The Narcissist vs. The Saint

A couple weeks ago a cousin of mine, with whom I regularly correspond, asked me which of two major presidential candidates I prefer. I have since had other friends pose the same question so I've decided to post a slightly edited version of the e-mail response I originally sent to my cousin. (see below)

In order to answer your question, permit me to start off by making an observation. One of the most interesting elements of this presidential campaign (as least for me) is the fact that neither of the two major candidates has a discernible governing/political philosophy. (McCain claims to be a conservative but there is ample evidence to the contrary. Obama has been labeled as liberal but he refuses to use the term to describe himself and has changed his position on almost every major issue since the primaries.)

So what is it that motives and guides the two candidates. As far as I can tell, McCain appears to be motived by a strong sense of self-righteousness. In other words, he makes political decisions based on what he feels is the most "noble" decision and/or the decision that will make him appear to be such. Barack Obama appears to be guided by a natural instinct toward self-aggrandizement. In other words, he makes his political decisions based on what will bring him the most power and prestige. If the two sound similar that's because they are. As a result, voters are left with a tough question to answer. Which is better/worse in the oval office (McCain's self-righteousness or Obama's conceit)?

My personal answer is that I find McCain's self-righteousness unnerving but also more tolerable in a presidential candidate than Obama's super-human ambition and self-regard. I think McCain's self perception as a "noble warrior" can be dangerous because it can prevent him from seeing nuance and drive him to believe that his motives and methods are beyond reproach. However, unlike Obama, Senator McCain has accomplished and experienced significant things in his life that justifies (to a certain extent) his view of himself. In addition, Senator McCain's sense of honor and his desire to be seen as a noble "maverick" have led him to buck ideology, party loyalty, and even public opinion. I find this fact remotely comforting because ideologues normally make horrible leaders and he is more likely to make key decisions based on what he feels is "right".

Senator Obama on the other hand reminds me a great deal of the star high school athlete that is given way too much praise and adulation way too soon. Like the star athlete, Obama appears surrounded by individuals that have bought whole-heartedly into his dramatically elevated self-assessment and are loathe to provide him with critical feedback. Also, like the young star athlete, Obama has yet to accomplish anything to justify the admiration that he has received. I find this particularly disturbing because, many star high school athletes, who buy into their own hype, overestimate their own talents and often make very poor decisions as a result. It is not hard for me to imagine a similar scenario unfolding if Senator Obama takes the Oval Office.

So, as a result, while I don't find either candidate particularly appealing, I am significantly more comfortable with a President McCain than a President Obama.

I should also note that I generally vote for the more conservative of the two presidential candidates. I think it is particularly important to have a conservative politician in our government's top executive office because it wields an ever growing amount of power and authority. So, someone who at least pays lip service to limited government (as McCain does) is marginally preferable to a candidate that has absolutely no reservations about expanding the size and scope of the federal government.

Why Don't We Make Anything Anymore?

(This post is in response to a request from a friend.)

A couple months ago I was speaking with an acquaintance of mine who works for a major U.S. manufacturing company. We were discussing the state of the economy and he expressed very strong feelings about the subject stating, "We really don't make anything in this country anymore, at least not like we used to. Our economy is far too consumer driven and it will eventually come back to bite us if we don't go back to our manufacturing roots."

It is easy to understand why some long for a return to the days when the U.S. was the dominant manufacturer in the world and one can see why that idea might even seem intuitive. (Isn't it better if other countries are buying our stuff rather than vice versa?) People that embrace this way of thinking often focus too much on certain, select pieces of economic data (like manufacturing out put by country, trade deficit, manufacturing as percentage of the economy, or the decline in manufacturing jobs) and fail to put that data into a larger economic context.

