It's That Time of Year Again...

"...so turn off your damn cell phones."

-I think that was the last time Billy Crystal hosted the Academy Awards (for some strange reason, him singing that line as part of his entrance has managed to embed itself in my memory for the better part of more than a decade). Of course, the man who does it best is back to host the 84th. The nominees were announced yesterday, and I just wanted to add my own impertinent thoughts on them...

-Best Picture:

--Once again, the Academy succumbs to it's bad habit of nominating films nobody has seen. My own refining and maturing taste in film does not permit me to write this off easily, as all nine nominees were critically acclaimed. Attempting to find the middle ground between critics and audiences, I come to the following conclusions...

-The Descendants to another George Clooney vehicle released this year, The Ides of March. Competently written, good cast, but it doesn't seem like it would really be worth watching a second time (I'll grant you I could be way off here, I've only seen one of the nine nominees). It kind of has that feeling that the studios wanted an award winner and told Alex Payne not to sweat trying to sell the movie to the public. Plus, I cannot bring myself to like George Clooney. He's too....how can I put this eloquently? Douchey for me.

-I didn't see The Help. Not my cup of tea, not my kind of movie. Seems like a compelling story, though. But I doubt it will be enough to stand out in this year's field.

-Both Midnight in Paris and The Tree of Life were critics' darlings this year-in fact, Paris has been called Woody Allen's best film since Bullets over Broadway. But both films suffer from the same problem-"What?" I'd never heard of either of these films until they were announced as nominees-and I consider myself a film buff. Once again, audience exposure was extremely neglected for the sake of appealing to the art types-a shame, too, given thatThe Tree of Life (again, what?) is the defending Palme d'Or winner.

-Hugo suffers from the same underexposure problem for me. Which I can't really comprehend, given that it's a Martin Scorsese film and they're saying it's the best he's ever made (last time I heard that was 2006, and that was certainly true then).

-Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close features a good story revolving around 9/11 and featured some A-list casting. But here, whoever was in charge released the film at the end of the year and didn't do enough to get the audiences into the theaters. Too little, too late, I fear.

-I don't care if it was based on a book (a true story, from what I understand). I don't care if it was a Spielberg project. I do't care if it was a big-budget Christmas release. War Horse reeks of "awards bait." Enough said.

-Moneyball was the one film out of the nine that I actually did see. I thought it was brilliant-probably the best sports film I've seen-alongside the documentary Senna, which didn't make the Academy shortlist-in my twenty-one years on this planet. That said, I doubt it will be the winner against the more artistically-inclined competition.

-My "expert" called it last night that the winner of the big one this year will be The Artist. Once again, I've never heard of it. But from what little I do know, I agree with her. Let me sum it up for you: This move, set in Hollywood between 1927 and 1931, was shot in black and white and, like the films of the era it represents, is silent. As in no dialogue. For a filmmaker to do that in today's movie world is quite radical and daring. I'm impressed. What's more, the acclaim has been almost universal for this film, which won this category at the Golden Globes and was also nominated for 12 BAFTAs.

-Best Director

--Based on my understanding, I think it will be between Martin Scorsese (for Hugo) and Woody Allen (for Midnight in Paris) over Terrence Malick (The Tree of Life) and Alexander Payne (The Descendants). The critics have said both directors are being nominated for the best movies they've ever made. Michel Hazanavicius is the dark horse in the race for The Artist. If anyone can upset this battle, it will be him.

-Best Actor

--Demian Bichir was nominated for playing a Mexican laborer trying to build a better life for himself and his son in Los Angeles in A Better Life. Heartfelt, but he has some stiff competition: George Clooney for The Descendants, Brad Pitt for Moneyball, Jean Dujardin for The Artist, and the wonderful Gary Oldman for Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy. If I had to say what my heart wants, it'd be between Pitt (damn good as Billy Beane) and Oldman (who else could play the lead in a movie based on the greatest spy novel of the last fifty years?). Dujardin will be a likely spoiler, though.

-Best Actress

--Glenn Close was an unexpected surprise (Albert Nobbs-channelling Julie Andrews, perhaps? She won her Oscar playing a similar role). Rooney Mara's nod suggests to me just how good David Fincher's adaptation of The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo is. But it'll be a three-way race between Academy legend Meryl Streep (as Margaret Thatcher in The Iron Lady), Streep's likely successor Viola Davis (for The Help-interesting to note, Streep and Davis were both nominated a couple of years ago for their performances in Doubt) and Michelle Williams for what I hear was a very strong turn as Marilyn Monroe (My Week with Marilyn-a performance good enough to nab Miss Williams a Golden Globe).

