave the practice. In others, they’re likely to see a nurse practitioner, a physician assistant or a newer, different doctor hired to handle the traditional patients.

The move to smaller, premium practices will worsen an already dire shortage of primary care doctors, creating an elite group of well-compensated physicians who see fewer and fewer upscale patients, dumping the rest on their increasingly harried colleagues, critics contend.

The U.S. is short by between 40,000 and 50,000 primary care doctors now, a figure that’s expected to top 125,000 by 2020, according to the American Academy of Family Physicians. That means people who don’t want or can’t afford concierge plans will have a harder time than ever finding a doctor.
...
The movement toward concierge care has exploded in recent years. Five years ago, there were 250 concierge doctors in the nation, serving perhaps 100,000 patients. Today, more than 5,000 primary care doctors run retainer practices serving 500,000 patients, according to the Society for Innovative Medical Practice Design, a concierge association.
The rich have always (and will always be able to) pay for better health-care. In the UK the rich pay for the NHS through their taxes but they don't use it and then pay for treatment by private practices. Private practices are illegal in Canada so the rich have to come to the USA for better treatment.

It isn't fair but that's the price that you pay for freedom. The way I see it is that there are obviously two levels of health-care. There's standard health-care which treats standard problems and there's fancy health-care which treats more complicated problems. Both aim to avoid death. The rich can afford to postpone (but not altogether avoid) death.

There is no way of getting around the "unfairness." It will always be with us. "Universal" health-care in theory means that everyone can get every type of treatment. In practice it will mean rationing of the limited resources available. So the rich will buy extra treatment on top of paying taxes for "universal" health-care. Is that fair?

I can't afford really "fancy" health-care. My insurance premiums cost $5,000 a year. I also have to pay a $1,800 annual deductible before insurance kicks in. Then I have to pay 20% of everything after that. I figure my insurance is there for emergencies like if I end up with a hospital bill of more than $6,800.

That happened to me once when I had to have emergency surgery and the bill came to $126,000. I didn't have insurance and it nearly ruined me. I figured that paying about $7,000 a year in insurance was a good investment. And paying 20% (about $25,000) beats facing bankruptcy to pay $126,000.

I would not mind paying taxes so that everyone could have access to limited "standard" health-care and then pay whatever I can for "fancy" health-care. But the "standard" health-care would have to be limited and rationed. And that's not something that Democrats are not willing to admit must happen. But I have to limit and ration my own health-care by not buying a "Cadillac" insurance plan which I can't afford.

I know that if my insurance company decides not to cover some fancy procedure that may be able to save my life, I will have to accept death. I don't expect the Rockefellers to pay for me. And I don't like having to pay for a fancy procedure for someone else who can't afford it. In a free society you get what you pay for. And these two-tier practices will increase even more under the Democrats' plans. There is no way to make it fair.

The only thing about human life that is fair is death. As James Shirley wrote in 1640:
The glories of our blood and state
Are shadows, not substantial things;
There is no armour against Fate;
Death lays his icy hand on kings:
Sceptre and Crown
Must tumble down,
And in the dust be equal made
With the poor crookèd scythe and spade.

Some men with swords may reap the field,
And plant fresh laurels where they kill:
But their strong nerves at last must yield;
They tame but one another still:
Early or late
They stoop to fate,
And must give up their murmuring breath
When they, pale captives, creep to death.

The garlands wither on your brow,
Then boast no more your mighty deeds!
Upon Death's purple altar now
See where the victor-victim bleeds.
Your heads must come
To the cold tomb:
Only the actions of the just
Smell sweet and blossom in their dust.

Labels: ,

Sunday, November 22, 2009

Man in a 23-year 'coma' was conscious all along

A man thought by doctors to be in a vegetative state for 23 years was actually conscious the whole time, it was revealed last night:
Student Rom Houben was misdiagnosed after a car crash left him totally paralysed.

He had no way of letting experts, family or friends know he could hear every word they said.

'I screamed, but there was nothing to hear,' said Mr Houben, now 46.

Doctors used a range of coma tests, recognised worldwide, before reluctantly concluding that his consciousness was 'extinct'.

But three years ago, new hi-tech scans showed his brain was still functioning almost completely normally.

Mr Houben describes the moment as 'my second birth'.

Therapy has since allowed him to tap out messages on a computer screen.

Mr Houben said: 'All that time I just literally dreamed of a better life. Frustration is too small a word to describe what I felt.'

His case has only just been revealed in a scientific paper released by the man who 'saved' him, top neurological expert Dr Steven Laureys.

'Medical advances caught up with him,' said Dr Laureys, who believes there may be many similar cases of false comas around the world.

The disclosure will also renew the right-to-die debate over whether people in comas are truly unconscious.
...
Dr Laureys's new study claims that patients classed as in a vegetative state are often misdiagnosed.

'Anyone who bears the stamp of "unconscious" just one time hardly ever gets rid of it again,' he said.

The doctor, who leads the Coma Science Group and Department of Neurology at Liege University Hospital, found Mr Houben's brain was still working by using state-of-the-art imaging.

He plans to use the case to highlight what he considers may be similar examples around the world.
...
Supporters of euthanasia and assisted suicide argue that people who have lain in persistent vegetative states for years should be given the opportunity to have crucial medical support withdrawn because of the 'indignity' of their condition.

But there have been several cases in which people judged to be in vegetative states or deep comas have recovered.

Twenty years ago, Carrie Coons, an 86-year-old from New York, regained consciousness after a year, took small amounts of food by mouth and engaged in conversation.

Only days before her recovery, a judge had granted her family's request for the removal of the feeding tube which had been keeping her alive.
God only knows what it's like being in a "coma" but still aware. I do know what it's like to be anesthetized and being conscious at the same time. That happened when I had plastic surgery on my nose after it had been broken in a mugging in San Francisco. The surgeon had to re-break my nose in order to straighten it out.

He and the OR nurses assumed that I was unconscious only to be surprised when I started giggling about the funny sound that the breaking bone made. I was supposed to be totally knocked out and couldn't feel a thing but I was aware of everything. He just didn't use enough anesthetic. Fortunately most of the anesthetists who dealt with me in surgeries that I've had figured out that I'm very hard to knock out and gave me extra.

Labels: ,

Movie stars I loved as a kid - Olivia de Havilland

I'm doing this now because our guests will be arriving soon.

Olivia Mary de Havilland (born July 1, 1916):
De Havilland is one of the last surviving female stars from 1930s Hollywood. She is also the last living lead from Gone with the Wind.

De Havilland was born in Tokyo, Japan. Her mother, Lilian Augusta Ruse (1886-1975), was an actress known by her stage name Lilian Fontaine, and her father, Walter Augustus de Havilland (1872-1968), was a British patent attorney with a practice in Japan. Her younger sister is actress Joan Fontaine (born 1917), from whom she has been estranged for many decades, not speaking at all since 1975.
...
After appearing with Joe E. Brown in Alibi Ike and James Cagney in The Irish in Us, de Havilland played opposite Errol Flynn in such highly popular films as Captain Blood, The Charge of the Light Brigade (1936), and as Maid Marian to Flynn's Robin Hood in The Adventures of Robin Hood (1938). Overall, she starred opposite Flynn in eight films. She played Melanie Hamilton Wilkes in Gone with the Wind (1939) and was nominated for an Academy Award for Best Supporting Actress for her performance.
...
In 1941, De Havilland became a naturalized citizen of the United States.
...
She won Best Actress Academy Awards for To Each His Own (1946) and The Heiress (1949).
...
She has lived in Paris for the past 40 years.
...
On November 17, 2008, at the age of 92, she received the National Medal for the Arts from President George W. Bush.


