Jeremy's World

I finally got around to seeing this movie.  I was pretty excited when it first came out.  Even though Oliver Stone is, well, Oliver Stone, as long as one keeps in perspective the liberal slant his movies take, they are enjoyable (to me anyway).  I am not a fan of former President George W. Bush, and I’m not ashamed to say that.  I think his presidency was absolutely miserable.  But this isn’t about that.  The movie…

I wasn’t expecting an action-packed thriller or anything, but it moved at too slow of a pace for me.  But, that’s typical Oliver Stone, so I’ll give it a pass on that part.  Overall I still wasn’t impressed by the film.

The biggest drawback was the caricature-like portrayal of some of the players.  The portrayal of Condoleezza Rice was something I would expect to see on SNL – forced and distracting.  Colin Powell, Karl Rove and Ari Fleischer fall into the same category.  Rumsfeld was kind of humorous, but it went too far on the “clueless” angle…at least one hopes it was too far.  It was almost as though the actors were doing impressions more than acting.  I think that actually detracted from otherwise solid performances with the W., Cheney, Barbara Bush and Laura Bush portrayals.

It’s too bad because I really did have high hopes for the movie.

I received this recently in an email from a friend of mine.  You’ve seen these before, often propagated by opponents of the current administration, etc.  For some reason, I actually found this compelling and thought I would post it here.  Particularly the comment about how the current representative structure may no longer be relevant given advances in technology.  Anyway, an interesting idea…

When a company falls on difficult times, one of the things that happens is that they reduce their staff and workers. The remaining workers need to find ways to continue to do a good job or risk that their job would be eliminated as well.  Wall street, and the media normally congratulate the CEO for making this type of "tough decision", and his board of directors gives him a big bonus.

I feel our government should not be immune from similar risks. I therefore am recommending the following cuts to be implemented by the president.

Reduce the House of Representatives from the current 435 members to 218 members and Senate members from 100 to 50 (one per State). Also reduce remaining staff by 25%. Accomplish this over the next 8 years. (two steps / two elections) and of course this would require some redistricting.

Some yearly monetary gains include:

$ 44,108,400 for elimination of base pay for congress. (267 members X $165,200 pay / member / yr.)

$ 97,175,000 for elimination of the above people’s staff. (estimate $1.3 Mil in staff per each member of the House, and $3 Mil in staff per each member of the Senate every year)

$ 240,294 for the reduction in remaining staff by 25%.

$ 7,500,000,000 reduction in pork barrel ear-marks each year. (those members who’s jobs are gone. Current estimates for total government pork earmarks are at $15 Billion / yr)

The remaining representatives would need to work smarter and would need to improve efficiencies. It might even be in their best interests to work together for the good of our country?

We may also expect that smaller committees might lead to a more efficient resolution of issues as well. It might even be easier to keep track of what your representative is doing.

Congress has more tools available to do their jobs than it had back in 1911 when the current number of representatives was established. (telephone, computers, cell phones to name a few)

Note: Congress does not hesitate to jump on a train for home when there is a holiday, even when the nation needs real fixes for real problems. Also, we have 3 senators that have not been doing their jobs for the past 18+ months (on the campaign trail) and still they all have been accepting full pay. These facts alone support a reduction in senators &congress.

Summary of opportunity:

$ 44,108,400 reduction of congress members.

$ 282,100,000 for elimination of the reduced house member staff.

$ 150,000,000 for elimination of reduced senate member staff.

$ 59,675,000 for 25% reduction of staff for remaining house members.

$ 37,500,000 for 25% reduction of staff for remaining senate members.

$ 7,500,000,000 reduction in pork added to bills by the reduction of congress members.

$ 8,073,383,400 per year, estimated total savings.

Big business does these types of cuts all the time.

I suppose that because I make a good living and I identify as a Christian I am supposed to be a Republican. For the record, I am not. However, regardless of one’s political affiliation, I don’t think anyone can hear this speech and not be moved.

[youtube -iVAPH_EcmQ]

The text (and video) can be found here.

Also consider Caroline Kennedy’s recent endorsement of Obama: “I have never had a president who inspired me the way people tell me that my father inspired them. But for the first time, I believe I have found the man who could be that president.” Pretty powerful stuff.  I would link to the post on the NY Times website but they won’t let you read it unless you’re registered.  And I think that stinks.

Let me start by saying I am not a Republican. In fact, according to one of those survey sites we get on MySpace bulletins, I tend toward being Libertarian. Not the whacky stuff…Mostly the “leave me the hell alone and stay off my lawn” part.

That said, I found Newt Gingrich’s recent speech somewhat compelling, probably because it’s (mostly) non-partisan and is a cold-hard-facts-give-it-to-me-straight kind of message. I like that rather than the spin we usually get. On the part about Iran…I was 6 years old at the end of the hostage crisis and barely remember it happening other than it was on TV, people were happy, and somehow Jimmy Carter was involved but not really ’cause it was Ronald Reagan. Or something like that (yes, I learned more about it later, but that was my recollection at the time). Gingrich makes a pretty strong claim in terms of Iran’s view of the US, in particular that those views were first strongly expressed in 1979 with the hostage crisis. And, according to Gingrich, they have not changed. That’s a pretty powerful statement to me.

Anyway, here is the transcript from the speech Newt Gingrich delivered to a Jewish National Fund meeting Nov. 15 at the Selig Center. No, I’m not going to link up his speech mostly because I’m just lazy.

Continue reading…