-Best Supporting Actor

--I know all the names but only one of the performances. Jonah Hill in Moneyball was nice to see; it was also the only nomination I have actually seen. Kenneth Branagh (My Week with Marilyn as Laurence Olivier), Nick Nolte (rules-yeah!(forgive my little joke)) (Warrior), Christopher Plummer (Beginners), and Max von Sydow (Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close). Since I literally do not know any better here, I'd say this race is wide open.

-Best Supporting Actress

--Again, same problem. Berenice Bejo (The Artist), Jessica Chastain and Octavia Spencer (both for The Help), and Janet McTeer (Albert Nobbs)...I think Bejo will most likely win, though I'm thoroughly amused to see Melissa McCarthy nominated for Bridesmaids. It must be something to be nominated for a role whose seminal moment in the film involves angrily defecating into a sink (I literally stopped and laughed out loud after I typed that).

-Best Screenplay, Original

--A tough one, but my guess is a battle between The Artist and Midnight in Paris. A Separation, an Iranian film, is the likely dark horse, though I'd like to see the Academy humor comedy (ha ha) once in a while and give Bridesmaids a go. Margin Call will probably have to be content to have gotten a nomination.

-Best Screenplay, Adapted

--Another tough one, and here it could be anyone's race: The Descendants getting a nod here along with three other major nods suggests the critical strength of the film. The Ides of March failed to really impress me, but I'll concede it was competently written and deserved a nomination. I've made my love of Moneyball quite clear, and I think it just might stack up against Hugo. I think I might want to see Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy  win, though.

-Best Animated Feature

--I haven't seen any film nominated here. I don't however, like the fact that the Academy got hung up on technicalities regarding motion capture to snub The Adventures of Tintin, which won the Golden Globe for this category. I haven't seen Rango, Puss in Boots or Kung Fu Panda 2. I've never heard of A Cat in Paris. If I had to pick, I'll say Chico and Rita for using more traditional-style animation and integrating an excellent sound track into the film's central love story.

-Best Foreign Language Film

--Again, I'm oblivious to the competition here. For the record: Bullhead from Belgium,Footnote from Israel (the Israelis continue to demonstrate the strength of their own filmmaking industry in recent years), In Darkness from Poland, Monsieur Lazhar from Canada (it's in French), and my pick for most likely to win, A Separation from Iran, which also received a screenplay nomination.

-As for the remaining categories: I've already taken up too much space to go into detail here. I'm not helped by the fact that I haven't seen most of the nominees, either. I do, however, encourage you to check them out on your own. The show begins February 26th.

"So sit back, relax, forget about Mars Attacks!"

Notes From The Field

-It turns out that my assessment that the race woud be between Mitt Romney and Ron Paul proved to be inaccurate.

-Just a couple of days before Saturday's South Carolina Primary, the Iowa Republican Party announced that former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum, who had pulled a very strong second to Mitt Romney, losing by eight votes, had in fact won the Iowa Caucuses by thirty-four votes. The net effect of this was that Santorum saw another swing upward in the polls and the vindication of his intense campaign strategy of focusing heavily on the Hawkeye State.

-Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, who served Congress from next-door neighbor Georgia, banked on familiarity and an unmistakably strong performance at the debates held in South Carolina over the past week to make his gambit against New Hampshire Primary winner and presumed frontrunner Mitt Romney. Well, on Saturday, the people of the Palmetto State spoke, and spoke resoundingly in Gingrich's favor.

-A twelve-point victory overall in South Carolina is Newt's big payoff. Romney was the only man who could win elsewhere Saturday night, and he took only three of South Carolina's counties, and never by more than eight percent. More surprising (to me, at least) was the fact that in several counties, Rick Santorum beat Romney for second place. Ron Paul managed to finish second in one county and third in two others, but finished fourth overall with thirteen percent of the votes. In many counties, however, the margin between Dr. Paul and the third-place candidate, whether it was Santorum or Romney, was razor-thin, which suggests that Dr. Paul still has plenty of fight left in his campaign.

-I was right about another thing, though. I stated last week that Rick Perry would be finished if he didn't get a strong showing in South Carolina. It turns out the Governor of Texas determined that the cards were on the table and that it was best to avoid another humiliation after Iowa and New Hampshire. Governor Perry suspended his campaign and endorsed Newt Gingrich, which narrows down the Republican race to four (there are a few other minor candidates who are running for the GOP nomination, but it goes without saying that they do not have any chance).

-If three is a crowd, as they say, then four is most definitely a race. For all the talk of how uninspiring and tepid the Republican field is (and, in honesty, a Marco Rubio, a Mitch Daniels, or a Chris Christie would have wrapped this up running away before the dust had even settled in New Hampshire), all of the sudden I see great potential for dynamic. Romney and Paul are being touted as being able to beat the President on Election Day. Gingrich can certainly add his name to that list-if the former House Speaker can safe his campaign from what seemed like certain doom-twice-he can pull off an electoral win over Barack Obama (in the words of one Republican strategist, talking to CNN about the Gingrich campaign, "Gingrich has been harder to kill than Rasputin."). And while I don't have that same level of confidence regarding Election Day with Rick Santorum, I'd definitely say he has a solid chance at the nomination. Three different contests, three different winners. Personally speaking, I find the competition (we haven't seen results like this since 1980) healthy. It will make the candidates earn their votes.