Labels:

A whole week of Thanksgiving

On the Sunday before Thanksgiving we do dinner for friends who will be away with family on Thursday. It's the works: turkey, pumpkin pie etc with champagne. Then on Thursday we'll do our favorites: roast beef and dungeness crab with a nice cabernet sauvignon.

We usually celebrate a whole week of Thanksgiving to mark my coming to America in 1978 just before Thanksgiving 31 years ago. We also give thanks for each other. Chas has been with me for 28 years since November 1981 and Andy has been with us for 17 years since November 1992. I am very grateful for my adopted brothers - actually they're more like sons since they're decades younger than me.

Labels:

Saturday, November 21, 2009

Democrats want to be insured against death

Senator Reid tonight:

Today we vote whether to even discuss one of the greatest issues of our generation - indeed, one of the greatest issues this body has ever face: whether this nation will finally guarantee its people the right to live free from the fear of illness and death, which can be prevented by decent health care for all.

I'll believe that the government can do miracles when Obamessiah starts raising the dead back to life.

Movie stars I loved as a kid - Sandra Dee

Sandra Dee is another one of those stars who was not much older than me.

Sandra Dee (April 23, 1942 – February 20, 2005):
Best known for her portrayal of ingenues, Dee won a Golden Globe Award in 1959 as one of the year's most promising newcomers, and over several years her films were popular. By the late 1960s her career had started to decline, and a highly publicized marriage to Bobby Darin ended in divorce.

She rarely acted after this time, and her final years were marred by illness; she died as a result of kidney failure.

Dee was born Alexandra Zuck in Bayonne, New Jersey. Her parents divorced before she was five. Her mother was of Carpatho-Rusyn ancestry and raised her in the Russian Orthodox Church. Changing her name to "Sandra Dee", she became a professional model by the age of four and subsequently progressed to television commercials.

There was some confusion as to her actual birth year, with evidence pointing to both 1942 and 1944. According to her son Dodd Darin in his book Dream Lovers she was born in 1944, she and her mother having lied to everyone about her age so she could work. If true, the bride would have been 16 years old in 1960 when Dee was married to Bobby Darin.
...
She became known for her wholesome ingenue roles in such films as Imitation of Life, Gidget and A Summer Place, all in 1959. She later played "Tammy" in two Universal sequels to Tammy and the Bachelor in the role created by Debbie Reynolds.
...
Dee's adult years were marked by ill health. She admitted that for most of her life she battled anorexia nervosa, depression and alcoholism. In 2000, it was reported that she had been diagnosed with several ailments, including throat cancer and kidney disease. Complications from kidney disease led to her death on February 20, 2005.
...
In 1994, Dodd wrote a book about his parents, Dream Lovers: The Magnificent Shattered Lives of Bobby Darin and Sandra Dee, in which he chronicled his mother's anorexia, drug and alcohol problems and her disclosure that she had been sexually abused as a child by her stepfather, Eugene Douvan.




Labels:

Some Saturday chuckles

Iraq according to a redneck? From an email to K-Lo at The Corner:
"Meanwhile back at the ranch, Ma was in the cookhouse whippin' up a big Mesopotamia; but I Babylon."




Friday, November 20, 2009

Palin and McCain: the limits of the conservative "litmus test"

Kristol thinks Palin will help McCain win re-election:

I predict that Palin will come to Arizona next summer to campaign for McCain, will make an impassioned case for him, and will help him win. She will thereby repay McCain for his confidence in picking her last year, help keep McCain as a crucial voice in the Senate for a strong foreign policy, and get credit for being a different kind of populist conservative—a Reaganite, not a Buchananite, populist—than the immigration-obsessed, voter-alienating (he was ousted in 2006 in a Republican district) Hayworth.

Larison at The American Conservative:
One of the amusing things about Palin supporters is that very few of them are prepared to accept that Palin and McCain represent the same part of the Republican Party. For the most part, the people who love Palin loathe McCain as all the things they oppose in the GOP. It as if they think her appearance on the national stage would have happened apart from him. It is as if they black out all of the occasions when she endorsed positions McCain held (as she had to do as his running mate) that they otherwise find unacceptable. If she is supposed to represent some great right-populist hope, he is the deal-brokering, bipartisan “moderate” Beltway denizen who assiduously cultivates the media, but the reality is that he chose her partly because she reminded him of his own combative, arrogant, egocentric style and his habit of breaking party ranks to aggrandize himself.

Were she to side openly with McCain in a primary against Hayworth, whose views match up a lot more closely with her supporters’ views, she would be seen as imitating McCain’s worst habits. She would be considered a worse sell-out than McCain. She would be doing exactly the opposite of what she did in NY-23. Her intervention may have failed to elect Hoffman, but rank-and-file conservatives generally loved her for it anyway. She would fritter all that away if she backed McCain.
I'm not a Kristol fan but I do take Larison seriously. I never did understand why Republicans hated McCain. He's a politician and will do what it takes to get elected or re-elected - just as Reagan did when he signed liberal abortion legislation as Governor of California or signed an amnesty bill for illegal aliens as President.

Palin may have dropped out of politics because she does not want to compromise but, if she re-enters politics, she will have to. It's called reality.

The "litmus test conservatives" like the overly excitable Michelle Malkin and Glenn Beck are not doing the GOP any favors by labeling every politician with whom they do not agree 100% as RINOs. Yes, we need to stick to our principles but politics will always be the "art of the possible" not Moses descending descending from the mountain with the Ten Commandments.

If Republicans want to be relevant in future elections, we'll have to grow up and get real about the limits of political "purity" - and especially of those people who are willing to enter politics. As I said to many people who hated McCain: "If you don't like him then you should run for election yourself."

Labels: , , , ,

Movie stars I loved as a kid - Yvonne De Carlo

I saw De Carlo when she was a babe in the 1950s and didn't see her as Lily Munster till I saw reruns on TV after I came to the USA. She made 60 movies in the late 1940s and 1950s before doing The Munsters - and I saw most of them as a kid. She was stunningly beautiful. I really loved this lady.

Yvonne De Carlo (September 1, 1922 – January 8, 2007):
In her six-decade career, her most prolific appearances in film came in the 1940s and 1950s and included her best-known film roles, such as Salome Where She Danced and The Ten Commandments, opposite Charlton Heston. In the 1960s, she gained a whole new generation of fans, playing "Lily Munster" on CBS television series The Munsters, opposite Fred Gwynne.
...
De Carlo was born Margaret Yvonne Middleton in Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. Her maternal grandfather, Michael de Carlo, was Sicilian-born, and her maternal grandmother, Margaret Purvis, was Scottish-born. Little Margaret was just a toddler when her father beat a hasty departure only one step ahead of the law. Her father abandoned her family when she was 3. While her mother was away with her boyfriends, Margaret lived with her grandparents.
She had a very hard early life being shuttled around by her ambitious mother between Canada and California, dancing in sleazy nightclubs. I think her early hardships were what made her witty and eccentric later in life.
Her break came in 1945 playing the title role in Salome, Where She Danced. Though not a critical success, it was a box office favorite, and De Carlo was hailed as an up-and-coming star. Of the role, she was less sure, saying of her entrance, "I came through these beaded curtains, wearing a Japanese kimono and a Japanese headpiece, and then performed a Siamese dance. Nobody seemed to know quite why."
...
In December 1941, the Japanese Attack on Pearl Harbor signaled America's entrance into World War II. During this period she engaged in morale boosting performances for U.S. servicemen. De Carlo was a favorite leading lady in the 1940s, and a recipient of many letters from GI's.
...
As the female lead opposite Burt Lancaster in Criss Cross, she played a femme fatale, and her career began to ascend. The 1957 film Band of Angels featured her opposite Clark Gable in an American Civil War story, along with Sidney Poitier and Efrem Zimbalist, Jr.

