Brent Nyitray
Fairlington Blade
Let the mutherfuker burn!
jnc4p
Kevin S. Willis
Michigoose
lmsinca
markinaustin
Arcanaut
novahockey
quarterback
ScottC
yellojktBits & Pieces may be spotty or non-existent through the holidays. You know, for kids.
The first Hobbit Trailer is out. That’s all you need to know about anything, for now.
“Bagginses? What is a ‘Bagginses’?”
While I imagine a lot of work was finished in order to deliver for the trailer, it seems to me like they must have had a lot of the first movie done, given what’s in the trailer. I’m surprised we’ll be waiting until December 2012 to see it. Ah, well.
I’ll just have to content myself with repeatedly watching the trailer, and wondering what they’ve come up with for Gandalf’s interaction with Galadriel. To the Tolkien purists, all I’ve got say is: you’ve still got the books. I’m as excited as I can be to see what connective tissue to LOTR that Jackson and Walsh and Boyens have invented, and seeing Gandalf chatting with Galadriel, and knowing that Saruman will make an appearance—it all makes me very happy.
At some point, I’m looking forward to watching the extended editions of the two Hobbit movies and the three LOTR movies on Blu-Ray. Sometimes in 2014 or 2015 I imagine. Not sure how I’ll schedule it, but I’m going to make it happen.
Filed under: Uncategorized |
All Things in Moderation 
First.I thought the hobbits would be taller.
LikeLike
2 hobbit movies? Do you refer to the original animated version?
LikeLike
They are splitting the book into two movies which seems like stretching a light-hearted story a little thin.
LikeLike
Nathaniel: rimshot!Kevin: I'd say I'd give you a hand, but starting on Monday I'll be visiting folks without wifi (the horror!!!!) so it'll depend on whether or not I can find time to get on their computer(s) long enough to contribute. But through this weekend I'll try to hold up an open thread when you can't. :-)yello: and they compressed the LOTR into too small a story for my taste. Not to mention the casting. (Sorry, Kevin) But, then, I'm a purist and I still hate the BCS after all these years. . . Hey!! You kids! Get off my lawn!!!
LikeLike
IMO, "The Hobbit" should probably be only one movie but I'm sure the money factor played into the decision to split it up. There are a lot of fans out there with a new generation of readers and movie goers anxious to see the "beginning" on the big screen, and enough of us old timers who are still charmed by the story to watch two movies. I actually thought LOTR was just about right and people like my husband, who never read the books, were able to follow the story and enjoy the adventure.I haven't been able to participate here much, I've barely had time to read the comments, and so I'll have to rely on others to generate a few threads. My sister came in last Sunday and youngest is driving from CO tomorrow to spend a week with us so we're on the busy side this year.I thought one of qb's comments from yesterday (?) was so funny though. He said something along the lines of wasn't it great that everyone was in agreement, lol, the contrarians were out of the loop was all that was.
LikeLike
Mark et al:A WSJ editorial today, What Fannie and Freddie knew:The SEC's case should embarrass Congress's Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission, which spent 18 months looking at the evidence and issued a report in January 2011 that whitewashed Fan and Fred's role. Speaker Nancy Pelosi created the commission to prosecute the Beltway theory of the crisis that private bankers caused it all, and Chairman Phil Angelides delivered what she wanted. Far from being peripheral to the housing crisis, the SEC lawsuit shows that Fan and Fred were at the very heart of it. Private lenders made many mistakes, but they could never have done as much harm if Fan and Fred weren't providing tens of billions in taxpayer-subsidized liquidity to lend on easy terms to borrowers who couldn't pay it back. Congress created the two mortgage giants as well as their "affordable housing" mandates, and neither the financial system nor taxpayers will be safe until Congress shrinks the toxic twins and ultimately puts them out of business.