-I started my morning off in an unusual fashion by looking into Randall Terry's campaign. Terry, if you don't know, is running against Barack Obama for the Democratic nomination. Terry is also an outspoken anti-abortion activist. And the centerpiece of his campaign is a graphic advertisement that will run in select markets on during the Super Bowl. I'll say this much about the ad: it is not for the weak of stomach, and it reminds me why I am pro-life.

-The reason I saw the ad at all was because of a story on CNN.com about a blogger out in Portland who received death threats. Why? she-perhaps half in-jest, I couldn't quite tell-suggested that people donate ten dollars to pro-abortion causes for every Tim Tebow touchdown.

-Now Tim, as we all know, is a devout Christian who has maintained his virginity, done missionary work in the summers during his years at the University of Florida, and is a self-described pro-life individual. Now, while I will give the Portland blogger the benefit of the doubt that receiving death threats and extremely hateful mail is hot-headed on the part of the sender to say the very least, her comment was still insulting and in poor taste. And another thing comes to mind-the way politicians and politically active individuals associate their causes with public figures. When some washed-up, pain-in-the-ass rock musician complains to a Republican presidential candidate about his using their music (Bruce Springsteen in 1984 and, to a lesser extent, John Mellencamp in 2008), the press jumps all over the offending politico and mocks them for using the works of a public figure in a way said public figure does not approve of. But when people suggest that an evangelical quarterback's on-field success should be used to generate money for what is essentially a lethal form of surgical contraception (or, for that matter, that said quarterback should be targeted by a campaign to strip him of his virginity before he's ready to rid himself of it) and the press (and a good portion of the public) stays silent about it, it suggests that something in this country is seriously jacked up.

-One last observation: should, someday, I ever decide to submit my writing to National Review to see if they would grace me with employment as a columnist, I cannot help but wonder if Jay Nordlinger, Jonah Goldberg, and Mark Steyn will raise their voices in protest over the fact that my writing seems to emulate their styles so heavily. Well, they say that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, after all...

The Rise of Ron Paul and Other Notes from the Field

-For all intents and purposes, it's a two-man race at this point.

-Mitt Romney has been at or near the front for the entire race since he declared candidacy. He has won the two important early contests in Iowa and New Hampshire. He sits with a fairly comfortable lead. The conservative voting bloc, which reportedly has been shying away from the former Massachusetts governor because he is too "moderate", are now starting to provide support. The White House is already trying their hand at smear tactics, painting Romney to look like the "evil rich guy." It's his race to lose.

-But by no means does he have this thing locked up.

-The steady rise of Dr. Ron Paul is actually kind of enjoyable to watch. The Austrian from Galveston, "Dr. No", as he's been called, is really the one in the catbird seat. His third-place finish in Iowa was considered strong, and his second in New Hampshire was definitely strong. With the seemingly-ever-growing support of Americans who are weary of government regulation, weary of foreign war, and weary of heart-stopping debts and deficits, if Dr. Paul does not take enough delegates to take the lead in the quest for the nomination, at the very minimum, he will have enough to put Romney on the spot and to take precedence during the opening days of the convention in Tampa. With that open forum, Dr. Paul will be in a position to add legitimacy to his platform-and perhaps have Romney make some compromises with him and his campaign in order to secure the nomination. Which, as Dr. Paul has said before, is his real intention.

-With Herman Cain no longer running, having been hounded out by allegations of sexual misconduct-which, quite frankly I do not believe are true and are indicative of an attempt by the mainstream media at character assassination-I increasingly find myself liking Ron Paul. My only sticking point is that he still does not have the statistical edge over the President in hypothetical match-ups. But that margin has been shrinking steadily for weeks. And something tells me that if more than half of all campaign contributions from active duty military personnel are going to Dr. Paul, my battle buddies may be on to something.

-Could there still be room for a dark horse in the GOP race? Yes, and I give that space to Newt Gingrich. Why? Newt knows how to organize, for one. But above all, no other candidate besides our two front-runners seems to be able to say something that makes sense so well. The highlight of the debate for me was what Speaker Gingrich had to say about unemployment benefits and "child labor." Say what you will-deep down, we all know what he said about it was true. And he was completely straightforward about it. Once you acknowledge that, the massive amounts of applause he received make sense. So, why would I put him as a dark-horse rather than say it's a three-man race? Because it's been well-documented that Newt has a tendency to put his foot in his mouth at bad times-one such instance set him up for one of his brilliant statements at the debate, in fact.

