Archive for February 13th, 2007
I went to a sneak screening of Breach tonight at the Regal on Elmwood. The movie is a big winner, one of the best I’ve seen in a long time. Here’s a summary plot outline:
Based on the true story, FBI upstart Eric O’Neill enters into a power game with his boss, Robert Hanssen, an agent who was ultimately convicted of selling secrets to the Soviet Union.
The psychological interplay between O’Neill (Ryan Phillippe) and Hanssen (Chris Cooper) was reminiscent of the courtroom drama between Tom Cruise and Jack Nicholson in A Few Good Men. The majority of the movie concentrates on the interaction between O’Neill and Hanssen. Hanssen, being suspicious of everyone and everything, is constantly trying to evaluate everything O’Neill does and says in terms of truth or lies. Ryan Phillippe, as O’Neill, displays an acting ability that far surpasses any of his previous pictures. His focus is to get inside the head of his opponent. Phillippe convincingly breaks out of the pretty boy mold to establish himself among the serious actors in Hollywood.
Laura Linney, as Special Agent Kate Burroughs, plays a wonderful supporting role as Phillippe’s superior. It is very hard to make a movie that concentrates on two individuals without having some less than interesting stretches. This movie manages to pull this feat of perfectly. There was never a moment in the movie that felt like it was dragging. I can not remember the last time I sat through a movie in a theater without yawning at least once.
Breach premieres to the public at theaters this Friday, February 16. More information on the movie can be found here. You don’t want to miss this one!
Bill Online Easily, Fast & Free with PayPal. No Software Needed. Sign Up Now!
A persuasive argument can be made that people are pushing the global warming agenda because it is profitable. The same problem occurs in medical research and energy research. If a solution is found, the government largess runs dry and many people with a vested interest have to find other sources of income.
Whether the globe really is warming is a question about facts — and about where those facts are measured: on land, in the air or under the sea. There is no question that there is a “greenhouse” effect. Otherwise, half the planet would freeze every night when there is no sunlight falling on it.
There is also no question that the earth can warm or cool. It has done both at one time or another for thousands of years, even before there were SUVs. If there had never been any global warming before, we wouldn’t be able to enjoy Yosemite Valley today for it was once buried under thousands of feet of ice.
Back in the 1970s, the environmental hysteria was about the dangers of a new ice age. This hysteria was spread by many of the same individuals and groups who are promoting today’s hysteria about global warming.
It is not just the sky that is falling. Government money is falling on those who seek grants to study global warming and produce “solutions” for it. But that money is not as likely to fall on those skeptics in the scientific community who refuse to join the stampede.
Yes, Virginia, there are skeptics about global warming among scientists who study weather and climate. There are arguments both ways — which is why so many in politics and in the media are so busy selling the notion that there is no argument.
In short, there has been a full court press to convince the public that “everybody knows” that a catastrophic global warming looms over us, that human beings are the cause of it, and that the only solution is to turn more money and power over to the government to stop us from our dangerous ways of living.
Among the climate experts who are not part of that “everybody” are not only Professor Lindzen but also Fred Singer and Dennis Avery, whose book “Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1500 Years,” punctures the hot air balloon of the global warming crusaders. So does the book “Shattered Consensus,” edited by Patrick J. Michaels, professor of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia, which contains essays by others who are not part of “everybody.”
Read it all: Townhall.com::Global Hot Air::By Thomas Sowell
Netflix Delivers DVDs to your home. NO LATE FEES. Try for FREE!
Derek Punaro wrote an interesting article on New Urbanism and how it might apply to Buffalo. After reading it, I commented on some information I’ve gleaned through reading on the results of New Urbanism elsewhere, specifically in Portland Oregon. I checked my email a short while ago and found some interesting information on Portland. The text is after the jump.