LikeLike
Dorothy Rabinowitz rips into Ron Paul:There can be no confusions about Dr. Paul's own comments about the U.S. After 9/11, he said to students in Iowa, there was "glee in the administration because now we can invade Iraq." It takes a profoundly envenomed mindset—one also deeply at odds with reality—to believe and to say publicly that the administration of this nation brought so low with grief and loss after the attack had reacted with glee. There are, to be sure, a number of like-minded citizens around (see the 9/11 Truthers, whose opinions Dr. Paul has said he doesn't share). But we don't expect to find their views in people running for the nation's highest office.The Paul comment here is worth more than a passing look. It sums up much we have already heard from him. It's the voice of that ideological school whose central doctrine is the proposition that the U.S. is the main cause of misery and terror in the world. The school, for instance, of Barack Obama's former minister famed for his "God d— America" sermons: the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, for whom, as for Dr. Paul, the 9/11 terror assault was only a case of victims seeking justice, of "America's chickens coming home to roost."
LikeLike
http://www.garyjohnson2012.com/Interesting homepage for Johnson, who's going to run Libertarian, in that he's calling on people to also support Paul. This makes it easy for me. I'll vote Paul in the primary and if he's not around by the general, Johnson will be.
LikeLike
NoVa- Since you're a Paul supporter I would be interested in hearing your response to the Dorothy Rabinowitz column Scott just posted. It seems like an effectively line of criticism although, personally I find it a bit shallow.
LikeLike
If you have ever spent time around chickens you will notice that they cannot fly, they can only make two distinctive sounds [one is for "hawk!" and the other is for "snake!"], and the rest of their vocabulary consists of undifferentiated buck-buck-buck. They are incredibly stupid and relatively insensitive to pain. Coming home to roost has no meaning because they never went anywhere.Eagles come home to roost. Chickens just exist.****Scott, thanks for the WSJ link. From what you and Brent have published, it appears that a bipartisan effort in Congress and through two administrations coupled with political pressure on FanFred contributed seriously to the number of shaky mortgages, that the oozing of Fed liquidity created an asset bubble, that the banks and FanFred securitized the bubbling assets that were shaky at the core, that worldwide money looking for a home found the bubbling gurgling assets, and then the real estate bubble broke. It is in the making of the collateralized and securitized derivatives and bets on them that one set of regulations broke down and in the ratings of risk that the private rating agencies broke down. Further exacerbating this was the tendency of real estate appraisers to call what they knew to be an overheated market "fair market value". Add the fact that loan brokers with only commissions at stake and no skin in the deals pushed liar loans. Add that many borrowers knew they were lying and many lenders knew the brokers were lying. MERS facilitated the speed of these transactions, no doubt, and the wreckage of the recordation system, as well. Again, I do not know what of these many contributors was the "but for" cause, if there was such a thing. The bubble and bust is more important than the quality of the loans, in this respect, as even the best loan to the most creditworthy borrower becomes shaky when the asset value drops in half. So Brent's pointing to the Fed makes sense in that light.But these were all bad steps we should learn from.
LikeLike
Mark,Where did that chicken and eagle comment come from? Is that a Mark original? My MIL has a bunch of chickens and they are so stupid although it tends to be the ducks that get eaten by whatever predators are lurking. I do remember feeding them one morning and suddenly seeing them all run into a little wooded area only to look up and see a hawk swooping down. All the chickens managed to find cover so the hawk went hungry, but I remember being impressed with the instinctual reaction by such a dumb animal.
LikeLike
ashot:It seems like an effectively line of criticism although, personally I find it a bit shallow. Rabinowitz's criticisms, or Paul's FP positions?
LikeLike
NoVA:Did you see Paul walk off the set during a CNN interview?BTW, I am curious…do you agree with Paul that the US has declared war on 1.2 billion Muslims?
