November 27, 2013 · 6:38 am

Thanksgiving Messages Past and Present

We didn’t know how good we had it. Ronald Reagan’s 1985 Thanksgiving Day address focused on the importance of liberty, of freedom of speech, of limited government. While atheists like me might prefer that a President not invoke God on such occasions, we can all agree that it is important to keep this holiday “sacred” and focused on the values that make our country great.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KO2HaGOui4U

Contrast this with our current President’s attempt to dictate the conversation around Americans’ Thanksgiving dinner table in 2014:

Notice the lack of dignity in the types of jokes included. Reagan would never have done such a thing. Not to mention that the whole campaign (read more about it here) is focused on getting Americans — particularly young, healthy Americans — to purchase health “insurance,”* which we no longer have the liberty not to purchase anyway. I don’t know about you, but I find it offensive that we are being forced to purchase something, and that Obama is going around pretending that he is selling us a product. And I assume this campaign is being financed by our tax dollars (or health “insurance” premiums, same difference).

Perhaps the best Thanksgiving Day message will see this year is this one, in which a group of Americans got together to thank Ted Cruz, currently the most promising politician in Washington, for his efforts to save us from the destructive effects of Obamacare:

That this commercial was made shows that the American sense of life is alive and well and that we may one day again have a President who shares it.

*True health insurance is no longer legal. Now we are forced to buy health care “plans,” which are, essentially, pre-paid healthcare.

5 Comments

Filed under Culture, Medicine, Politics

November 26, 2013 · 9:57 am

A (Super)Hero (News) Sandwich for November 26, 2013

Superhero movies have enjoyed tremendous financial success in recent years. Writes Steven Zeitchik for the Los Angeles Times, who was focusing on the Thor sequel’s recent success, “Superhero sequels make bank. It’s more surprising these days when a film in this vein doesn’t work.” Part of the reason for this may be that people realize that there’s something very wrong in the world today, even if they don’t know quite what it is, and they need an escape. (Those of us who know what’s wrong with today’s world are also reading or re-reading Atlas Shrugged or, according to some sources, maybe even buying guns.) What most everyone knows, however, is the escape value of superhero movies. When done well — let’s just pretend Green Lantern never happened — they can be tremendously entertaining.

The success of superhero movies is not, however, entirely due to the “escape” factor. Again, when done well, they can be incredibly inspiring. Those of us who have contributed to their box office success in recent years (raise your hand if, like me, you have seen some of these films multiple times) know first-hand how inspiring they can be.

Some party-poopers, however, say that those of us who continue to enjoy superhero movies, comics, etc., are stuck in a delayed adolescence of some kind. Case in point: Alan Moore, who, ironically, made his living and established his fame because of his work with…superheroes. Said Moore in a recent interview,

“I haven’t read any superhero comics since I finished with Watchmen. I hate superheroes. I think they’re abominations. They don’t mean what they used to mean. They were originally in the hands of writers who would actively expand the imagination of their nine- to 13-year-old audience. That was completely what they were meant to do and they were doing it excellently. These days, superhero comics think the audience is certainly not nine to 13, it’s nothing to do with them. It’s an audience largely of 30-, 40-, 50-, 60-year old men, usually men. Someone came up with the term graphic novel. These readers latched on to it; they were simply interested in a way that could validate their continued love of Green Lantern or Spider-Man without appearing in some way emotionally subnormal. This is a significant rump of the superhero-addicted, mainstream-addicted audience. I don’t think the superhero stands for anything good. I think it’s a rather alarming sign if we’ve got audiences of adults going to see the Avengers movie and delighting in concepts and characters meant to entertain the 12-year-old boys of the 1950s.”

First of all, Mr. Moore, many women (me, me, me!) enjoy watching superhero movies. Second, there is something that the 12-year-old boys in the 1950s had that you apparently lost long ago: idealism. Third, why the sour grapes? After all, you made your money and fame writing Watchmen. Was that “deconstruction” of (i.e., attempt to destroy) superheroes intended for 9- to 13-year-olds? I sure hope not, as I’m much older than that and found the movie difficult to watch. (For a pull-no-punches response to Moore, check out this post at cartoonist Bosch Fawstin’s blog.)