While manufacturing jobs in this country have declined over the past several decades, that has not been due to an overall economic downturn or a failure of vital industries. In fact, it has been the result of the opposite. New technology made many of those jobs obsolete, while simultaneously making our manufacturing sector far more efficient and productive. This increase in productivity and efficiency has led to tremendous economic growth and increased standards of living. Which, in turn, led to the creation of tens of millions of new jobs over the last several decades. While it is true that several industries (like steel) have moved their operations overseas to cheaper locations, that is a product of our economic growth. As the economy grows, wages rise, education levels rise, and taxes rise. As a result, many blue collar industries move to ares where it is less expensive to do business. Certainly this type of change can be devastating to individuals who used to work in these industries but the only way to bring those jobs back would be to significantly lower wages or dramatically lower taxes (neither option is feasible). The only way to prevent manufacturing jobs from leaving in the future would be to (again) dramatically lower taxes on all "at-risk" manufacturing businesses, dole out huge government subsidies, and/or impose huge tariffs. These are all options that have been implemented in the past but with limited success and at a huge cost to tax payers and consumers.

While it is true that we are no longer the World's dominant manufacturer, it is not true that we no longer "make" anything. The truth is we continue to make a lot of things and will continue to do so. The fact is that much of our out put has shifted from low tech to high tech. This sometimes gives the false impression that our manufacturing sector is dying because most people associate manufacturing with low tech/blue collar/assembly line type of items. In reality we are world leaders in pharmaceuticals, high-tech medical equipment, nano-technology, etc... We really haven't stopped making stuff, we just don't make all the same things that we used to and that isn't necessarily a bad thing.

Another piece of evidence that commentators use to show an alarming decline in the manufacturing sector is manufacturing as a percentage of our economy. It is certainly true that our economy is less and less manufacturing based every year. But that is more a testament to the growth of our economy in other sectors than decline in manufacturing. In fact, over the last decade our manufacturing output has actually increased.

I remember during one lecture when someone asked my favorite economics professor about the trade deficit with China. He responded by calling it a meaningless statistic. He said unless such a statistic is accompanied by more detailed analysis to show a detrimental trade relationship with China the deficit is meaningless. He stated, China is as dependent (if not more so) on U.S. consumers as we are on their products. He also pointed out that our overall trade deficit is generally balanced out by foreign investment in the U.S. He explained we may buy more foreign made products but foreign investors put more money in the U.S. than anywhere else in the world.

Overall, concern about the demise of our manufacturing sector is overblown. My fear is that the sentiments expressed by my acquaintance will gain political traction during our current economic downturn leading to horribly misguided economic policies that could make our current economic troubles look like heaven.

The Power of Celebrity

I am completely fascinated by the Presidential campaign of Senator Barack Obama. The reason I am fascinated by his campaign is because it is so unique. It is the first presidential campaign, that I have ever witnessed, that is driven mainly by the power of celebrity. Certainly there are important political issues that are influencing the campaign and will influence the election. In addition, there is a significant amount of Bush hatred that motivates millions of left leaning voters to participate very enthusiastically in this presidential cycle. However, the issues and the Bush hatred would have existed even without Obama and one could make the arguement that other democratic candidates would have been better suited to exploit the democratic advantage on particular political issues.

So, what is it that drove Barack Obama to the top of the democratic ticket and has him siting as the odds on favorite to be our next president? The answer is celebrity. Sure, John McCain is famous and so is Hillary Clinton but there is a distinct difference between their fame and the fame that Senator Obama currently enjoys. John McCain is famous because he has been a senator for a couple decades and he has previously run for president. He also has been a regular guest on political radio and T.V. shows for the last decade. Hillary Clinton is famous because she is the wife of Bill Clinton and Senator of New York. Barack Obama is famous because he is one of the "beautiful people". Barak Obama is famous because he is handsome and has an attractive wife. He's famous because he puts on a great show at political rallies. He's famous because he's new, young, and black. In other words, he's not famous because of what he has accomplished in the past. He's famous for what he is and what people imagine him to be. He has taken on the type of fame that is enjoyed by A list Hollywood celebrities like Brad, Tom, Angelina, and Katie. Young girls faint at his rallies and scream for his autograph when he passes by. He has appeared on the cover of magazines usually reserved for movie stars and models. His life has even become a regular subject covered in the tabloids. Even movie stars themselves adore him. Like a movie star, he also has throngs of fans that know very little about who he really is but think they know him because they project on to him the qualities and characteristics they want him to have.