LikeLike
Ash – That criticism is making the rounds this week. check out HotAir — it's the standard "Paul will leave us defenseless and the forces of evil will march over the world" bit. The Daily Caller has one up that said Paul would have left the world to the Nazis. My response would be: 1) we can't afford to continue as we have been the since WWII.2) Terrorism is a tactic and one you don't defeat by having bases all over the world. More bluntly — how many illiterate goat herders in central Asia do we need to kill before we are safe? How many more do we create when the inevitable accident happens? 3) Is our presence and/or influence in "sensitive" areas helping our hurting? 4) Minding our own business isn't the same as isolation5) Maintaining a constant war footing abroad will mean diminished liberty at home. 5) Re: Iraq — His comments were excessive. But were they, at their core, wrong? It was just another in a string of "never let a crisis go to waste" moments. 6) The second we pull out of Iraq, it falls to shit. There are two options now. Learn to avoid wars of choice or stay there forever. I'm sure we'll make the right choice. The argument often is America needs to be a leader in the world. nobody ever asks if we're any good at it.
LikeLike
Hi Scott — just saw your note — gotta run but will check back later. but walking off is typically a poor idea. haven't seen the clip yet.
LikeLike
I dig the chicken stories.
LikeLike
Scott-Sort of both.I think Paul's "glee" comment is shallow. I think that Rabinowitz pretty much nails it. The other thing is if you are going to make such an accusation like Paul made, you better have proof of it. That said, I think this line of criticism that Obama or Paul(really anyone who dares to acknowledge the mistakes we have made as a country) don't think America is exceptional is cloaking a partisan disagreement in the flag. I have really been turned off by the patriotic rhetoric I have heard from the GOP. That isn't to say that Democrats haven't done it, but it seemed to be worse from the Right the last few years. I have not heard much of that thus far from the GOP candidates and it will be interesting to see if those claims are renewed in the general election. My guess is that Romney would be comfortable enough taking Obama to task on the economy that he wouldn't go to the patriot well too often, if at all.
LikeLike
NoVA:I am sympathetic to every one of your numbered points/questions (except perhaps the latter part of your second (d'oh!) number 5). But Paul seems particularly inept at arguing them, if indeed they are points he is trying to make.For example, one ought to be able to make the case for minding one's own business without ascribing bigotry to those who prefer a more interventionist FP. Given some of the things he's said, I think Rabinowitz's comaprison to Rev Wright is perfectly fair and deserved. And ought to prompt reconsideration among anyone tempted to vote for him.
LikeLike
Goose: have you watched the extended editions? There's still no Tom Bombadil, but Celeborn appears, and Grima kills Saruman ( though at Orthanc rather than the Shire). Features Sam and Frodo arguing about his knots when the elvish rope unties itself. Good stuff.
LikeLike
I'm tempted to vote for Paul over any other Republicans in the primary, but that has as much to do with the quality of those Republicans as it does with Paul.
LikeLike
Ashot – I grew up on a modestly successful dairy farm. Korean War started and the USDA urged farmers to buy chickens. Why? B/c the powdered rations for our troops were egg based.So my dad bought 25000 chickens. Made a fortune on eggs during the War. Then the war ended, and he could not get back into full time dairy fast enough and we went bankrupt.I hated them so much when I was 11 that I used to hunt them if they strayed from their roosts with my bow. It was maniacal and visceral on my part. But there it was.At least I did not shoot them with my .22. That would have been too noisy. We ate the chickens I shot, of ourse, but during those last months we ate chicken a lot. Also eggs.
LikeLike
"There's still no Tom Bombadil"Best editorial decision ever.
LikeLike
ashot:I think this line of criticism that Obama or Paul(really anyone who dares to acknowledge the mistakes we have made as a country) don't think America is exceptional is cloaking a partisan disagreement in the flag. I'm not sure I have seen such a criticism. Certainly not, in any event, in the Rabinowitz article. She very briefly mentions Obama's apology tour, but I don't think criticizing the president for adopting national self-abasement as a foreign policy tactic is an example of cloaking a partisan disagreement in the flag. At least not necessarily so.