While the best evidence of the inspiration that can be derived from watching superhero movies (or reading comics) is first hand, a professional psychologist, Dr. Robin Rosenberg, provides confirmation. She speaks regularly on the topic, “Superheroes and the Life Lessons They Teach Us,” including,

Why the costume counts
Being different can give you power
Adversity can be overcome
No matter what your abilities, life can still be frustrating
Running toward danger: Overcoming your fears
Think ahead rather than simply react

These are lessons that not only should be learned between the ages of 9 and 13, but should also be reinforced periodically thereafter. Superhero movies reinforce these lessons while entertaining us, which is why, e.g., 61% of the audience for the recent Thor sequel was over age 25 (32% over 35).

In today’s economy, I’m glad to see anyone who provides an honest product prosper. But given the values and lessons contained in the best superhero movies, I am particularly glad to see this genre enjoying financial success.

Are you enjoying the concept and execution of News Sandwich? If so, please spread the word!

7 Comments

Filed under Culture

Tagged as , ,

November 25, 2013 · 9:02 am

A Weapons News Sandwich for November 25, 2013

A recent Wired.com article reports that drone manufacturer Northrop Grumman conducted tests showing that its catapult-launched (i.e., runway-independent) drone, called “Bat,” which has a 12-foot wingspan and a maximum speed of 70 m.p.h., is capable of jamming radar. “That means,” writes Allen McDuffee for Wired, “the Pentagon will soon have the option of deploying a flexible, largely undetectable drone with radar-jamming capability to protect manned aircraft against radar and surface-to-air missile guidance systems.”

Perhaps Bat, or similar drone technology, could also be used to disable the guidance systems used to target ICBMs? If so, it could compensate for Barack Obama’s efforts to disarm us. According to a November 21 IBD editorial, “A document prepared by the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) and obtained by the Washington Free Beacon maps out a strategy to eliminate an ICBM squadron — and destroy its missile silos — by Dec. 5, 2017.” The document reportedly says that elimination of the squadron is required to comply with the “New START” treaty, but IBD argues that this is simply not true, and that Obama, who has said his goal is to eliminate all the world’s nuclear weapons, is really aiming to unilaterally disarm the United States. If the plan — which includes destroying the squadron’s missile silos — is fully implemented, it will be “nearly impossible to reconstitute that squadron, if needed.” IBD recommends that the silos be retained on “reserve status.”

Compare the “deal” with Iran, discussed in yesterday’s News Sandwich, which does not require Iran to dismantle a single centrifuge. It need only, in exchange for the $7 billion in “sanctions relief,” dismantle the links between centrifuges. I guess Obama, who is notorious for spending piles of time on the golf course, thinks national self-defense is a game that America should play with a handicap?

Drone technology will already have proven its worth tenfold if it is able to save us from the unwise — perhaps even suicidal — foreign policy of the current Administration. But drone technology is not just for weapons anymore. Wired reports that, at a recent high-tech workshop, a group of designers conceived of a drone called “Paparazzi,” a “selfie drone” that would allow you to “virtually stream your entire life to all of your social networks without pulling out your phone or even lifting a finger.” The Paparazzi would, of course, make sure that your image is always captured from the perfect angle, with the perfect amount of lighting, etc. I mean, why bother with the effort of writing a status statement when you could just let your friends observe what you’re doing for themselves?

Other ideas that came out of the workshop included a “Guardian Angel” drone that would not only keep runners safe, but also set their pace or even allow them to compete, virtually, with runners in different locations, as well as a “wearable umbrella drone,” which would, at the appropriate moment, “take off from the wrist, position itself above the owner’s head, and divert rain with ultrasonic pulses.” And of course the drones would have a function-appropriate appearance, with the Guardian Angel looking a bit more menacing and the Paparazzi and other drones, which are intended to be used among friends and family, looking “a little sleeker and a little friendlier.” Sounds like it may not be long before children are asking for drones as Christmas presents.

5 Comments

Filed under Foreign Policy