(As I am writing this post, Barack Obama is giving a speech before thousands of adoring fans in Germany.)

Upon closer inspection, it really isn't all that surprising that Mr. Obama has reached A list movie star type status. He has quite a lot in common with them. He's young, handsome, performs well in front of an audience, and reads his lines beautifully from the teleprompter. The real question is can a candidacy driven by celebrity/cult of personality win the ultimate political prize on the planet? And, that question is precisely what makes Senator Obama's campaign so fascinating.

Dancin' in D.C.

Well the Washington Redskins had one of the worst starts to training camp that one could realistically envision. After their first day and a half of practice the Redskins had already lost their starting DE (Phillip Daniels) and a back up DE to season ending injury. For good measure, corner back Fred Smoot went down with a sprained ankle. Depth has been a weakness for the Redskins for the past decade and a half, due to reckless free agent spending and a knack for trading away draft picks for very little in return. So, injuries tend to be particularly devastating to the Redskins. This time however, there does appear to be a silver lining to an otherwise horrible start to training camp. The Redskins knew their season would be over before it even began if they did not address the holes left by these injuries so they went out and traded for one of the top DEs in all of football, Jason Taylor. The Redskins gave up a second round pick in next year's draft and a sixth round draft pick in 2010 to get Taylor. Trading away a second round pick for a 33 year-old lineman is generally a poor move, especially if that player has openly talked about quitting football in the near future to pursue acting.

{Side note- Unlike other athletes who want to become movie stars, Jason Taylor has a legitimate opportunity to full fill that ambition. He recently starred in the show "Dancing with the Stars" and went from relatively unknown all-pro football player to a national celebrity who now regularly appears in the tabloids and on info-tainment shows. To give you an idea of what I am talking about my wife (who wouldn't know a defensive end from a dead end) said, "REALLY...They got Jason Taylor!", when I informed her of the trade.}

However, in this case the Redskins might have actually turned a horrible situation into a net positive. Jason Taylor, when at his best, is one of the best defensive players to ever play the game of football. Even though he is 33, he still had an extremely productive season with 11 sacks last year. He is a super-human athlete with tremendous football instincts. He appears to be in great shape and has only missed four games his entire career. Together with the Redskins' other DE Andre Carter (another freak athlete who also had double digit sacks last season), Jason Taylor should give the Skins one of the best pass rushes in the league. Another positive aspect of this story is the fact that the Redskins had the salary cap room to make this deal in the first place. In years past there is absolutely no way the Redskins would have had the $8 million dollars under the cap they needed in order to make this move. But, shockingly, this season the team focused on the draft rather than free agents and this conservative approached allowed them to adapt under, what could have been, season crushing circumstances.

Nevertheless, there are some down sides in to this situation. First, this situation underscores the Redskins folly in drafting three wide receivers/tight ends with their first three picks in the draft. Had the Redskins drafted a DE with one of their first picks, they would not have been as desperate and Redskins might have been able to drive a harder bargain with the Dolphins and gotten Taylor for cheaper. Instead, the Redskins were forced to deal in desperation and were lucky the Dolphins didn't demand even more in order to get the deal done. (The Redskins are still dangerously thin at the DE position, even with the addition of Taylor.) In addition, what the Redskins gain in pass rush might be negated by Taylor's poor run defense. Both he and the Redskins other DE Carter struggle against the run. Add to that, the questions surrounding Taylor's dedication to the game and you have real potential for this deal to end badly for the Redskins.

Overall, this was a good move for the Redskins because it makes them a potentially better team than the one they started training camp with just yesterday. Which is a pretty remarkable thing to say given how disastrously this day began for Washington's favorite sports franchise.

Audrey Unplugged

My daughter performing her new favorite song, "I Want a Hippopotamus for Christmas", while "playing" grandma's piano.

Is the Threat of Terrorism a Myth?