The actress worked steadily for the next several years, although many of the films failed to advance her career.

Cast in The Ten Commandments (1956) in a leading role (as Zipporah, also spelled Sephora, Moses' wife), De Carlo became part of a major hit. The film was a huge success and De Carlo was praised for her restrained work in a feature in which several other performances were considered somewhat over-the-top.
...
The year 1964 was a rocky one for De Carlo, as she was deeply in debt. After having worked for over 30 years, her film career came to a sudden end, and she was suffering from depression. Her life changed, however, when she signed a contract with Universal Studios after receiving an offer to perform the female lead role in the cult sitcom The Munsters opposite Fred Gwynne as Herman Munster.
...
"In Hollywood I was on cloud nine all the time. After I made my hit in Salome, Universal sent me to New York so I could learn to be a proper movie star."

Asked if she was really nervous about residing in New York City: "I'm from Hollywood, I'm too dumb to be nervous about New York."
...
In her autobiography, published in 1987, she listed 22 "intimate friends", including Aly Khan, Billy Wilder, Burt Lancaster, Howard Hughes, Robert Stack and Robert Taylor.
...
On her meeting with Howard Hughes after he had watched Salome Where She Danced (1945): "A man came over ... he said 'Mr. Hughes would like to meet you.' Well, I was not too much aware of Mr. Hughes at the time --- who he was or anything. So, I said, 'Oh, yes, fine!' And so, I looked and thought, 'Wow, this would be a terrific boyfriend for my aunt.'"

When asked in 1972 about her affair with Howard Hughes before he turned into a legendary recluse: "Howard taught me how to land a plane and how to take off. But he never taught me anything about flying in between. He thought that I had learned the difficult parts, and that was enough."
This pic is huge. Click it if you want to see just how gorgeous she was.




Labels:

Cal Thomas on Palin

Sarah Palin and the Future of Conservatism:
I'm sure I would like Sarah Palin if I got the chance to meet her. We share many things in common. She is still married to her first spouse, as am I. She has a Down syndrome son. I have a brother with Down syndrome. We share the same faith and we both like the outdoors. She is conservative on economic and social issues, and so am I.

In her new book, "Going Rogue," Palin complains about her running mate's handlers, whom she says kept her from being herself. I have similar complaints. Those handlers also kept me from interviewing her. The handlers are long gone, of course, but still I cannot get close to her.

I could either play the victim, or move on. I choose to move on. But before I do, the Palin phenomenon — for that is what it is because her celebrity flows singularly from John McCain's choice of her as a running mate — offers an opportunity for conservatives to choose their path to the future. Will it be a path of the angry and disenfranchised outsider, or will it be something of substance that produces triumphs in both politics and policy?

The victim thing is getting old.
...
It is true that conservatives are often asked questions that are never asked of liberals and in ways that seem condescending and superficial. But that is an opportunity to give an answer that can skewer the questioner while making the point you wish to make.

Do I wish Palin had more intellectual depth like Jeane Kirkpatrick, Ronald Reagan's United Nations U.S. ambassador? Of course. But that can be developed if she gets serious about it.
...
Still, if she is as bad as her detractors say, why are they wasting so much time dumping on her? One might think they would be cheering the prospect of her becoming the 2012 GOP presidential nominee, thus guaranteeing in their mind a second term for President Obama.

Victimization plays well with the conservative base and that's a problem. If conservatives don't rise from the muck of feeling excluded, disrespected, ignored and mocked, they will continue to suffer all of these things. There is nothing like proving the worth of your ideas to put the mockers in their place. Victimization can raise money, sell books and get one face time on TV, but it doesn't advance the ball.

Sarah Palin is a force the Republican establishment must reckon with. She has energized a sizable portion of the GOP base. If the party ignores that base and nominates another candidate in 2012 who is part of the inside-the-beltway crowd, it could lose. And that would be a double tragedy — for the GOP and the country — as President Obama keeps giving Republicans issues that make a conservative agenda far more attractive than the hard-left one he is attempting to impose on the country.

Palin's optimism is refreshing. If she can sharpen her intellect, in three years she won't be mocked; she will be feared.
Once again I have nothing to add. Like Jonah, Cal is another guy with whom I agree more often than not.

Goldberg on Palin

From Palinophobes Hate First, Ask Questions Later:
Slate magazine is just one of the countless media outlets convulsing with St. Vitus’ Dance over that demonic succubus Sarah Palin. In its reader forum, The Fray, one supposed Palinophobe took dead aim at the former Alaska governor’s writing chops, excerpting the following sentence from her book:

“The apartment was small, with slanting floors and irregular heat and a buzzer downstairs that didn’t work, so that visitors had to call ahead from a pay phone at the corner gas station, where a black Doberman the size of a wolf paced through the night in vigilant patrol, its jaws clamped around an empty beer bottle.”

Other readers pounced like wolf-sized Dobermans on an intruder. One guffawed, “That sentence by Sarah Palin could be entered into the annual Bulwer-Lytton bad writing contest. It could have a chance at winning a (sic) honorable mention, at any rate.”

But soon, the original contributor confessed: “I probably should have mentioned that the sentence quoted above was not written by Sarah Palin. It’s taken from the first paragraph of ‘Dreams From My Father,’ written by Barack Obama.”

The ruse should have been allowed to fester longer, but the point was made nonetheless: Some people hate Palin first and ask questions later.
...
Indeed, some of us will always be sympathetic to Mrs. Palin if for nothing else than her enemies. The bile she extracts from her critics is almost like a dye marker, illuminating deep pockets of asininity that heretofore were either unnoticed or underappreciated.

In fairness, just as there are people who hate Palin for the effrontery she shows in daring to draw breath at all, there are those who love her with a devotion better suited for a religious icon.

I hear from both camps, often. And while I don’t think both sides are equally wrong (after all, the acolytes of the Doniger school openly reject reality more than any so-called creationist), I don’t think either position is laudable or sufficient.

Sarah Palin is neither savior (that job has been taken by the current president, or didn’t you know?) nor is she satanic. She is a politician, a species of human like the rest of us.

I’m fairly certain that if you read many of her public-policy positions but concealed her byline, many of her worst enemies would say “that sounds about right,” and some of her biggest fans would say “that sounds crazy.” But most people would say that her views are perfectly within the mainstream of American politics. She may be more religious than coastal elites in the lower 48, but that is something some bigots need to get over, anyway.
...
As it stands, my sense is that Palin is good for the Republican party but not necessarily great. She generates enthusiasm among, and donations from, the base. But she also turns off many of the people the GOP needs to persuade and attract. That could change with this book tour, and I hope it does. Whether she’s ready or qualified for the presidency is another matter. But the presidency is a long way off, and besides, that’s what primaries are for.
I can't add a thing. As is often the case, I agree with Jonah completley.

Why is Oprah cancelling her show?

An email to The Corner:
Oprah will be the VP nominee in 2012 No question about that . . . it is set in stone . . . Joe B will step aside saying that the world is in great shape and he is going to retire to the Delaware Valley. Makes perfect sense . . . she has nothing left to prove . . . will kill any opportunity for Sarah P . . . and will allow the Prez to put in place his successor . . . she wraps up her show in September 11 and starts campaigning immediately . . . You heard it here first . . .
I wouldn't be at all surprised. Like Obama, Oprah is the product of informal affirmative action and they both over-rate themselves.

Thursday, November 19, 2009

Movie stars I loved as a kid - Joan Crawford and Bette Davis

Okay, so I was never "in love" with either of them but they were fascinating. They were both lookers in the 1930s but, by the time I began to see them in movies in the 1950s, they were already horror-film harridans. I was going to skip both of them but I found some pics of them when they were still babes so here goes.

