As a mental break from househunting in Tulsa, I think I’ll blog about a recent TV trend. It involves action/detective-type shows, including the family of CSI shows and the Law and Order spinoffs. One of the staple features of these shows nowadays is the rapid-fire dialogue where various detectives or coworkers are reeling off plot details to each other as if they were engaged in “normal” conversation. Often the premise is that the various team members have been sent to do specific research into what happened at the crime scene or by the perpetrator. They get back together to brief the entire group and fire off detail after detail so that everyone is up to speed. The result (in the mind of the writers)is that the audience also has sufficient information to follow the progress of who gets chased or arrested, etc. In my recollection, this feature of these series may have begun with The West Wing, when the president’s staff members spent much of the time walking the halls of the White House bringing each other up to date on plot details. My reason for mentioning all this is that I believe most of the shows and most writers do a poor job at making their dialogue sound real, normal, natural. It sounds like what it is, that they are simply using this method of conveying information to the consuming audience. For example, in NCIS they use Abby to lay out forensic details, McGee to explain the role of computer research, and the agency director to lay out the political intrigue involved. It’s probably one reason why I like the current TV series, Burn Notice. Here the hero does a narrative as the hero/announcer. No pretense about working the transfer of info. Into the dialogue.

Political challenges to the status quo

Two issues I have in previous semesters used as examples of policies that deserved scrutiny are now being scrutinized. One apparently won't be changed, the other may be with a peculiar twist. First, I have long advocated for my classes' consideration that the Senate's 60 vote threshhold on stifling debate should be reviewed. It has resulted for a couple of generations in a requirement that the party controlling the Senate had to have a supermajority of 60+% in order to pass legislation. This has inappropriately empowered minority parties to oppose legislation much more easily than their minority numbers warranted. I have advocated reducing the 60 vote mark down to 55. In recent discussions some have even suggested taking it down to a mere majority 51. Such a change is NOT going to occur, apparently. The Senate's opportunity to change their rules (not a constitutionally protected procedure, but simply a Senate operating rule) is at the beginning of a new session of Congress following an election. The Senate, under the control of Democrats and Harry Reid, has opted not to change the 60 vote level. They apparently are making some minor changes to Senate procedures relative to filibusters, but not the vote level for halting one. Until he explains otherwise, one has to assume Reid was thinking ahead to the possibility of the shoe being on the other foot and the Dems preferring to have access to blocking bills with 40+ of their own votes. Whatever the rationalization, it merely continues Congressional gridlock for at least two more years. The second change involves states decisions to use or not use the "Unit Rule" on presidential elections. States are not required to give all their Electoral College votes to the plurality winner of the presidential elections. But 48 of them do so. There are other ways to more fairly make a state's Electoral vote reflect the balance of the political will of all competitors. That is, instead of receiving all the Electoral votes for a 51% to 49% vote result, the state could apportion its Electoral votes to more closely reflect the close election vote. Two states (Nebraska and Maine) assign their Electoral votes by Congressional district rather than statewide. They give the two Senate votes to the overall statewide winner, but allow a Congressional district to cast a vote for the winner of that district regardless of the statewide result. Such an approach, if all states adopted it, would make the Electoral College vote mirror the popular vote more closely. It well might have produced a different result in the 2000 election when Gore polled more votes than Bush. However, large states don't seem interested in giving up their "power" that flows from the current method of giving all their votes to the winner. Nevertheless, in recent days some of the historic "blue" states that have narrowed in recent elections are now contemplating such a change. They do so because the Republicans currently control those state legislaures while the Democrats have managed narrow victories in the presidential popular vote. So, Wisconsin and Michigan and perhaps some other "rust belt" states are talking about switching to proportional voting. But as long as Texas, California and New York stay with "winner take all" there likely will not be a groundswell of support for a change. It'll be fun to watch, though.

Les Miserables - Part Deux

I drafted this earlier but it apparently disappeared before I actually posted it. So, here goes again: I really enjoyed the movie! It surpassed even my expectations from the preview trailers I'd seen in the movie house and far surpassed the brief clips on TV. I had been anxious due to a couple of lukewarm reviews I'd read. My conclusion is that the reviewers were all wet. They must be "purists" as to how musicals are to be done for the "big screen". Their faults with the movie lay in the way the director had done the singing. Instead of laying down a soundtrack in the studio and having the actors lip sync for the movie, the singing was done live on screen. It was more like a video recording of a live stage play. But that which the critics panned, I preferred. I thought the singing was most appropriate. I never expected Russell Crowe to produce operatic quality singing. He was believable, however, and appropriate. The "big chorus" numbers were not overdone. Some critics also objected to the "nosehair" closeups of some of the singers. But they were not belabored or overdone, either. I would suggest to those unfamiliar with the story line that it would be beneficial either to read the book (or "Cliff's Notes") or see a stage production in order to follow what happens better. All in all, though, I'm very glad I got to see this with my two daughters, who cried some, as they always do @ Les Miz.