I first heard of the plans to designate Hertel Avenue as Little Italy from my friends at the First Amendment Club who pointed out the story in last Thursday’s Buffalo Rocket. This is a great idea to keep the ball rolling in a neighborhood that is bucking the trend of urban decline. This is a great way for the City to say “thank you” to the private sector that has willingly invested in this North Buffalo neighborhood.
Some local leaders gaze down the bustling Hertel Avenue business strip and proclaim, “Now that’s Italian!”
A move is afoot to market the thriving commercial district as Buffalo’s “Little Italy” - and not just because Hertel is home to the Italian Heritage Festival every summer or because the Italian Heritage Parade is held there in October.
Several business and government leaders point to a cluster of businesses that have Italian themes. A one-mile stretch has more than two dozen such establishments, including restaurants, dessert shops, pizzerias and a bakery. Other business include a boutique that sells Italian gifts, an imports store, meat markets that serve up Italian specialties, a tailor shop and an Italian deli.
And don’t forget the large population of Italian-American residents living in North Buffalo.
Delaware Common Council Member Michael J. LoCurto, who is leading the marketing effort, said proclaiming the strip Buffalo’s “Little Italy” makes sense for many reasons.
Click here for a slideshow of Little Italy.
Source: Buffalo News - Council member pushes Hertel as ‘Little Italy’
Jean Monnet, the founder of the European Common Market, once observed that there are two different types of people. Those who want to be somebody and those who want to do something.
So which is Barack Obama? He says he’s running for president to “transform the country.” But until he delivers on policy specifics that clearly show how, we’ve got to conclude he’s really just another smooth politician who wants to be somebody.
Star astutely identifies education as a very real problem in this country and posits that Obama could differentiate himself from the pack with a policy to do something about it. The something is School Choice.
(B)ad public schools are not a critical issue for wealthier families. More well to do neighborhoods have the best public schools. And families with the resources to do so can readily pull their kids out of a public school and send them to private schools.
But low-income families’ kids are trapped in hopelessly failing inner city public schools. In addition to the obvious benefits that opening the market to competition would bring, important opportunities would open to address the special problems of these kids. A good portion of them come from broken homes and live daily in the deadly culture of nihilism that prevails in our inner cities. Why shouldn’t these kids at least have a chance to go to a church school where they can get the traditional values they so need that are totally off limits in public schools?
The other issue is Social Security. Everyone agrees that the system is going to collapse. No one is willing to declare the system DOA and replace it with something that works. Apparently, the quest for votes trumps the will to be a true leader.
For higher wage earners, the payroll tax is an annoyance, but not a major obstacle to wealth creation. After paying in their portion of the 12.4 percent tax, and reaching the $97,500 cap, they have plenty of disposable income left to invest in real wealth creating assets.
For low-income earners, however, this is not the case. All or most of the income they might have had to invest is locked into paying the payroll tax that yields payments at retirement that equate to returns hovering around zero percent.
Unfortunately, these low income earners have been subjected to disinformation campaigns by Democratic Party politicians, unions, the AARP, the NAACP and others that contributions into a highly diversified portfolio of stocks and bonds over 45 years is a risky proposition not worth taking over the guaranteed zero return of Social Security.
Star Parker correctly points out that both failing systems hurt low income families disproportionately more than others. She also correctly points out common sense solutions that will benefit everyone without the need to stifle economic growth to support the less fortunate.
Senator Obama could change the political landscape. It’s no secret that the Democratic victory last November was a vote against Republicans and had nothing to do with any positive Democratic agenda. Here’s a real chance to help low-income folks, the country, and re-invent a Democratic Party bankrupt of ideas.
Might we have the audacity of hope that Obama might actually have the courage to show this kind of leadership?
It is nice to see Star trying to help Barack with some good ideas, however, I don’t hold out much hope that it will help. The good news is there is a candidate who supports Star’s ideas, his name is Ron Paul.
Source: Townhall.com::Will Obama choose to be somebody or to do something? ::By Star Parker