Joan Crawford (March 23, 1905 – May 10, 1977):
Crawford was born Lucille Fay LeSueur in San Antonio, Texas.
...
In the 1930s, Crawford's fame rivaled MGM colleagues Norma Shearer and Greta Garbo. Crawford often played hardworking young women who find romance and financial success. These "rags-to-riches" stories were well-received by Depression-era audiences and were popular with women. Crawford became one of Hollywood's most prominent movie stars and one of the highest paid women in the United States.
...
She won the Academy Award for Best Actress for Mildred Pierce in 1945.
...
In 1955, she became involved with the Pepsi-Cola Company, through her marriage to company president Alfred Steele. After his death in 1959, Crawford was elected to fill his vacancy on the board of directors but was forcibly retired in 1973.
...
She adopted five children, one of whom was reclaimed by his birth mother. Crawford's relationships with her two older children, Christina and Christopher, were acrimonious. Crawford disinherited the two and, after Crawford's death, Christina wrote a "tell-all" memoir, Mommie Dearest, in which she alleged a lifelong pattern of physical and emotional abuse perpetrated by Crawford.
...
Stories have persisted that Crawford further supplemented her income in her early 20s before fame by appearing in stag pornographic films.
...
Crawford starred as Blanche Hudson, a physically disabled woman and former A-list movie star in conflict with her psychotic sister in the highly successful thriller What Ever Happened To Baby Jane? (1962). Despite the actresses' earlier tensions, Crawford suggested Bette Davis for the role of Jane. The two stars maintained publicly that there was no feud between them. However, Crawford accused Davis of kicking her during the filming of a scene in which Jane attacks Blanche, and reportedly retaliated by wearing weights under her clothes in a scene in which Davis had to carry her. The director, Robert Aldrich, explained that Davis and Crawford were each aware of how important the film was to their respective careers and commented, "It's proper to say that they really detested each other, but they behaved absolutely perfectly." After filming was completed, their public comments against each other allowed the tension to develop into a lifelong feud. Crawford then starred in horror movies throughout the 1960s.
...
Upon hearing of the death of her long time rival, Bette Davis is said to have remarked "My mother told me never to speak badly of the dead. Joan's dead....Good".
Ruth Elizabeth "Bette" Davis (April 5, 1908 – October 6, 1989):
Ruth Elizabeth Davis, known from early childhood as "Betty", was born in Lowell, Massachusetts.
...
In 1939 she acted opposite Ronald Reagan in the film Dark Victory.
...
Following the attack on Pearl Harbor, Davis spent the early months of 1942 selling war bonds. After Jack Warner criticized her tendency to cajole crowds into buying, she reminded him that her audiences responded most strongly to her "bitch" performances. She sold two million dollars of bonds in two days, as well as a picture of herself in Jezebel for $250,000. She also performed for black regiments as the only white member of an acting troupe formed by Hattie McDaniel, that also included Lena Horne and Ethel Waters.
...
Davis refused the title role in Mildred Pierce in 1945 (because she did not want to play the part of the mother of a 17 year old) a role for which Joan Crawford ultimately won an Academy Award.
...
Davis also refused the role of Rose Sayer in The African Queen (1951). When informed that the film was to be made in Africa, Davis told Jack Warner, "If you can't shoot the picture in a boat on the back lot, then I'm not interested." Katharine Hepburn played the role.
...
The producer Darryl F. Zanuck offered her the role of the aging theatrical actress Margo Channing in All About Eve (1950). Davis read the script, described it as the best she had ever read, and accepted the role. Critics responded positively to Davis's performance and several of her lines became well-known, particularly, "Fasten your seatbelts, it's going to be a bumpy night." She was nominated for an Academy Award.
...
She accepted her role in the Grand Guignol horror film What Ever Happened to Baby Jane? (1962) after reading the script and believing it could appeal to the same audience that had recently made Alfred Hitchcock's Psycho (1960) a success. She negotiated a deal that would pay her 10 percent of the worldwide gross profits, in addition to her salary. The film became one of the year's biggest successes. When Davis was nominated for an Academy Award, Crawford campaigned against her. Davis then acted in horror movies throughout the 1960s and 1970s.
...
Davis' daughter published a memoir, My Mother's Keeper, in which she chronicled a difficult mother-daughter relationship and depicted scenes of Davis's overbearing and drunken behavior.
...
In 1964, Jack Warner spoke of the "magic quality that transformed this sometimes bland and not beautiful little girl into a great artist", and in a 1988 interview, Davis remarked that, unlike many of her contemporaries, she had forged a career without the benefit of beauty. She admitted she was terrified during the making of her earliest films and that she became tough by necessity. "Until you're known in my profession as a monster, you are not a star", she said.




Labels:

Doris Day's perfect voice # 12

Okay, you can breathe a sigh of relief now. Here are the final three songs. I could post plenty more (Day recorded hundreds of songs) but enough's enough.

Secret Love Calamity Jane



Somewhere Over The Rainbow



Sentimental Journey

Labels:

Hollywood's Most Overpaid Stars, Drew Barrymore and Grey Gardens

Will Ferrell tops our list of actors who cost more than their box office worth:
For every dollar Ferrell was paid, his films earned an average $3.29. Compare that to Shia LaBeouf, who topped our list of Best Actors for the Buck in August. For every dollar LaBeouf was paid, his films earned an average $160.
...
To create our list, we looked at the 100 biggest stars in Hollywood. To qualify, each actor had to have starred over the last five years in at least three movies that opened in more than 500 theaters.

We calculated each star's estimated earnings on each film, including up-front pay and any earnings from the film's box office receipts, DVD and TV sales. We then looked at each movie's estimated budget (not including marketing costs, which are susceptible to accounting chicanery) and box office, DVD and television earnings to figure out an operating income for each film.

We added up each star's compensation on his or her last three films and the operating income on those films and divided total operating income by the star's total compensation to come up with each return-on-investment number.
Here's the list:
1. Will Ferrell

2. Ewan McGregor

3. Billy Bob Thornton

4. Eddie Murphy

5. Ice Cube

6. Tom Cruise

7. Drew Barrymore

8. Leonardo DiCaprio

9. Samuel L. Jackson

10. Jim Carrey
The only one of them I've seen recently (and the only one that I like) is Barrymore. We actually watched a movie with her in it tonight, Grey Gardens.

The film depicts the everyday lives of the two Edith Beales, a reclusive socialite mother (played by Jessica Lange) and daughter (played by Barrymore) who lived in poverty and isolation at Grey Gardens, a mansion in East Hampton, New York for decades.

Edith "Big Edie" Bouvier Beale and her daughter Edith "Little Edie" Bouvier Beale were the aunt and first cousin of Jacqueline Bouvier Kennedy Onassis. At one point in the movie Jackie O comes to visit and is horrified to see what filth the Beales live in. The house is falling down and crawling with cats and even raccoons and the two Ediths are clearly nuts.

It sounds depressing (and it is in parts) but the two Ediths don't realize what squalor they live in or how mad they are and it's actually quite charming and funny. Barrymore may be an overpaid Hollywood star but she earned her money for this movie. She was brilliant.