Gun Violence - ongoing debate

Have we really decided that we can NEVER solve this problem?  Do we not wonder why it continues to occur here but not in countless other countries?
As I have previously said too many times, the incidents like the latest Fort Hood shooting (following the previous Ft Hood incident by a mere 5 years) finds no political will for doing anything important or substantive to address causes and prevention.  The Republican candidate for governor of TX today was interviewed on the topic and, of course, saw absolutely no need for "mental background checks" for those seeking to purchase semi-automatic handguns at TX gun dealer stores.  He would apparently rather accept the inevitability of a continuation of these incidents than dare to place any impediment in the way of any Texan no matter how impaired from exercising his 2nd amendment rights.  Sad, sad. (April 2014)

(December 2012)  I find oddly amusing the declarations by the spokespersons for the NRA as to what lessons have been learned and what ought to be done next to reduce incidence of gun deaths and shootings. My interpretation and recollection of what they have said is that none of the "blame" for the bad things that happen can be laid at their feet. None are the result of policies and actions taken at the insistence of the NRA. None are due to the requirements they have placed on elected politicians to make the 2nd amendment protections the most important protections, trumping other "rights" such as life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness for those whose rights are cut short by gun violence. They don't want to allow consideration of renewing the ban on semi-automatic assault weapons. They don't want to consider the need for reducing the capacity of magazines. They don't want to allow discussion of "cop killing" bullets vs. shells appropriate for hunting most game. But these three possibilities are vitally needed and necessary now. No, I don't believe they necessarily would have totally eliminated the possibility of all bad school and public shootings. But they would reduce the annual death toll from such future events. Instead, the NRA says we should arm Barney Fife and place him in every school. Who would pay for this? Local school taxpayers, of course, who likely would not pony up the funds to accomplish this. And the NRA talks about doing something about those who are mentally incapable of handling firearms. This part of their solution, however, is only vaguely addressed. Not much of a helpful approach there, NRA.

Les Miserables

I admit, this screed is born of a desire to focus momentarily on something other than the 20 precious children and 6 adults murdered at Sandy Hook last week. But I’m sure my mind will return to it in due course. Today I question the editing/selection skills of the advertising people who are promoting “Les Miserables”. The full trailer as seen in the movie house as a preview is quite powerful and makes one eager to see the film. The TV commercials, on the other hand, are insipid and fail to command attention or elicit interest. Yet the TV commercials use the same cuts as was used in the full preview. They simply move way too quickly from one snippet to the next scene. And the voice over does nothing to encourage the public to want to watch this movie. Don’t be mistaken, I will be seeing this film probably the first week it is out. (Noon-time “senior” matinees are usually not too crowded.) But were I financially invested in the success of “Les Miz” I would be thinking about changing publicists/editors.

School Shootings -- Gun Violence

Multiple deaths similar to the Aurora movie house massacre are the price we pay as a society to underwrite the Second Amendment “rights” for “lawful gun owners.” I normally abhor redundancy. But this is posted immediately following news reports of the multiple killings in Wisconsin in the Sikh house of worship. I intend to repeat this declaration following every senseless criminal action that is exacerbated by our toothless laws addressing automatic weapons and ease of obtaining ammunition. I last posted this in August, 2012. It obviously bears more attention today as the news reports on the horrific shooting at an elementary school in Connecticut are filling every second of cable news channels today. It is time, it is passed time for those who can no longer stomach this repetitive trend to tell the NRA, our elected politicians and the US Supreme Court that the time has come. THE TIME IS NOW! Without infringing on any law abiding hunter or home protector's "right to bear arms" the time has come to restrict the sale of assault weapons, semi-automatic and automatic handguns & rifles and the ammunition that makes them so terrible. There are many actions that can be taken and should be taken. But first the NRA needs to be rendered less powerful. Congress needs to know that strategic votes won't end their careers. Americans who believe their innocent children do, in fact have an incontrovertible RIGHT to safety in the schoolhouse must communicate this right as surpassing the 2nd amendment "rights". The NRA and gun supporters must admit that the they don't really need current lawlessness to ensure that the federal government won't invade their homes & force unpalatable political decisions on them.

It can’t be just me. I doubt that I’m the only consumer/TV watcher who hates their commercial. They must figure that that which makes their commercial stand out, by grating on my nerves, affects others differently so that it becomes memorable. And all the creator wants is for the sponsoring company to be remembered. I’m talking about the Discover Card commercial where the narrator does a sing-song rhyme for seven or fifteen lines and then on the last line goes off-meter by adding at least one extra syllable. The last line always states, “Five percent cash back”. To me it’s like a fingernail scratching down the old blackboard in school. It’s almost enough to make me cancel my credit card with them.