LikeLike
not, in any event, in the Rabinowitz article.It probably isn't fair to group Rabinowitz's criticisms in with say Palin or some of the other people who have basically (explicitly or implicitly) called any position they disagree with unamerican, but that line of cricism certainly is out there. I think those critcisms prevent having a conversation like the one we are having and hearing the explanations NoVa provided. I'm guessing Rabinowitz knows that what Paul is really driving at is trimming, or eliminating in their entirety, our foreign entanglements. But instead of addressing the valid points Paul makes, she focuses on the "glee" comment and throws out a little righteous indignation. I think Paul's claim that the Bush administration was happy to be given an excuse to invade Iraq is without merit (except maybe as applied to Cheney;). Since I think that aspect of the comment is meritless I would rather focus on the aspects of Paul's position that have some merit. It's easy to get all upset and criticize the "glee" comment, but it's a lot harder to address the points raised by NoVa which are the basis of Paul's comment. That's why I said her criticism is shallow because I think she chose the easier way to confront Paul's comment.
LikeLike
The meme of "national self abasement" is what Ashot is talking about, Scott, and I think you know it!Setting out a new direction in FP was not an apology tour. He never apologized. He never asked the world or anyone to "forgive" us.
LikeLike
Jnc4p: Agreed. I also like the removal of Sharky in the Shire, though I know many disagree.
LikeLike
kevin:I'm tempted to vote for Paul over any other Republicans in the primary…Interesting. Given that you have praised Obama as a moderate in large part because of his foreign policy (I think I am right in saying that), it seems odd to me that you would vote for a guy who's professed foreign policy would represent a huge and drastic departure from Obama's. Surely there are other R candidates (indeed, any of them) whose pursuit of FP will more likely be in alignment with that which you have praised – and seems important to you – than Paul's.
LikeLike
OT- Kevin, or anyone else I suppose, have you read The Magicians by Lev Grossman? I just finished that and am 75% done with the sequal The Magician King and have enjoyed both of them.
LikeLike
Scott: He's a mixed bag, to be sure. He's never going to be president, but I like the idea of a contrarian voice at the table.
LikeLike
Mark:The meme of "national self abasement" is what Ashot is talking about, Scott, and I think you know it!I think it was wrong for Obama to go to Europe and to proclaim that America does not appreaciate Europe's role in the world, to speak of our "arrogance" towards Europe, and to claim that America has been "derisive" of Europe. I think it was wrong on both political and substantive levels.Are you saying that such a criticism is necessarily in and of itself "cloaking partisan differences in the flag"? That if I try to advance this criticism that I am questioning Obama's patriotism? If so, I think that is bunk, and I think this tendency among D's, to attempt to portray any criticism of Obama as somehow out of bounds and as questioning his patriotism, that happens at least as much, and probably more, than any actual examples of R's truly questioning O's American bona fides.
LikeLike
I agree with the desire for a contrarian at the table but Paul is not a particularly good one to have. When the real examination of his newsletters get rolling along with his initial defense of them and then hislater disavowel of them he's going to be a real drag on the Presidential race. If your hoping for a national conversation about the scope and size of FP, Paul won't be able to carry it off due to his baggage. And he's a porker of the first order. And arguement can be made for it, but I don't think by him. Ultimately, Paul does not debate, he scolds.
LikeLike
Scott — Just saw the clip. I'm not sure how else he could answer. expect turn it into a win. "Those were ugly newsletters that I disavow. But if you haven't noticed, I'm the only one up here, including, Obama, that is opposed to the WOD, a policy that disproportionately hurts minorities. why don't you go ask if those guys if they get their rocks off watching COPS?" Regarding the 1.2 billion muslims — it sure seems like we're at war with them. particularly from their perspective. I've got family members that think we're at war with them — and are fine with that.