Movie stars I loved as a kid - Dorothy Dandridge

Dorothy Jean Dandridge (November 9, 1922 – September 8, 1965):
Dandridge was the first African American to be nominated for an Academy Award for Best Actress.
...
Dandridge's first on-screen appearance was a bit part in a 1935 Our Gang short. In 1937 she appeared in the Marx Brothers feature A Day at the Races.
...
In 1954, director and writer Otto Preminger cast Dandridge, along with Harry Belafonte, Pearl Bailey and Diahann Carroll in his production of Carmen Jones. Dandridge's singing voice was dubbed by Marilyn Horne.
Dandridge had a tragic life. Her only child was born brain-damaged in 1942. In 1960 she discovered that she had been swindled out of her fortune. She was forced to sell her Hollywood home and to place her daughter in a state mental institution. She moved into a small apartment in West Hollywood. Alone and without any acting roles or singing engagements on the horizon, she suffered a nervous breakdown. In 1965 she died of a drug overdose at the age of 42.

Labels:

A bottle of wine a day keeps the doctor away

Drinking up to bottle of wine a day can cut heart disease risk:
Drinking up to a bottle of wine a day cuts the risk of developing heart disease in men by half, controversial new research has found.
...
The study, published in the journal Heart, was conducted in Spain, one of the world's largest producers of wine but with one of the lowest death rates from heart disease.

The authors found that drinking between five and 30 grams of alcohol a day, the equivalent to less than one UK unit to almost four units or up to one large glass of red wine, reduced the risk of developing heart disease by half.

The protective effect did not increase significantly the more people drank and those with the highest consumption,11 units or more – the equivalent to over one bottle of red wine a day – still had a 50 per cent lower chance of heart disease.

The effects were seen for all forms of alcohol and were not limited to red wine, which previous research has suggested was especially protective for the heart because of substances in the skins of red grapes.
Wow! I used to be able to drink a bottle of wine 20 years ago as long as I started drinking while I was cooking, continued through dinner and polished off the bottle after dinner. But I doubt if I could drink that much nowadays. Maybe I should try. It might be hard work but someone's got to do these studies. It would make it easier if I could get paid for it.

Palin - a thorn in the side of the left-liberal establishment

From Robert Stacy McCain's Palin's Popularity vs. Media Mania:
What is it about Palin that sticks in the craw of liberal journalists? Perhaps the same thing that has always annoyed them about Rush Limbaugh: Sarah Palin doesn't need their help, and all their efforts to harm her appear impotent.

Her media enemies cite polls to demonstrate that the former Alaska governor is unpopular. Yet her book is a bestselling blockbuster, while anti-Palin outfits like CBS, MSNBC and CNN are the least-popular TV news organizations in America. And as far as Republicans are concerned, Palin is infinitely more popular.

At this point, Palin controls her own destiny. She is independent, and has no need to court the approval of the media "gatekeepers." She's the hottest topic in political news, and if the New York Times or the TV networks want a piece of the action, they have to play by her rules. They're so used to dictating the rules -- every book must have an index! -- that Palin's rogue refusal to follow their rules is even more offensive to them than her good looks, her handsome husband, and her five children.

Larison criticizes Robert Stacy McCain's Palin coverage:

What McCain misses in his article is that liberal journalists actually take great delight in the Palin phenomenon. Yes, of course, they don’t want to see her in power, but I think they do want to see her prosper and thrive as the face of the Republican Party. An American right led by or identified with Palin is one that they can very easily ridicule and discredit, and at the same time they can be confident that a Palinized GOP poses no threat to anything they value. Palin is not going to bring the party out of the minority, and were she to lead the party it would more or less guarantee continued Democratic ascendancy for many years to come. Her content-free pseudo-populism ensures that the legitimate political concerns of her constituency remain irrelevant to real policy debates. Media outlets also thrive on controversy and conflict, both real and manufactured, and Palin continues to give them plenty of opportunities for both.

"A Palinized GOP poses no threat to anything they value. Palin is not going to bring the party out of the minority..."

Maybe. That is one of my concerns: that Palin does not have a broad appeal like Reagan had. But I also think that Reagan would no longer have a broad appeal today. The USA has changed a lot in the last quarter century. The left-liberal establishment of academia, the media and Hollywood has brain-washed even more of our kids into accepting government social engineering. And the demographics have changed. America is no longer as white or as Christian as it was 25 years ago. With or without Palin, we may be in a minority for the foreseeable future.

If that's the case then we may as well go for broke and stick with limited government Reaganism (and Palin) and at least be a thorn in the side of the left-liberal establishment.

Allahpundit makes an interesting point:

[A]s things stand, [Palin is] a threat to win the GOP nomination but an almost certain loser in the general election unless economic conditions have deteriorated to the point where any Republican would be a threat to knock off Obama. But if any Republican would stand a good chance of winning, why would the GOP nominate the one Republican who would galvanize the Democrats in opposition? The more beatable Obama looks, the greater the temptation will be to nominate an inoffensive “electable” candidate like Romney and make the election a referendum on The One’s record; the less beatable Obama looks, the greater the temptation to roll the dice and nominate a lightning rod like Palin who can draw media attention away from Obama.

Bumper sticker on a hippy jalopy

On the rusted, dented, tilted bumper right beside the Obama and anti-war stickers was this:
Palin, Jesus was community organizer and Pontius Pilate was a governor.
Oh, boy! I guess to a deluded commie, Jesus was not much more than a community organizer.

Fred Thompson: "The war in Afghanistan has been lost"

Palin on Levi's Playgirl porn

Palin slams Levi for 'porn':
In her big interview with Oprah Winfrey that aired Monday, Sarah Palin took a slap at Levi Johnston, the father of her nearly year-old grandson, for engaging in what amounts to "porn."

"We don't want to mess up the gig he's got going, aspiring, aspiring porn, some of the things that he's doing," the former Alaska governor told Winfrey. "It's kind of heartbreaking."

Winfrey asked if Palin was referencing Johnston's upcoming photo spread for Playgirl.

Palin said she was. "I call that porn, yes. So it's a bit heartbreaking to see the road that he's on right now," she said.
Plenty of people are criticizing Palin for saying that. They claim that Playgirl isn't porn. Really? Talk about double standards. It's porn when Carrie Prejean sells her nude body but not when Levi Johnston does it. I'm not a prude but to me waving your willie around in public for money is porn.

PS I really wanted to title this post "Johnston's johnson" (evil grin) but that would have been so tasteless.

Labels: , , ,

Dancing with my dogs

John Derbyshire on the "ecstatic communal dancing that was such a feature of the hunter-gatherer ur-religion":
The very constrained, bourgeois societies of the European industrial age separated it from religion altogether and tamed it down into the stateley minuets you see in TV period dramas. When the real thing wells up, sensible people bolt their doors. So perhaps it can't be allowed in any society organized on a large scale. We're stuck with Dancing with the Stars.

Here is Charles Dickens, a very sensible person, in Chapter 3.v of A Tale of Two Cities, showing us with extraordinary vividness how those primal group behaviors can be yoked to political purposes.

There could not be fewer than five hundred people, and they were dancing like five thousand demons. There was no other music than their own singing. They danced to the popular Revolution song, keeping a ferocious time that was like a gnashing of teeth in unison. Men and women danced together, women danced together, men danced together, as hazard had brought them together. At first, they were a mere storm of coarse red caps and coarse woollen rags; but, as they filled the place, and stopped to dance about Lucie, some ghastly apparition of a dance-figure gone raving mad arose among them. They advanced, retreated, struck at one another's hands, clutched at one another's heads, spun round alone, caught one another and spun round in pairs, until many of them dropped. While those were down, the rest linked hand in hand, and all spun round together: then the ring broke, and in separate rings of two and four they turned and turned until they all stopped at once, began again, struck, clutched, and tore, and then reversed the spin, and all spun round another way. Suddenly they stopped again, paused, struck out the time afresh, formed into lines the width of the public way, and, with their heads low down and their hands high up, swooped screaming off. No fight could have been half so terrible as this dance. It was so emphatically a fallen sport — a something, once innocent, delivered over to all devilry — a healthy pastime changed into a means of angering the blood, bewildering the senses, and steeling the heart. Such grace as was visible in it, made it the uglier, showing how warped and perverted all things good by nature were become. The maidenly bosom bared to this, the pretty almost-child's head thus distracted, the delicate foot mincing in this slough of blood and dirt, were types of the disjointed time.