In Sunday's Washington Post, there was column http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/11/AR2008071102710.html written by Glenn L. Carle (Former CIA Deputy National Intelligence Officer) stating that the terrorist threat is greatly exaggerated and that this exaggeration has led to misguided policies that have cost the U.S. dearly in resources and in lives. I agree with Mr. Carle's general point that the threat of al-Qaeda and groups like it has been exaggerated. Politicians, the news media, and Hollywood are to blame for this, but the reality is that it was bound to happen. Sept. 11th was so dramatic and terrorists are such mysterious and terrifying creatures that they make for good politics and great television. Unfortunately Mr. Carle, in his attempt to diminish the perceived threat of terrorism significantly overstates his case. He also mis characterizes the views of some people (particularly John McCain) who see the threat differently than he does.

Certainly al-Qaeda was never a threat to seriously destabilize the U.S and we have excepted some irrational policies (air port security, certain provisions of the Patriot Act, etc...) as a result of our disproportionate fear of al-Qaeda. However, it is silly to call Osama Bin Laden and his associates "small men" as Glenn Carle does in his column. This "small man" accomplished, what no U.S. enemy has accomplished since Pearl Harbor, an attack on U.S. soil killing thousands of people. (Let's not forget that the attack also helped to instigate an economic recession.) That is not the work of a small man. It is certainly reasonable to believe that had we not invaded Afghanistan, removed the Taliban, eliminated most of al-Qaeda's leadership, wire tapped suspected terrorists phone calls, frozen terrorists assets, etc... al-Qaeda would have struck U.S. soil again. (Even under these adverse circumstances they have still managed to strike several of our allies with deadly attacks.)

The question I would like to pose to Mr. Carle is- Over the last 20 years what threat has been more grave to the U.S., allies, and interests than Islamic terrorism? If you add up all the attacks, all of the casualties, and the cost in damages, you can make a very strong case that there has been no greater security threat to U.S. and her allies over the last 20 years than Islamic terrorism. Another question I would ask is- what threat is more imminent to our interests and our security than Islam terrorism? There are certainly threats with greater potential for catastrophe, like an Iranian or North Korean missile attack on one of our allies. Or if China ever decided to attack Taiwan and take a more militaristic approach to the world, that could have horrendous consequences. Nevertheless, a terrorist attack on our interests abroad or here at home is far more likely to occur in the near future than any of the events I just described. So, while the threat may not be as potentially dangerous as other imaginable threats, the threat from Islamic terrorism was/is real and arguably the most imminent.

Mr. Carle does have a valid point when he states that there is no "global terrorist network". The level of sophistication that we have attributed to terrorist organizations has taken on mythical proportions. However, he is off base when he states that, "None of these groups is likely to succeed in seizing power or in destabilizing the societies they attack". This has already been proven to be false in locations throughout the world. It is true that terrorist organizations themselves are unlikely to seize political power or destabilize a modern Western nation. However, Islamic fundamentalist groups backed by militias and terrorist organizations have seized power and acted as destabilizing forces all around the world from the Philippines, to Somalia, to Lebanon, etc...

Another problem with Mr. Carle's case is that he limits his discussion to terrorist groups and the threat they pose to this country. This would be fine if terrorists groups were the root of the threat and not simply a symptom. The root of the threat and the real danger comes not from groups like al-Qaeda but from the spread of the ideology of radical Islam. No, the U.S. is not in danger of becoming the United States of Islam and Europe is not going to become Eurabia as some commentators have projected, but the spread of radical Islam is a threat nonetheless. It is a threat because it destabilizes countries, enslaves people, and is enthusiastic about using violent means in order to grow. Right now it is growing throughout Africa, central Asia, Eastern Europe, the Balkans, and Southeast Asia. That is why John McCain and others like him talk about global jihad being the "gravest threat we face". He's not referring to the "global terrorist network", he's referring to a dangerous ideology that occasionally manifests itself in the form of terrorist organizations. In fact, contrary to the impression that Mr. Carle conveys in his column, you will hear John McCain speak of the "War on Terror" in ideological terms far more often than speaks of the threat of a domestic terrorist attack.