-What about Rick Santorum? I like him-he's quite right when he says the core of most, if not all of America's ills are the weakening of the family. And remember that when Romney beat him in Iowa, it was by the skin of his teeth-eight votes. Santorum's a legitimate candidate, there's no doubt about that. But I think that his candidacy will last until late in the primary stage and that, ultimately, he will not be a factor in the nomination decision. And why? Too many voters will be turned off by his strong social conservatism and will back Romney, Paul, or Gingrich instead (Which I find odd-The other four Republican candidates are all pro-life, like Mr. Santorum. Romney, Perry, and Gingrich, to my knowledge, also support defending traditional marriage as well. So why will Mr. Santorum get singled out for it? Because that's what he's built his campaign on.).

-Rick Perry? I'll be blunt-I think he's screwed. Much as I admire his federalism, his economics, and his defense plan, Governor Perry has not been able to translate the hype into tangible results. There's another problem-the mainstream media have fished out their "All Republicans from Texas are Dumb" pickle from the jar and have pretty much beaten him to death with it. Unless Perry can pull a strong showing in South Carolina-which he has essentially bet the farm on-I do not think his campaign will survive through February.

-Jon Huntsman had an interesting idea: he would campaign heavily in one state to try and get a strong showing to inject himself into the heart of the campaign. He borrowed it from Rick Santorum. He made just one error: he picked the wrong state.

-No offense to the good people of the Granite State-the most free state in the Union, according to a recent report-but Huntsman should have taken Santorum's lead and focused on Iowa, which came first. Santorum's strategy worked because he put his focus on the first contest and used it to successively build. Huntsman chose New Hampshire thinking the same tactic would work there. Two problems with that: One, it's in the backyard of the front-runner, who was widely expected to (and did) win easily. Two, he didn't anticipate that voter and media attention might be focused on another candidate going into the primary-which was Santorum. Huntsman condemned himself to backmarker status the moment he decided to ignore Iowa. His exit from the race-and endorsement of Romney-was predictable and probably expected.

-Now, to focus on the other side for a little bit...

-If you ever wonder why so many of us on the Right cling to Fox News-even though, in my own opinion, it's rather too tabloidesqe and sensationalistic-cable TV's equivalent of theNew York Post (which happens to be a News Corp subsidiary, just like Fox)-just take a look at the recent issue of Newsweek that has been so successful in stirring up a mess. Right there on the cover:

"Why are Obama's Critics So Dumb?"

Maybe Andrew Sullivan (one of the writers of the article responsible for the offending headline) had a point. But the fact is almost all of us saw that as Newsweek saying: "You cannot criticize President Obama from the Right without being an idiot." Why? Is it because the mental picture we get of these critics is of a white, middle-aged, middle-class male from the Midwest? What else would you expect for such a condescending statement? The mainstream media is hopelessly in the tank with the American Left. They have the audacity to criticize News Corp for giving money to the Republicans and then whine when their ratings and subscription numbers drop while News Corp successfully weathers the storm. Now, I'll throw Newsweek a bone and acknowledge that the anti-Obama movement has attracted some of the wrong people for the wrong reasons. The Left has had instances of this, too. But you cannot expect people to stay with you or to trust you when you declare that you think you're better than your audience. That has a way of driving people off to find someone or something more relatable. Just a thought.

-I groaned a little at the Democrats' decision to hold the final night of their convention at Bank of America Stadium. I'll grant them they made a bold move deciding to piss off the unions and host the convention in Charlotte, a city in a right-leaning state-something akin to the Republicans convening in San Francisco (which they did, back in the Goldwater year of 1964). But this whole idea that they need to pack their mob into a football stadium as though Time Warner Center-which they will have free reign over for that week-wasn't good enough reminds me of President Obama's decision to hold his nomination acceptance speech at Invesco Field in Denver-it seemed bombastic and dopey and gave me the impression that Candidate and Committee were full of themselves. And it seems to me that they're just setting themselves up for that again.

-Perhaps they feel the need to, though-a report came out earlier this week that said that President Obama's poll numbers closely matched a pattern-those of presidential incumbents who went on to lose re-election.

-Lastly, I love a debate, but I don't like the debates being held for the Republican candidates. We've held entirely too many of them over the past year, and I don't like the fact that members of the mainstream media-rather than an independent party-are moderating them. The way I see it, no matter which candidate answers the question, the press will make him out to be a fool.

(Oh, one more thing-a plea to Mr. Rupert Murdoch and News Corp-I appreciate your efforts to make a cable news network that is friendly to the Right. But if you are looking for a newspaper to model your channel on, might I suggest switching from a New York Post-style of broadcasting to a Wall Street Journal style? I'll read the Post if I want a scandal or a smartass headline. I read the Journal when I want serious news-that's the style you should go for with television. You wouldn't lose your core audience at it would be a hell of a lot harder for the folks at MSNBC and CNN to paint your channel as "stupid." Just a thought.)