This was the Carmagnole.
I'm all for dancing. In fact I believe that people should sing and dance at least once a day and, if I can't get someone else to dance with me, I'll dance with my dogs. But I really don't like "hunter-gatherer" dancing like rock-n-roll or tom-tom thumping tribal hoofing or the mob-minded mayhem that Dickens describes. Give me "Dancing with the Stars" any day. There's nothing more civilized than ballroom dancing: the waltz or the tango - or even a stiffly polite and slightly pompous minuet. Although my dogs like stately waltzing best they don't mind the occasional rollicking polka.

Labels: , ,

Daiy duh! Why is US health-care so expensive?

Because it's the most innovative in the world.

From the Cato Institute:

In general, Americans tend to receive more new treatments and pay more for them — a fact that is usually regarded as a fault of the American system. That interpretation, if not entirely wrong, is at least incomplete. Rapid adoption and extensive use of new treatments and technologies create an incentive to develop those techniques in the first place. When the United States subsidizes medical innovation, the whole world benefits. That is a virtue of the American system that is not reflected in comparative life expectancy and mortality statistics.

Happy anniversary to National Review

The first issue was published 54 years ago today by William F. Buckley. I only discovered it 30 years ago when I came to the USA. Of course in those days it was only available on dead trees. Nowadays it's online and we all take it for granted.

From Buckley's Mission Statement in that first issue on November 19th, 1955:
Let's face it: Unlike Vienna, it seems altogether possible that did NATIONAL REVIEW not exist, no one would have invented it. The launching of a conservative weekly journal of opinion in a country widely assumed to be a bastion of conservatism at first glance looks like a work of supererogation, rather like publishing a royalist weekly within the walls of Buckingham Palace. It is not that, of course; if NATIONAL REVIEW is superfluous, it is so for very different reasons: It stands athwart history, yelling Stop, at a time when no one is inclined to do so, or to have much patience with those who so urge it.

NATIONAL REVIEW is out of place, in the sense that the United Nations and the League of Women Voters and the New York Times and Henry Steele Commager are in place. It is out of place because, in its maturity, literate America rejected conservatism in favor of radical social experimentation. Instead of covetously consolidating its premises, the United States seems tormented by its tradition of fixed postulates having to do with the meaning of existence, with the relationship of the state to the individual, of the individual to his neighbor, so clearly enunciated in the enabling documents of our Republic.

"I happen to prefer champagne to ditchwater," said the benign old wrecker of the ordered society, Oliver Wendell Holmes, "but there is no reason to suppose that the cosmos does." We have come around to Mr. Holmes' view, so much so that we feel gentlemanly doubts when asserting the superiority of capitalism to socialism, of republicanism to centralism, of champagne to ditchwater — of anything to anything. (How curious that one of the doubts one is not permitted is whether, at the margin, Mr. Holmes was a useful citizen!) The inroads that relativism has made on the American soul are not so easily evident. One must recently have lived on or close to a college campus to have a vivid intimation of what has happened. It is there that we see how a number of energetic social innovators, plugging their grand designs, succeeded over the years in capturing the liberal intellectual imagination. And since ideas rule the world, the ideologues, having won over the intellectual class, simply walked in and started to run things.

Run just about everything. There never was an age of conformity quite like this one, or a camaraderie quite like the Liberals'. Drop a little itching powder in Jimmy Wechsler's bath and before he has scratched himself for the third time, Arthur Schlesinger will have denounced you in a dozen books and speeches, Archibald MacLeish will have written ten heroic cantos about our age of terror, Harper's will have published them, and everyone in sight will have been nominated for a Freedom Award. Conservatives in this country — at least those who have not made their peace with the New Deal, and there is serious question whether there are others — are non-licensed nonconformists; and this is dangerous business in a Liberal world, as every editor of this magazine can readily show by pointing to his scars. Radical conservatives in this country have an interesting time of it, for when they are not being suppressed or mutilated by the Liberals, they are being ignored or humiliated by a great many of those of the well-fed Right, whose ignorance and amorality have never been exaggerated for the same reason that one cannot exaggerate infinity.
...
We begin publishing, then, with a considerable stock of experience with the irresponsible Right, and a despair of the intransigence of the Liberals, who run this country; and all this in a world dominated by the jubilant single-mindedness of the practicing Communist, with his inside track to History. All this would not appear to augur well for NATIONAL REVIEW. Yet we start with a considerable — and considered — optimism.
Nothing much has changed since Buckley first wrote those words 54 years ago and we are still fighting the same battles against Left-liberalism. Left-liberalism is still the dominant philosophy of our culture. It dominates academia, journalism and the entertainment industry. Left-liberalism is The Establishment. I admit that a big attraction for me to Buckley's conservatism was that it was anti-establishment. I had always been a rebel. So, when I first read National Review and saw a sane alternative to left-liberalism, I was immediately hooked. What made it especially attractive to me was that it revered our founding documents which were also written by anti-establishment rebels.

Buckley then defined NR's mission.

The Magazine's Credenda

Among our convictions:

  1. It is the job of centralized government (in peacetime) to protect its citizens' lives, liberty and property. All other activities of government tend to diminish freedom and hamper progress. The growth of government(the dominant social feature of this century) must be fought relentlessly. In this great social conflict of the era, we are, without reservations, on the libertarian side.

  2. The profound crisis of our era is, in essence, the conflict between the Social Engineers, who seek to adjust mankind to conform with scientific utopias, and the disciples of Truth, who defend the organic moral order. We believe that truth is neither arrived at nor illuminated by monitoring election results, binding though these are for other purposes, but by other means, including a study of human experience. On this point we are, without reservations, on the conservative side.

  3. The century's most blatant force of satanic utopianism is communism. We consider "coexistence" with communism neither desirable nor possible, nor honorable; we find ourselves irrevocably at war with communism and shall oppose any substitute for victory.

  4. The largest cultural menace in America is the conformity of the intellectual cliques which, in education as well as the arts, are out to impose upon the nation their modish fads and fallacies, and have nearly succeeded in doing so. In this cultural issue, we are, without reservations, on the side of excellence (rather than "newness") and of honest intellectual combat (rather than conformity).

  5. The most alarming single danger to the American political system lies in the fact that an identifiable team of Fabian operators is bent on controlling both our major political parties(under the sanction of such fatuous and unreasoned slogans as "national unity," "middle-of-the-road," "progressivism," and "bipartisanship.") Clever intriguers are reshaping both parties in the image of Babbitt, gone Social-Democrat. When and where this political issue arises, we are, without reservations, on the side of the traditional two-party system that fights its feuds in public and honestly; and we shall advocate the restoration of the two-party system at all costs.

  6. The competitive price system is indispensable to liberty and material progress. It is threatened not only by the growth of Big Brother government, but by the pressure of monopolies(including union monopolies. What is more, some labor unions have clearly identified themselves with doctrinaire socialist objectives. The characteristic problems of harassed business have gone unreported for years, with the result that the public has been taught to assume(almost instinctively) that conflicts between labor and management are generally traceable to greed and intransigence on the part of management. Sometimes they are; often they are not. NATIONAL REVIEW will explore and oppose the inroads upon the market economy caused by monopolies in general, and politically oriented unionism in particular; and it will tell the violated businessman's side of the story.