So why would Mr. Carle seek to diminish this threat and mis-represent the views of those with whom he disagrees? It is most likely a combination of political motivations and ideological perspective.

First, the CIA has been in a turf war with the Bush Administration ever since 9-11. Many in the CIA resent the creation of the Department of Homeland Security and object to the Bush administration's approach of aggressively using all means at our disposal to prosecute the "War on Terror". The CIA, for reasons self-interested and philosophical, saw the "War on Terror" as an intelligence matter and did not like having to share it's territory while simultaneously receiving a huge portion of the blame for 9/11. The CIA's image has been tarnished and it's influence has been diminished ever since 9/11. Since that time, individuals like Mr. Carle have been working to undermine the administration in order to push policies back in a pre 9-11 direction. The theory is that if you can show that the Bush administration policies aren't working (i.e. the leaked CIA reports that the Iraq war had actually increased the threat of terrorism) or (in Mr. Carle's case) show that the policies were unnecessary, then you can lobby for a return to the pre 9-11 days when the CIA was in control of counter-terrorism efforts. Mr. Carle is also sending a warning shot to whomever becomes the next president (particularly Mr. McCain), saying that he is in for a fight from the CIA if he doesn't change the policies of the current administration.

Ultimately, It's difficult to know why Mr. Carle would mis characterize the views of those with whom he disagrees. Perhaps because believing Senator McCain to be a fear monger is a conveniently simple explanation for their different views of the issue or perhaps because Mr. Carle simply doesn't see the terrorist threat in it's larger context.

In the end I find it extremely interesting that a couple of years ago I was reading fairly regularly about reports being released by the CIA that the Iraq War and Guantanamo Bay were increasing the threat of terrorism and that the threat was "greater than before 9/11" (John Kerry touted these reports during his campaign). Fast forward to today- al-Qaeda is (by most accounts) organizationally at it's weakest point since 9/11, is most likely defeated in Iraq, rapidly losing popular support throughout the Middle-East, and there has been no terrorist attack on U.S. soil in seven years. Now a former CIA operative is saying that the Bush administration policies were unnecessary because the threat was never that big to begin with. Seems curious.

The truth is that as long as President Bush is in power it is hard to believe anything that comes out of a extremely polarized Washington, D.C. One thing I know for certain is that I'm taking Mr. Carle's column with a huge grain of salt.

All-Star Silliness

This post is based on an e-mail that I wrote to my cousin (an avid baseball fan) two years ago. The ideas I expressed at the time are still applicable to the current baseball season.

As this season's MLB All-Star game was approaching I found myself growing more and more irritated with the All-Star game slogan, "This Time it Counts!" Generally, I don't care much about the All-Star game and in the past I found it silly how commentators took the selection of the All-Star rosters so seriously. I mean come on, we are talking about a selection process that either rewards a player for being popular (aka playing in a major media market), having a good half of a season, or being the best player on a very, very bad team. All-Star selection simply isn't a good indicator of whether or not a player is one of the best in baseball. It's an exhibition game/marketing tool, that is meant to showcase baseball's biggest stars and there is nothing wrong with that. In fact, in years past I've felt that the only thing wrong with the All-Star game is the fact that commentators and columnists always try to make into something it's not- a meaningful game. However, this is to be expected from sports columnists who make mountains out of molehills for a living. (Kind of like what I'm doing right now.)

The problem I have now is that Bud Selig has taken the foolish thinking of the columnists/commentators and put it into practice, by having the All-Star game determine homefield advantage in the World Series. How can a game where a popularity contest determines the starters and a player from the dreadful Washington Nationals is required to be on the roster, actually have an impact on the World Series??!! Bud Selig is trying to have it both ways. He wants the All-Star game to be an exhibition showcase while simultaneously wanting it to take on post-season importance. In the process, the All-Star game and the selection process has become a confusing and awkward mess.