Go For It.

(With the New Hampshire Primary looming large on this week's horizon, I figured it might be good to write on a different subject or two to cleanse the palate and provide some mental refreshment-for you and me-before going headlong into following the start of what will no doubt be a hectic political year.)

Earlier this afternoon, I read something. Simple phrase; very straightforward, yet quite poignant. Which made the fact I found it on a humor website seem a tad ironic. But all the same-here's the statement in question (I've modified it slightly to correct the grammar and punctuation):

-"Don't ever let someone tell you that you can't do something. Not even me. You've got a dream, you've got to protect it. If people can't do something themselves, they want to tell you that you can't do it. If you want something, go get it. Period."

That last sentence got to me-If you want something, go get it. It made me stop and think-"What do I want from myself? What do I want for myself?"

Never mind material possessions for this discussion-because I don't fling money on alcohol, tobacco, or any of the myriad petty pleasures of most men my age, I actually have the money to spend on the things I actually want-say, an Apple MacBook, or a Volkswagen. I'm not too concerned with those-I love that I have them, don't get me wrong, but in the end, these are just things. They perform a function. That's all. What concerns me here are deeper wants, more profound desires. So bear with me here.

I could say what I want from myself is to be successful. But that's common; quite frankly, everybody ought to strive for success. What I really want for myself is to make a difference in my world. A positive difference. The avenue that I see for that lies in politics, so I've set my career goal for the Senate. I don't know of any Senator, President, or Supreme Court Justice in the last fifty years or so besides Harry S Truman who has not reached one of those positions without a college degree. A degree of some kind is essentially a prerequisite these days to get any kind of job beyond those most base and banal of employment offerings, and my parents and teachers did not groom me to be content with being an assistant manager at a fast food franchise.

But a college education carries a heavy cost. And I'm not amenable to the idea of spending the first decade of my professional life paying off a college loan. So I made a surprising decision and joined the military a little over two years ago.

My decision is a logical and foresighted one in terms of how it will ultimately play out. But right now, it has been two years of a great degree of self-denial. I was among the top students when I graduated high school. Now I've consigned myself to falling four years behind the power curve. Living a fairly regimented and tiring life. Being away from family. Social life thrown into discombobulation. Relationships interrupted. It's difficult at times not to feel resentful about a lot of it.

Most times, I do what everybody ought to do, and I soldier on. Remembering just how much I've learned about life in these past two years usually helps me keep my focus. But, just like everyone else, I have my moments where I stop and I ask, "Is it worth all this?"

That's actually a question to keep in the back of your mind. All these ambitions and aspirations-things that will acquire the prestige that I seem to adore-my name on books, on street signs, and on the hearts and minds of people everywhere-yeah, it's nice. It's something to shoot for. But I do believe it means nothing if you neglect your personal relationships. Much as I want to make my family name known in this world and leave behind fame, fortune, and countless other gifts to a family of my own someday, I, ultimately, would take a happy family over that if I really had to choose it.

I've made no secret-perhaps to my own detriment-that I do not wish to be lonely all my life. My sole "new year's resolution" was that I would not be single by the time January 1st, 2013 came around. A confession: the want hurts. I have those most basic desires of any human being-to want, to be wanted, to hold and be held, and so on-and I have been forced to acknowledge that they take a greater grip on me as time goes on. It drives me mad that I don't do anything about them. What kills me is my belief that, if I asked, a "no", however gentle it tries to be, might be more than I'm willing to emotionally bear right now. And this dilemma, this internal conflict, can and has reached the point of physical anguish. (Think back to the time in your life when you had this feeling, and then think of someone else you know like me, and it's easy to see how verklempt that might make you).

In the end, though, I am cognizant that I am my own worst enemy. I am literally my only obstacle in my endeavor to find happiness by making someone else happy. Depressing, isn't it?

And then I read things like that little phrase I shared with you. And it puts a spark back in the heart. For all the annoyances and pains I've had to put up with, it would probably be wise for me to remember that my psychological endurance is greater than I give it credit for. And that a strong will is probably your most potent weapon in your fight to achieve your goals. Damn it, I have a right to get what I want every once in awhile. And if I have to use every asset God has given me, I will have it. I'm not going to ask, "would you be willing to start a relationship with me" out of the blue, right now. I know I'm not ready for it. But, one day this year, I will finally have the courage my conviction has long needed.