  7. No superstition has more effectively bewitched America's Liberal elite than the fashionable concepts of world government, the United Nations, internationalism, international atomic pools, etc. Perhaps the most important and readily demonstrable lesson of history is that freedom goes hand in hand with a state of political decentralization, that remote government is irresponsible government. It would make greater sense to grant independence to each of our 50 states than to surrender U.S. sovereignty to a world organization.

Labels: ,

Wednesday, November 18, 2009

Another Japanese robot

Mætenloch:
Here's a Japanese robot that rolls along live high voltage lines and inspects them for damage and corrosion. It's able to swing itself over cable connectors and suspension clamps.











High tech and all but kinda ho-hum you say? Well just watch this video to see how inspections are currently done by humans:



I guess I'm showing my nostalgia for the Fabulous Fifties when we dreamed of going where no one had been before and robots were going to muck out the chicken poop and do the other "work that no Americans will do" but were not illegal border-jumpers and didn't join unions or need a minimum wages. Yep, I was as addicted to scifi in my teens as now am to blogs in my dotage. What happened? Oh right we've spent all the money on the Great Society's "entitlements." And look where that got us.

Labels: , ,

Doris Day's perfect voice # 11

My Dream is Yours



There They Are



The Song Is You

Labels:

How the Japanese are coping with an aging and shrinking population

No, they are not allowing mass immigration from the Phillipines.

From the Daily Telegraph's:
In an attempt to make it easier to deal with Tokyo’s masses of shoppers, department store Takashimaya decided to enroll the services of a speech-recognising robot for a week.
...
Saya was developed by Hiroshi Kobayashi of the Tokyo University of Science in 2004 and had up until recently been involved in a trial at a Tokyo primary school. The robot supply teacher was capable of catching students passing notes and copying homework as well as giving them a rather stern telling off. Saya then began "working" at Takashimaya in Ginza where she sits at the store's information desk. For a week in October shoppers were treated to a very different kind of store assistant. Saya is capable of responding to shoppers’ questions and complaints in more than 700 different ways, directing them to the relevant floors and making small talk in between.
...
The scary thing about Saya is her virtual past. Programmers have installed responses that allow her to tell passers by a little about her history. Saya can respond to questions about previous jobs.
I bet a lot of Americans would prefer robots to illegal aliens.

Here is Saya at a previous job:

Movie stars I loved as a kid - Arlene Dahl

Arlene Carol Dahl (born August 11, 1928):
Dahl was born in Minneapolis, Minnesota, the daughter of Idelle (née Swan) and Rudolph S. Dahl, a Ford motor dealer and executive. She is of Norwegian descent.
...
Some of her best films include: Reign of Terror (1949), Three Little Words (1950), Woman's World (1954), Slightly Scarlet (1956), and Journey to the Center of the Earth (1959).
...
She was married to Fernando Lamas and is the mother of actor Lorenzo Lamas.

Labels:

Health-care is not a right - it's "hay and a barn for human cattle"

Iain Murray and Roger Abbott:
[T]he Democrats’ health care agenda is really about nationalizing health care, based on the concept that health care is a right, and therefore must be secured by the state. This claim is misleading for several reasons, but most fundamentally because of its conflation of “rights” and “needs.” Obamacare opponents need to address this emotional appeal. After all, who can be against basic “rights”?
...
A right, in both a legal and practical sense, is simply an entitlement due to an individual that other people are obliged to respect, with a failure to comply typically resulting in some sort of sanction. Because rights entail claims on other people, they are necessarily negative in their construction and limited in their definition. Constitutional rights such as freedom of speech and religion and the right to property can be clearly defined in accordance with John Stuart Mill’s harm principle—act as you will so long as you do not directly harm others.

In contrast, the expansive “rights” demanded by liberals—like the right to “affordable health care” or to a “decent standard of living”—are not rights but positive demands that require others to hand over some of the property to the claimant. Whereas genuine rights protect citizens from state coercion, the “right to health care” serves to justify state coercion against a particular part of the population: those who pay taxes.
...
Obamacare opponents need to go beyond opposing particular items on the president’s agenda. They must retake the high ground by arguing that the welfare state actually violates individual rights, and hurts the very people it claims to help. As Alexis de Tocqueville put it so well: “It’s not an endlessly expanding list of rights—the ‘right’ to education, the ‘right’ to health care, the ’right’ to food and housing. That’s not freedom, that’s dependency. Those aren’t rights, those are rations of slavery—hay and a barn for human cattle.”
It's not too late for Republicans to oppose all attempts to expand government "entitlements." Unfortunately it is too late to roll back those that we are already stuck with thanks to Republican co-operation in the past. Now's the time to just say no and refuse to co-operate. We may be vilified now but history will prove us right in the future.

Sarah as symbol?

Peter Wehner:
The degree to which Palin evokes fury, contempt, and anger among her critics is nothing short of amazing. It is visceral and almost clinical. And it cannot be based on what she has done (which as governor of Alaska is fairly limited and not terribly controversial), on the views she holds (which are mainstream conservative), or on her relative lack of experience when McCain picked her as his vice-presidential choice (Palin’s experience was comparable to Barack Obama’s, who after all was running for president). What explains the fierce reaction to her is, in part, I think, her affect, the way she talks (and winks), the background she has emerged from, the populism she seems to embody. Palinism, as I understand it, is less a coherent philosophy or set of ideas and more an attitude and spirit. In that sense, she is a cultural figure much more than a political one.

If you believe, as I do, that the GOP once again needs to become the “party of ideas” — as it did under Ronald Reagan — then Palin is not the solution to what ails it. At this stage, based on the interviews I have seen with her, she doesn’t seem able to articulate the case for conservatism in a manner that is compelling or even particularly persuasive. She is nothing like, to take three individuals I would hold up as public models, Margaret Thatcher, William Bennett, and Antonin Scalia — people brimming with ideas, knowledgeable and formidable, intellectually well-grounded, and impossible to dismiss. That, of course, doesn’t mean that Palin doesn’t have a role to play in the Republican party or contributions to make to it. And what Palin has revealed about some of her critics is, in the words of my colleague Yuval Levin, “the unfortunate and unattractive propensity of the American cultural elite to treat those who are not deemed part of the elect with condescension and contumely.”
Kathryn Jean Lopez posted an email from a reader in Oregon:
Ronald Reagan is a giant hero for civilization but if, under him, the Republican Party became the "party of ideas" it wasn't Reagan's ideas. Reagan didn't have ideas so much as he had principles, truths, and optimism. These things Palin has in spades. Damn right the GOP can be a party of ideas under Palin — under her it will once again be enthused and guided by overarching conservative views of what this country needs — then the ideas will flow like 1980-88 all over again.
Perhaps I should call Palin a "figurehead" rather than a "symbol." She may not be as learned, serious and deep as Thatcher but she has the ability to inspire plain old simple Americanism. I have reservations about her but it just seems so counter-productive to nitpick about someone who obviously is brimming with optimism and enthusiasm when those are the exact things which have been missing among Republicans ever since Fred Thompson dropped out.

"I voted for Al Gore"

"But Bush stole the election."

Today's doggie blogpost



Labels:

The Rogue on the Record

Rich Lowry & Robert Costa had a chat with Sarah Palin. Here are some of my favorite bits:
“That was a mistake,” Palin says of the Obama bow. “It was symbolic of, perhaps, our country being led to believe that we are subservient to other countries.” She says she would “like to see us head more in the direction of Ronald Reagan’s thinking — knowing that we are a very, very blessed nation and a superpower.” She adds, “We can get there through a position of strength and not believing that we have to kowtow or bow to anybody.” Asked if she would have bowed, she replies, “No, sir.”
...
“If the elites and the mainstream media are uncomfortable with average, everyday Americans having a voice, then of course they’re going to attack the one who happens to have the megaphone.”
...
On medical marijuana, which has been in the news recently: She says she does not support its full legalization, but “I’m not going to get in the way of a doctor prescribing something that he or she believes will help a cancer patient.”