In my opinion, the All-Star game doesn't need to "count". Baseball's rich tradition and popularity are enough to make the All-Star Game the "mid-summer classic". However, if Selig insists on continuing with this silly gimmic, then he should at least have the common sense to modify the selection process to reflect the "This Time it Counts" significance of the game. If the game really counts, then the starting line-up shouldn't be a popularity contest and the rosters should not include sympathy selections like Christian Guzman. But, the best case scenario would be that Bud and his buddies would just put the All-Star game back the way it was before they screwed it up.

Phil's Gramm of truth

Every couple days or so, the political talking heads like to seize hold of a quote, issue, a political candidate's mistep, etc... and talk it to death. Yesterday there was a fine example of this phenomenon, when the media pounced on the comments made by former Senator Phil Gramm in an interview with the Washington Times. (Phil Gramm is an economic adviser to Senator John McCain's presidential campaign.) In the interview Phil Gramm, who is currently vice-chairman of Swiss Bank UBS, said that the country's economic downturn has been widely exaggerated by the media and even went as far as to call the current U.S. economic troubles a "mental recession". He also said that the nation had "sort of become a nation of whiners".

Pundits from all of the major networks and newspapers jumped at the chance to condemn and criticize Gramm's words. Those on left declared that Gramm, and by extension the McCain Campaign, is "out of touch with the American people and their suffering". McCain, as he has done in past, immediately distanced himself from Gramm's remarks and even seemed to distance himself from Gramm altogether. (One contrast between the two candidates is that Obama is too slow to put out potential political fires, allowing them to fester far too long. While McCain is often times too quick to throw his supporters under the bus when they cause him political headaches at times exacerbating an otherwise minor issue.)

It's not hard to imagine that anyone who is currently suffering economically might find Gramm's words to be offensive. No one likes to be called a whiner. That said, there is some truth to what Gramm had to say. The fact is that we have yet to experience two consecutive quarters of negative economic growth (the definition of a recession). It is also a fact that economic downturns are quite common, happening about every eight to twelve years (on average). Compared to previous periods of slow and/or negative growth, this has been a rather mild downturn. Unemployment is still relatively low, exports are sky rocketing, inflation is rising but still relatively low, etc... In addition, as Gramm notes, alarmist rhetoric about the economy has been extremely common throughout the major media outlets. Certain media outlets have even taken to calling the current downturn a recession even though they know full well that the country has not technically entered a recession. Several articles and opinion pieces appearing in major newspapers and periodicals have even mentioned the word depression to describe where the economy is headed in the not too distant future. So all the denunciations from the political punditry aside, Gramm's analysis was not entirely off the mark.

Nevertheless, Gramm went too far with his "nation of whiners" comment. Gramm's macro economic view of the economy seems to blind him from seeing how this economic downturn affects the daily lives of American's across the economic spectrum. While this downturn (according to certain fundamental economic data) may not be as severe as past economic slowdowns, in terms of the scope of the slowdown, more Americans have been directly impacted by this downturn than in previous ones. Oil prices doubling, food prices exploding, and housing values plummeting, these are things that negatively impact the daily lives of almost every American and they are not being whiners if they express their concern.

So Phil had some legitimate points to make regarding the economy but he didn't do himself or his candidate any favors by attempting to down play the concerns of people all across the country.

Wall-e's World

Two weeks ago my wife and I took our three year-old to see the Pixar movie Wall-e. I was extremely excited to see this film based on what I saw in the previews. It looked cute, unique, and the animation looked amazing. Pixar movies are generally a god-send for parents of toddlers who normally have to suffer through the likes of Dora the Explorer and Higglytown Heros on a daily basis. Pixar has a knack for creating movies that capture the imagination of kids and simultaneously entertain adults. I expected no less from WALL-e but came away quite disappointed.

First there is practically no dialog for the first 45 minutes. Because the animation is breathtaking the movie kept my attention but I certainly found myself hoping the whole movie wasn't going continue on in this fashion. Once WALL-e meets other robots and comes in contact with humans, the movie does begin to pick up it's pace and we get to see several clever and cute moments. However, in contrast to previous Pixar films, there weren't any other memorable characters besides WALL-e and his companion EVE.