I suppose the goal of me going and pouring my heart out here is to inspire you to follow the advice of that silly little phrase. There's a saying, quite similar to it, that I first started hearing in junior high and, over the years, have come to appreciate: "You can do anything you set your mind to." Quite a few people-my father in particular-have tried to impart the wisdom in that phrase to show me that I could call on my own perseverance to overcome what I thought were insurmountable obstacles. The meaningful things in life are out there. You have a right to want them. You have the tools within yourself to get them. A rationalist I may consider myself-follow your head, because you can't argue with the facts-but I can't help but see the truth in the late Steve Jobs's piece of advice to Stanford graduates: "(H)ave the courage to follow your heart and intuition. They somehow already know what you truly want to become. Everything else is secondary."

So, if you want something (or someone, if that's the case), go for it. And be damned if anyone should try to stop you.

A Quick Gripe on Taxes

-Last night, while watching a local news broadcast for the first time in what must have been five months, a brief survey conducted by the channel was brought up regarding why people don't like taxes. The majority of those in the survey body said their main reason for hating taxes was because they thought the rich don't pay enough.

-I simply wanted to provide a friendly reminder that this is a mistaken (not to mention hypocritical) belief.

-Half the people in this nation, in effect, do not pay income taxes. But they are not from the rich. Quite the opposite. The top fifty percent of taxpayers in the United States provide 96% of the Federal Government's tax revenues. The remainder typically tend to use the programs we've been funding with those tax dollars.

-People who live on the public dole and ultimately do not contribute to to the source funding do not have a right to complain about those who actually pay taxes. Government-subsidized welfare was never a really good idea, and income taxation is theft. Stealing from someone simply because their salary has six figures and because they can afford to buy an Audi and send their kid to a good school and you're not having one does not justify your taking from him. His gains did not come at your expense. This last point being the thing far too many Americans are either willfully ignoring due to their subscription to the politics of envy or simply just fail to understand.

Giving Up on Justice

-On the morning of 9 December 1981, Philadelphia police officer and Army veteran Daniel Faulkner was murdered by a man known as Mumia Abu-Jamal, who shot him five times, once in the back and four times in his front at close range. Abu-Jamal was arrested and convicted five months later, sentenced to death. After lengthy attempts to appeal, first to the commonwealth's Supreme Court and then to the Supreme Court of the United States, then-Governor Tom Ridge signed the death warrant ordering the execution be carried out in 1995.

-It never was.

-Yesterday, almost thirty years to the day after Officer Faulkner was gunned down in the line of duty, the District Attorney in Philadelphia announced that he was formally dropping the pursuit of the death penalty against Abu-Jamal, which means he will now spend the rest of his life in prison without the possibility of parole.

-In other words, the DA in the City of Brotherly Love gave up.

-Much has been made of Mumia Abu-Jamal; the man most definitely can be described as a cause celebre. To this day, countless movements and celebrities have stepped forward as part of a "Free Mumia" movement. A suburb of Paris named a street after him. But why?

-While one can discuss the details of the case, including allegations of perjured testimony, the fact of the matter is that Mumia Abu-Jamal was also something a favorite child to the prominent Left. He was a militant black radical and was also a radio journalist. He was accused of killing a white police officer. It isn't very difficult to put two and two together.

-I'm in an odd position when it comes to the death penalty. Officially, I support it, but I don't imagine I'd make a big fuss if it went away. However, I also have no sympathy whatsoever for cop killers. None at all. And that's exactly what Mumia is. He is not a noble political prisoner who was being oppressed by a rigged system controlled by the "pigs". He murdered a defender of the peace. He shot the man five times. Officer Faulkner was lucky he was able to fire back at him at all.

-If Mumia Abu-Jamal was the rational and intelligent man his legions of idiot supporters make him out to be, he would have never shot Danny Faulkner (the odds suggest he wouldn't be a member of the Black Panthers, either; they've done more harm than good). He would have gone down and bailed out his brother, who happened to be the man Faulkner pulled over that December morning. But Abu-Jamal's brother decided to panic. And Abu-Jamal decided to be violent. He killed a man sworn to protect and serve attempting to do his job. He took away a husband, a father, and a son. And for this, he does not deserve the accolades and public appeals and the book deals and the adulation of countless celebrities, liberals, race-baiters, and idiots that he does get. He deserves to be in a pine box with six feet of Pennsylvania soil above him and potassium chloride in his veins. He deserves to die for his crime; Daniel Faulkner's family deserves the justice they have been pursuing for thirty years. And thanks to the District Attorney's unwillingness to give further effort, neither party will get what they deserve.

Passive Imperialism?