Okies in Oregon

One of our friends (who is 80) is a fourth-generation Oregonian descended from 1850 Dutch settlers. I asked him if Okies had come to Oregon at the same time as they arrived in California in the 1930s. By way of illustration he told me a story about when he was working as a logger in the 1950s. There were ten men working on his team. Somebody shouted out: "I need a dumb Okie to shift this log." Seven of the ten men stepped forward.

Nuff said: G W Bush - the Hoover of our time?

Ilya Somin at the Volokh Conspiracy:
Bush's belated support for free markets follows in Hoover's footsteps. After leaving office in 1933, Hoover wrote books and articles defending free markets and criticizing the Democrats' New Deal. Some of his criticisms of FDR were well-taken. Many New Deal policies actually worsened and prolonged the Great Depression by organizing cartels and increasing unemployment. But by coming out as a free market advocate, the post-presidential Hoover actually bolstered the cause of interventionism because he helped cement the incorrect impression that he had pursued free market policies while in office, thereby causing the Depression. Bush's post-presidential conversion creates a similar risk: it could solidify the already widespread impression that he, like the Hoover of myth, pursued laissez-faire policies which then caused an economic crisis.
...
The greatest contribution Bush can now make to free market policies is to dispel the impression that he pursued them while in office.

It is probably unrealistic to expect any politician to admit major mistakes or point out that he is now advocating policies vastly different from those he pursued while in office. So the second-best way for post-presidential Bush to support free markets is to say as little about the subject as possible. The more the cause is associated with him, the worse off it will be.

Nuff said.

Tuesday, November 17, 2009

Movie stars I loved as a kid - Julie Christie

Julie Frances Christie (born 14 April 1941):
Christie was born in Chabua, Assam, India, then part of the British Empire, the first of two children of Rosemary (née Ramsden) and Frank St. John Christie. Christie's father ran the tea plantation around which Christie grew up.
...
She first gained notice as Liz, the friend and would-be lover of the eponymous Billy Liar (1963) played by Tom Courtenay. The director, John Schlesinger, cast Christie only after another actress dropped out of the film. It was 1965 when Christie became known internationally. Schlesinger directed her in her breakthrough role, as the amoral model Diana Scott in Darling, a role which the producers originally offered to Shirley MacLaine. More significantly though, Christie appeared as Lara Antipova in David Lean's adaptation of Boris Pasternak's novel Doctor Zhivago (1965), one of the all-time box office hits.
Christie is one of those stars who is only a few years older than me. I was 15 when I first fell for her in Billy Liar and she was 21. But I really fell in love with her when I was 17 and saw her as Lara. She was only 23.

Labels:

And to think that Al Gore was nearly our president

Al Gore on Conan O'Brien's show the other day:

Conan: Now, what about … you talk in the book about geothermal energy …
Al: Yeah, yeah.
Conan: and that is, as I understand it, using the heat that's generated from the core of the earth …
Al: Yeah.
Conan: … to create energy, and it sounds to me like an evil plan by Lex Luthor to defeat Superman. Can you, can you tell me, is this a viable solution, geothermal energy?
Al: It definitely is, and it's a relatively new one. People think about geothermal energy — when they think about it at all — in terms of the hot water bubbling up in some places, but two kilometers or so down in most places there are these incredibly hot rocks, 'cause the interior of the earth is extremely hot, several million degrees, and the crust of the earth is hot …
John Derbyshire:
The geothermal gradient is usually quoted as 25–50 degrees Celsius per mile of depth in normal terrain (not, e.g., in the crater of Kilauea). Two kilometers down, therefore, (that's a mile and a quarter if you're not as science-y as Al) you'll have an average gain of 30–60 degrees — exploitable for things like home heating, though not hot enough to make a nice pot of tea. The temperature at the earth's core, 4,000 miles down, is usually quoted as 5,000 degrees Celsius, though these guys claim it's much less, while some contrarian geophysicists have posted claims up to 9,000 degrees. The temperature at the surface of the Sun is around 6,000 degrees Celsius, while at the center, where nuclear fusion is going on bigtime, things get up over 10 million degrees.

If the temperature anywhere inside the earth was "several million degrees," we'd be a star.

Mark Steyn:

Al Gore's being a little more than merely innumerate when he breezily asserts that the temperature of the earth's interior is "several million degrees". His entire, highly lucrative shtick rests on the proposition that a one-degree increase in surface temperature in the course of a century imperils not merely the poor old polar bear, not merely the planet itself, but is "altering the balance of energy between our planet and the rest of the universe". But he's so insouciant about "several million degrees" boiling away a couple of miles under his loafers that he can't even be bothered getting it right to within three figures.

It makes you wonder whether even he believes any of this stuff.

Gore is even more stupid than Obama and that's pretty stupid. Actually Gore is more stupid than Carter but not as stupid as Obama's dog.

Doris Day's perfect voice # 10

Remind Me



April In Paris



But Not For Me

Labels:

How many got this email about Palin?

From Steve Maloney:
Not being in the "Sarah loop," I still have opinions. I thought the advice Frank Luntz, a super-smart guy, gave to Sarah (through Sean Hannity) was outstanding. I'll watch the show again, but his advice that she use "connecting" words makes great sense.

She used the word "ambition" with Baba Walters, and Luntz said she should consider using "passion." Ambition has a slightly negative connotation, while passion (in that context) would be perfect. For many years, conservatives tried to eliminate the "estate tax." Then Luntz suggested they use the phrase "death tax." The legislation sailed through Congress.

Luntz indicated that Sarah is "95% there." I'd say 96%. When she hits 99%, she will be elected president of the U.S. She will do so in spite of the intense hatred of her by Obama, his people, and their media minions. They want to destroy America; she wants to save and preserve it. They represent a degenerate culture; she represents a sustainable one based on deep religious faith. They hate her because in her heart and soul she's truly "one of us."

There are people (Like Luntz -- and like some of you) around who can help Sarah Palin. I don't mean people who will turn her into some plastic, lying politician. It would be impossible to accomplish that. I mean make her into the Sarah who will deserve a place on Mt. Rushmore.

I don't think Sarah should run for president in 2012, but if she keeps it up, I may just change my mind. I see her (most of the time) as another Reagan, my hero, only better.

Hurry up, Amazon, and get me my copy of Going Rogue.
I've got my doubts about Palin. Mostly I wonder if she is tough enough - presidential politics is brutal for Republicans - and if she can tune into the new demographics. But beggars can't be chosers and I'm game to gamble.

Movie stars I loved as a kid - Cyd Charisse

Cyd Charisse (March 8, 1922 – June 17, 2008):
After recovering from polio as a child, and studying ballet, Charisse entered films in the 1940s. Her roles usually focussed on her abilities as a dancer, and she was paired with Fred Astaire and Gene Kelly; her films include Singin' in the Rain (1952), The Band Wagon (1953) and Silk Stockings (1957).
Last year I did a post on Charisse. Sadly she died at the age of 86 soon after I did that post.

I used to be completely in love with Charisse when I was a kid. She was born on 8th March 1921 in Amarillo, Texas and was married to the same husband, singer Tony Martin, for 60 years.

The beauty I fell in love with when I was a boy.























Cyd Charisse, 86, with husband Tony Martin, 94.























With the Bushes in 2006 when they presented her with the National Arts Medal.

Labels:

Today's politics

SOS - therefore no posts.