My biggest complaint about this movie is that it utterly fails to accomplish, what one would assume is, it's main objective- entertain little kids. It's an animated movie rated G, marketed directly at little kids, so at minimum you would expect little kids to walk away enamored with WALL-e and his other robot friends. That simply didn't seem to be the case. Particularly with my three year-old, who lost interest in the film shortly after she ran out of pop corn. The lack of dialog, the lack of clever/humorous characters through the first half of the movie, and the adult messages and themes that dominated the movie led my daughter to attempt to escape the theater several times before the film was complete. Keep in mind my daughter absolutely loves Pixar movies and has no problem sitting through all 90 minutes of Nemo, Toy Story, Monster Inc., etc... Six months ago she sat completely still during, and thoroughly enjoyed, the rather mediocre "Bee Movie". So this was not simply a case of a three year-old's short attention span. In fact, when leaving the theater I heard other children voicing their disappointment. One child even said the movie was boring and asked if he and his parents could see a better movie next time.

Of course there were kids who did enjoy the movie. WALL-e is awfully cute and loveable and I'm sure Pixar will make loads of money off this film. However, the filmmakers seem to have (hopefully temporarily) lost their perspective or better yet they seem to have lost the child's perspective in their enthusiasm for incorporating more sophisticated themes and ideas into their film. Exactly how is a three or four year-old suppose to relate to WALL-e or even understand what he is doing for first 15-20 minutes of film? He's on a deserted planet filled with trash which he systematically compacts and stacks into sky-scrapper high columns. It is never explained, in a way little children can conceive, why WALL-e is all alone, why WALL-e is picking up trash, why EVE shuts down when WALL-e gives her a small plant as a gift, etc... When my three year-old watches Nemo, she understands why Nemo doesn't have a mommy and that Nemo gets taken from his father. When she watches Toy Story she can easily follow the story from the opening scene to the last. Yet she was never given a chance to really understand the WALL-e story because the filmmakers made little effort to explain it to her or show her something she could relate to.

My final criticism of the film is that I found the themes of human selfishness, gluttony, and corporate greed presented in a very obnoxious almost condescending manner. From the completely trash filled city metropolis to the fat blob humans it seemed as though the filmmakers felt as though they needed to beat the audience over the head constantly in order for us to understand just how dirty, selfish, and gluttonous we really are and that we are too stupid to see that big corporations are taking over our lives. Yes, the humans show a hint of goodness in the end but that too seemed condescending almost like a mother talking to a problem child, saying "I know you are really a good boy deep down inside."

Ultimately I would not recommend this film and I sincerely hope Pixar goes back to it's old model of simple stories and themes packed with witty dialog and loads of memorable characters because I could really use a break from Dora.

Boumediene and the Omnipotent Supreme Court

Almost one month ago the Supreme Court decided what could possibly be a landmark case (Boumediene v. Bush). It remains to be seem just what the specific policy repercussions of this ruling might be. Nevertheless, one thing is certain, and that is this case represents a bold expansion of judicial supremacy over the other two branches of government.

First, whatever negative repercussions do result from this decision, a portion of the blame lies at the feet of the Bush Administration. Had the Bush administration worked jointly with Congress, the Military and the Justice Department in the very beginning to develop guidelines for determining what constitutes an "enemy combatant" and a set of procedures by which these detainees could challenge their detainment in a military tribunal setting (as has been done in the past), the Supreme Court would have been less likely to intervene. It is the appearance of executive overreach that initially brought these issues to the Supreme Court and it is an appearance that could have been avoided had the Bush Administration sought to include the other branches of government (especially congress) from the initial development of the policy. This approach would have required more compromise and more humility than the administration was willing to show at the time, but the Court has since forced the administration into submission and required a drastic compromise with potentially disastrous consequences.