-In a presidential campaign season that as of late seems more focused on the relevant question of which candidate will have the prowess to repair America's economic ails and the less relevant questions of personality differences between the likes of Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney and, as of late, the implosion of Herman Cain's campaign (the adultery allegations that have caused Mr. Cain to suspend his run are false, in my mind, because all of the accusers have a record of financial problems and making nonsensical claims (one has been accused of perjury while another was successfully sued for libel); I also share the sentiment of many right-wing pundts and observers that Cain, as a black conservative, was targeted for destruction by the Mainstream Media, which has repeatedly been statistically proven to have an overwhelming left-wing bias, so much so that any claims they continue to make about objectivity are laughable), National Review columnist and author Mark Steyn made the astute observation that foreign policy has played a nonexistent role in the campaign, amongst the Republicans vying for their party's nomination and from the Democrat incumbent Barack Obama. Granted, in our current situation, the politics of the pocketbook and the kitchen table are going to take the forefront with the American people. The problem is that, contrary to the common wisdom, all politics is not local.

-It never has been. And not that we haven't tried. Until the Imperial Japanese Navy launched their attack on Naval Station Pearl Harbor seventy years ago, the United States held a policy of at least nominative isolationism (digging deeper, of course, reveals that some politicians, at times, pursued a more duplicitous course, such as our Lend-Lease acts to the United Kingdom and the Soviet Union that were taking place in the months leading up to our oficial entry into the war). But the fact of the matter is our nation came into being at a time that roughly corresponds to the Beginning of the End of the Frontier: by the time our nation celebrated her one-hundredth birthday, the "corners" of the map had long since been filled; European colonialism was at it's zenith, and the classical powers of Asia were beginning to strike out into this world as well. Indeed, in spite of a civil war that had wracked the nation less than a decade prior, the United States was already considered a regional power. Much as we may have desired not to enter ourselves into the messy affairs of European sabre-rattling, politics hardly stopped at the water's edge for us.

-Which leads us to where we are now. Whether we like it or not, we are very much entangled in world affairs. While it may be a state of general panic on the economic front, what should be more disconcerting is the cultural front; specifically, how it is focused on the Middle East.

-To be a little more acknowledging of recent events, perhaps to say the Middle East is to be too narrowly focused. The trouble spot of the world could be more accurately described as reaching from the western Sahara, across the Levant and the wasteland of the Arabian peninsula, over to the Iranian plateau and to the feet of the Himalayas. It goes without saying, that's a lot of land. It's what-and who-is there that becomes a problem.

-On the Western Front, we have seen a wave of revolution: Libya drove their tyrannical leader, Mummar Ghadaffi, from power and eventually hunted him down and killed him. Egypt and Tunisia deposed their dictators. All of this has become something of a cause celebre in the West. The three men who ruled these lands at the beginning of this year brutally suppressed their populations and were a source of great trouble to us in the West. But, naturally, their removal created a leadership vacuum. Nature, we are told, abhors a vacuum. And the groups that seem poised to fill in the blank are radical Muslims who seek to impose Sharia law, whether directly (say, the Muslim Brotherhood vying for parliamentary majority in Cairo) or indirectly (the TNA in Tripoli).

-To the east, we have the Iranian sphere of influence. Tehran is likely a matter of months, if not weeks, away from completing development on a nuclear weapon-something observers in the United States, the United Kingdom, and Israel have warned repeatedly is the end state of the Islamic Republic's development of a nuclear "energy" program in a nation that sits on top of vast natural petroleum reserves in a world that is skittish about nuclear power. In Afghanistan, attempts to jumpstart the economy and infrastructure struggle mightily outside of Kabul and Kandahar, thanks not only to hostile terrain but a hostile people, who through their ignorance, their fear, and their cultural indifference are proxy agents of a double-crossing Pakistan.

-In the heart of it all is Saudi Arabia. To say the Kingdom is a wasteland is appropriate in more ways than one. In addition to the vast expanse of desert that makes up most of the peninsula, many of the Kingdom's subjects share the same disturbing tendencies of their neighbors: ignorance, fear, and hatred of the outside world, sustained in no small part by adherence to a severe school of Islam that lives the reverse of that old environmentalist slogan: Think locally, act globally. The lifestyle and teachings of radical Islam are, based on objective analysis, horrifically out of place anywhere beyond the bedouin camps of the Empty Quarter. And yet, their adherents are not only in government positions in Saudi Arabia, Iran, Pakistan, Egypt, Sudan, and Syria, but  they are also heavily populating parts of Europe and southern Asia-thanks in no small part to financing from the extremely duplicitous (and, according to some anonymous observations, profoundly hypocritical) Saudi Royal Family.

-So we've established that we here in the West find the culture of this vast swath of the Earth, to put it mildly, repugnant, whether we acknowledge it openly (like I do) or whether it lurks in our heart of hearts, like it must do for the multiculturalists and apologists for the western self-hatred movement. Who on God's green Earth can honestly approve of people who decapitate foreigners for the crime of being foreign, imprison women for being rape victims on the charge of adultery, burn books, burn buildings, display a disconcerting intolerance for anybody who holds a faith other than Islam (and, in the case of Judaism, reaches fanatic proportions), or, on a more subtle level, believe that shaking hands with foreigners and infidels will cause your penis to shrivel up and disappear (this actually happened, I'm sorry to say) or profess a proud ignorance of Beethoven and Bach?