LikeLike
" and I think this tendency among D's, to attempt to portray any criticism of Obama as somehow out of bounds and as questioning his patriotism, that happens at least as much, and probably more, than any actual examples of R's truly questioning O's American bona fides."I think BHO deserves much criticism from all directions and I have joined in it. WMR couches his criticism of BHO in terms that I think attack BHO's patriotism. I have been specific here, because there is room to be critical of his speeches without calling them an "apology tour", which is not factual, and hyperbolic, at best.
LikeLike
NoVA: it sure seems like we're at war with them.Funny, I was thinking that if we are at war with them, we seem to be doing a pretty piss poor job of showing it. Nearly half of this 1.2 billion live in just 3 nations…Indonesia, India, and Bangladesh. What war actions have we taken to nuetralize them? Hell, we've got 2.5 million of the "enemy" right here in our own country. Seems like it would be basic strategy to nuetralize them first of all. What have we done/are we doing to wage war on these "enemies" in our midst?Again, if we are waging war on Muslims, we are doing a pretty poor job of showing it, I think.
LikeLike
"we are doing a pretty poor job of showing it, I think."jeez, don't give them any ideas.
LikeLike
more seriously, I appreciate what you're saying. and think this plays into the "baggage" that troll referenced.
LikeLike
Mark:I have been specific here, because there is room to be critical of his speeches without calling them an "apology tour", which is not factual, and hyperbolic, at best. ashot was quite specific in objecting to criticism that questions patriotism or, in his words, cloaks partisan differences in the flag. You asserted that my use of the term "national self-abasement" was precisely an example of what ashot was talking about. If you still think so, then explain to me how I have questioned his patriotism or cloaked anything in the flag, because I reject the accusation entirely. I think his doing what he did was unecessary, unworthy, and unpresidential, and I think the term "national self-abasement" is an accurate characterization of what he did. That, however, is a critique of his judgement, not of his patriotism, nor is it an example of claoking an argument in the flag. I have no doubt that Obama thought he was doing what was best for the nation. I just think he is wrong, and saying so ought not be dismissed as merely questioning his patriotism.You can object to the term "apology tour" or even "national self-abasement" as being inaccurate or hyperbolic, but that is a totally different objection to the one ashot has raised, and of which you claimed my words were an example.
LikeLike
Scott, I see your point. And, yes, I think "national self-abasement" is inaccurate.
LikeLike
" I think it was wrong for Obama to go to Europe and to proclaim that America does not appreaciate Europe's role in the world, to speak of our "arrogance" towards Europe, and to claim that America has been "derisive" of Europe. I think it was wrong on both political and substantive levels."When rumsfeld referred to 'old europe' he was being derisive in a substantive way. For the subsequent administration to distance themselves – and US – from that worldview is politically astute.Call it an apology tour if that makes you feel better. It was still the right thing to do.
LikeLike
Mark:And, yes, I think "national self-abasement" is inaccurate. Fair enough. I'm happy to discuss that if you want. I just wanted to be clear that it had nothing to do with the flag or patriotism.
LikeLike
bsimon:For the subsequent administration to distance themselves – and US – from that worldview is politically astute.The idea that, after being elected following a campaign of villifying Bush's FP, Obama in 2009 needed to demonstrate (to who, BTW?) his "distance" from the Bush admin's worldview, much less from a statement uttered by the SecDef over 6 years earlier, is a bit hard to believe. So I'm not sure how "astute" it could have been to do something so utterly unnecessary. Can you identify a single instance in which you think US FP was subsequently aided by this "distancing"?Besides which, even if such a distancing was necessary and/or desireable, it could easily have been done without the explicit self-critique, particularly in a part of the world that is itself so routinely arrogant and derisive towards America. (BTW, it is in some ways wrong to call what Obama did a self-critique, as it was in fact self-congratulation masquerading as self-critique…sort of like when people say things like "Why do we hate [insert victim]?", by which they mean "Why aren't others as enlightened as I am?")