Nevertheless, the most distressing element of Boumediene is the Court's bold attempt to expand it's ever-growing influence over policy and legislation. In previous cases the Supreme Court instructed the administration to work with congress to create guidelines for declaring an alien detained by U.S. Government an enemy combatant. It also instructed the administration to work with congress to develop a system by which enemy combatants could challenge their detention. The Court seemed to suggest that if these two steps were taken, that would resolve the constitutional issues surrounding the detainees located at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. In previous cases the Supreme Court acted with a reasonable amount of restraint in their decisions, providing guidelines and advice, but allowing the executive and legislative branches enough leeway to craft the policies regarding detainees. (This is precisely the role that the Supreme Court is designed to play in our federal government.) However, in Boumediene the majority set aside its pretense of self-moderation and overrode the policies established by the Government's elected representatives. Such a move by the Court is not, on it's face, bold or overreaching. It is the responsibility of the Court to overturn laws that it finds unconstitutional. But in Boumediene the Court appears to disregard it's prior decisions that allowed policies to be built within the Constitutional guidelines it laid out. Instead, in Boumediene, the majority finds that Guantanamo Bay is in fact sovereign territory of the United States and therefore the individuals held there have Habeas Corpus rights (right to appeal their detention in a federal court). It also indirectly grants individual federal judges the authority to determine the policies and procedures pertaining to the enemy combatants held at Guantanamo Bay.

Evidence of Court's overreach lies in the fact that the determination that Guantanamo Bay is sovereign U.S. territory and therefore Habeas Corpus applies, does not appear in previous decisions. If the court truly believed that the individuals held at Guantanamo Bay should be granted Habeas Corpus why not include such a declaration in previous decisions rather than having the government go through the pain staking process of developing a separate legal system for the detainees. It seems possible that the justices in the majority gave into the temptation to over step their constitutional mandate in order craft a key policy, and in the process, set a new precedent that allows the judiciary unprecedented authority over key military, security, and foreign policy issues.

As stated before, the immediate legal and policy repercussions of Boumediene remain to be seen. However, one consequence that has clearly emerged is a significant shift in the relative authority of our three branches of government. A continued shift in this direction will lead to more power consolidating in the hands unelected, lifetime appointed justices. Certainly not the balance of power envisioned by our Founding Fathers.

First Visit to Yankee Stadium

On July 5th, 2008 my father and I traveled to New York City to see the New York Yankees play the Boston Redsox. (Thanks again to my father for his generosity.) This is the last season the Yankees will play in the historic park. They move into a brand new (billion dollar!) stadium next season. The new stadium is currently being built right across the street from the old one and from what we could see from the outside, it appears to be a very impressive structure.


This visit to Yankee stadium was my first and it certainly was a memorable one. The atmosphere was festive and electric. It seemed every seat was occupied by a die hard fan (as one might expect, a good number of Red Sox fans made the trip). You could feel the excitement even before entering the historic confines. Once inside, my mind immediately flashed to the books, movies, and old T.V. footage that I have seen and read depicting the historic ball park and chills went up and down my spine as I thought of Babe Ruth, Mickey Mantle, Joe DiMaggio, Whitey Ford, Lou Gehrig, etc.... (Side note: Lou Gehrig gave his "luckiest man in the world" speach on July 4th, 1939.) It is truly a shame that Major League Baseball will no longer be played in this legendary location. That said, it is clear that Yankee Stadium is past it's prime. Like other ball parks built during baseball ball's golden days, it's walkways are cramped. There is a damp and dingy smell throughout the stadium due to poor circulation. The walls are dull and gray. The seats are crowded and leg room is non-existent. (The one exception was the row where we were seated. It is the last row of the lower level on the third base side and the seats are actually folding chairs placed behind a low railing elevated four to five feet above the next row of seats.) So while it is certainly sad to see the Yankees leave this monument to America's pastime, it is clear that it will benefit the fans and the Yankees bottom line (think luxury boxes!) to upgrade the ball park. I hope to one day to take my son (if I am fortunate enough to have one) to the New Yankee stadium and tell him about the day my father took me to the house that Ruth built.