-Taking this into account, it's not surprising that most Americans, if asked, want nothing to do with this part of the world. Besides, we've got enough problems at home as it is. But here's the rub: A good deal of those problems at home originated over there, thanks to two things: one, That vast stretch of desert that covers north Africa and extends into central Asia has some of the largest proven reserves of natural resources (much has been made about the Arab World and Iran's vast petroleum resources, but this also includes the vast mineral resources recently discovered in Afghanistan, too) in the wrold, which we here in the United States need to keep a good part of our economy going. Secondly, this is the homeland of people who propagate something I mentioned earlier, which is the globalist aspirations of radical Islam, which in turn is one of the roots to the vile cultures that have grown there (to be clear, unlike some observers, I do not believe that the faith itself is the reason, I believe the problems of radical Islam lie at a closer level; and that is the fanatic, cruel, and ultimately idiotic desire of people attached to it to maintain their power and to extend that power over as many people as possible for God knows what reason; in other words, earth-bound human lust for ego satisfaction and control; a sin of corruption that many religions, including my own, have been guilty of). These individuals have demonstrated repeatedly that they have no problem going into the heart of the Great Satan to strike death blows. Half a world and a desire to avoid the unpleasantries there are not enough to keep them at bay.

-So what to do about it? It seems apparent that our attempts to directly intervene have a spotty track record at best. Iraq has wound up working out so far, but what happens after we finish leaving remains to be seen. Americans are growing more pessimistic about Afghanistan, where we continue to try and play nation-builder in addition to fighting off wretched Taliban-affiliated militias who, it seems increasingly certain, are being re-armed by a duplicitous Pakistan that continues to use these otherwise dangerous-but-useless men as proxy units for their own imperialistic maneuvers in Afghanistan (the President of Afghanistan, Hamid Karzai, who has maintained his power thanks to American firepower, made a statement not too long ago that, should the United States and Pakistan go to war with each other, he would back Pakistan) and India (Pakistan and India's decades-long pissing contest over Kashmir, a region on the border of the two countries that was once a vital trade route that, economically, has long since been rendered irrelevant thanks to sea and air trade, was the only reason Pakistan has allowed Islamist militias, which would otherwise be considered a threat to their government, to exist).

-I have a suggestion-I call it passive imperialism. I do consider myself an imperialist in the Kipling strain of thought, in the sense that I recognize Western Civilization as being superior to all others. The position shouldn't carry as much shame as the American Left has tried to place on it, history and repeated opportunities to observe it in action demonstrate it. One of the defining arguments in favor of this position is an almost-anecdotal story involving a Governor-General of India during the 19th Century, responding to complaints from Indians regarding interference with a certain cultural practice known as sutee. The man said "You say it is your custom to burn widows. That is fine. We (the British) also have a custom: when a man does such a thing, we tie a rope around his neck and we hang him. So, your men can continue to build your funeral pyres, and my men will build a gallows next to it. You can practice your custom, and then we will practice ours."

-There's a necessary caveat to this: we're not exactly in a position to be so forceful, and we don't have a desire to be so. But we do have a weapon in our favor: economics. We have been involved in the economies of these forsaken countries long enough that a prolonged refusal to conduct trade with them on what they can offer us-oil, for the most part-has the potential to bring these countries crashing down. We wouldn't have too much to lose: the past few years alone have revealed petroleum and natural gas reserves here in the United States and Canada that have yet to be tapped and could provide the region with a period of energy independence long enough for us to develop the technology to wean us off petroleum (and, more importantly, make it cheap enough to be economically viable) altogether. In countries with autocratic power structures, economic stability is often the thing that keeps the leadership in power (note that lack of opportunity was in no small part at least partially responsible for the revolution in Egypt). Governments desperate to regain American dollars to maintain their grips on power will either be forced to accept their impending downfall and isolation or come to the bargaining table begging. There, the United States will be in the position of dominant negotiator: You want our trade, there are numerous human rights and political conditions you have to meet before the dollars come flowing back to the desert.

-In an odd way, I see a parallel between this and the arguments over welfare back home. Welfare creates lazy dependents and a drag on the economy, just as nation-building brings with it a dear price in blood and treasure. But we still have a moral obligation to bring civilization and enlightenment to those parts of the world that have not received it or have been reluctant to embrace it, for the betterment of the world and for our own security, just as we have a moral obligation to help out the needy and destitue. My idea is, in a sense, a form of opting to support geopolitical charity-choice, not force, being the defining features.

-But, again, it is merely an idea. In all likelihood, it probably isn't a very good one. But it's an idea, and it invites discussion on a topic, that for all it's importance to the United States, has been getting the silent treatment as of late.