LikeLike
In what tangible way has Obama's non-apology, apology tour improved the world's opinion of the U.S.?I tend to think it was done to appease his American political base rather than improve relations, but I voted for Palin (and will again) so there's that to consider.
LikeLike
For what it's worth, I think Mark is pointing out a different issue than I was pointing out. I can see how Scott came to a different conclusion given what Mark wrote, but I didn't mention the self-abasement in either of my posts and I also said it was probably unfair to put Rabinowitz in the same group as others who clearly have liberally used the anti-american line of argument. (That sentence got a bit long).Scott- Would your criticism still stand if Obama's "self-critique" had been implicit rather than explicit?
LikeLike
McWing:I tend to think it was done to appease his American political base…I think there is some truth to that, but I also think that Obama (justifiably – see the absurd Nobel committee) fancied himself as having an international political base as well, and was pandering to that base.
LikeLike
ashot:Would your criticism still stand if Obama's "self-critique" had been implicit rather than explicit? I suppose I'd have to actually see/hear it. I imagine I would find it irritating, although probably less objectionable than what he actually did say.Believe me, as someone who has directly experienced the political climate in Europe for many years, the idea of a US president standing in France talking about American arrogance and derision towards Europe is simply risible.
LikeLike
"I n what tangible way has Obama's non-apology, apology tour improved the world's opinion of the U.S.?"I think it enabled the creation of the coalition that supported the Libyan resistance, for example.What I really find comical us this new fonzarelli school of foreign policy where it is verboten to admit we were ever w-w-w-wrong.
LikeLike
Bsimon,Who most benifitted from our foray into Libya? The U.S.? Or France and the U.K.? If it's the Europeans, why would an improved opinion of the U.S. have increased their desire for our involvement considering they had NO ability militarily to pull it off. It seems to me that regardless of how they felt about us, we had to be included if they wanted it done. Do you think they could have done it without any U.S. assistance?
LikeLike
OT: i'm getting stuff on background, but Boehner and Reid have a deal.
LikeLike
McWing:Do you think they could have done it without any U.S. assistance? If they could have, why wouldn't we simply have let them?
LikeLike
F" Do you think they could have done it without any U.S. assistance?"I don't understand your point. Is there value in belittling other countries? Personally I loathe the egotistical assholes who think their shit don't stink. I prefer political leaders who share that view.
LikeLike
The Europeeans acted (along with us) in their self interest (stable, cheap oil supply) and would have happily partnered with that Cowboy, Bush, to accomplish the goal if he'd have been in office. France got butthurt over Iraq because it was a client state and toppling Saddam was not in their self interest. Their resulting "feelings" was merely political preening.
LikeLike
bsimon:Is there value in belittling other countries?I don't know but there is certainly value in determining whether a particular nation needs US assistance in order to achieve a goal. Which, if I am not mistaken, was the subject of McWing's question.Personally I loathe the egotistical assholes who think their shit don't stink.I thought you liked Obama. 😉
LikeLike
TMW, we were needed by Europe to provide the support we did for the Libyan engagement.France did not support the Iraq invasion.Canada also did not support the invasion after setting aside $2B for war efforts in Iraq, b/c Canada wanted us to wait one more week for the inspectors to finish their work and made that proposal to the UN, as I recall, and we scuttled their plan. We did not belittle Canada but we did belittle "old Europe". That was gratuitous and pointless, as if we never would use their help again, as if they were not already involved to varying degrees in AFG, as if we were not their trading partners, as if NATO did not exist. The damage was not so much that a loose lipped SecDef said it, but that no one made him retract it, so it sounded like an Admin position.**********************************Thought experiment: if Joe Biden were SecState, and then we did not make him retract his gaffes. I suppose that is why HRC has pleasantly surprised me: she has stayed on message.That is how I looked at Rummy's many offhand, sometimes refreshing, but often undiplomatic remarks, but they were allowed to go "uncorrected", and they won us no points with folks who were our long term allies.
LikeLike