John Paget's Blog

Ready Teddy

For the latest episode of Buffalo For Real TV, "Ready Teddy" we stepped outside of our usual documentary / travelogue format and tried a scripted narrative with the wonderful Joe Wiegand playing the role of Teddy Roosevelt. 

After history comes to life at the Theodore Roosevelt Inaugural National Historic Site, host Nelson Starr and TR tour Buffalo with stops at City Hall, Forest Lawn Cemetary, Founding Fathers Tavern, and more.  Bully!

 

 

"Irreplaceable" film screens at Congressional reception this week

Last year I was commissioned by a coalition of national environmental organizations to produce a short film about wildlife species imperiled by climate change.  The film features photographs from the world's top wildlife photographers and commentary from major environmental, religious and political leaders, including:

• Dr. Peter Raven, Director of the Missouri Botanical Garden
• Dr. Eric Chivian, Director of the Center for Health and Global Environment, Harvard Medical School
• U.S. Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI)
• Cristina Mittermeier, Executive Director, International League of Conservation Photographers
• Dr. Joel Hunter, Senior Pastor, Northland Church
• Trip Van Noppen, President of Earthjustice

 
The film has been touring the country as part of a nationwide traveling exhibit and public education effort called "Irreplaceable: Wildlife in a Warming World."  The campaign is a partnership of Earthjustice, Noah Alliance, Restoring Eden, International League of Conservation Photographers, and The Center for Applied Biodiversity Science.

This week, the film and exhibit will be featured at a Congressional reception at the Russell Senate Office Building in Washington, D.C.

To learn more about the threat posed by species extinction and climate change, watch the video.  Then sign the Call to Care.

Contest Winner!

I recently collaborated with friends Chris Elisara and Drew Ward on a short film about new urbanism entitled "Built To Last" (click here to watch).  The video was just named the official winner of the Congress for New Urbanism contest, which called for films less than 3 minutes which communicate how new urbanism relates to environmental challenges.

The Congress for New Urbanism (CNU) is the leading international organization promoting walkable, neighborhood-based development as an alternative to sprawl.

The video will be showcased at CNU's 17th annual Congress in Denver, June 10-14, 2009.  As part of the prize, we received a full 4-day pass to the conference.

The Difference between a Pastor and a Politican

Recently Bill Moyers did an hour long program with Rev. Wright, in which he interviewed Wright and played longer excerpts of the Wright sermons we've all heard soundbites from.
I highly recommend taking a listen (find it under Bill Moyers podcasts on iTunes).

If Obama had simply done this when the story first surfaced -  brought out Wright, held a press conference, played long excerpts of the sermons to provide context and further discussion - it would have been a great moment of progress in American politics.  Apparently we cannot yet have a grown up conversation about these things.

Check out these links which explain why Wright is Right, and Obama is the typical politician.

On "America's Chickens Coming Home To Roost"

and The Pastor v. the Politican: Reverend Wright doesn't have to dance for the man, Obama does.

Let's go to prison, America!

Perhaps you caught the recent headline: "1in 100 U.S. Adults Behind Bars"

That's right, according to most recent statistics, 1 in 99.1 adult Americans are behind bars.

With a total prison and jail population in excess of 2 million,  the U.S. boasts the highest incarceration rate in the world  - beating China, Russia, Cuba, South Africa, Iran, Mexico, Saudi Arabia and many many more countries.

Back in the 1930's, when Alcatraz Federal Penitentiary was founded in response to a crime wave about 180,000 Americans were in prison or jail - roughly 1 in 700 Americans.

In 1960, prison population hit about 330,000 - roughly 1 in 550 Americans.

Between 1987 and 2007, the national prison population tripled to 2,319,258 leaving us today with 1 in 133 behind bars.  By way of comparison, Germany imprisons about 1 in 1,075.

Some random thoughts:

The U.S. also has the highest rate of childhood poverty in the industrialized world. Is there any correlation?

One in nine black men ages 20-34 are in prison.

America spends $60 Billion a year on prisons.   But the recidivism rate is 60% - is it money down the drain?

Why do we have higher incarceration rates than despotic regimes, authoritarian communist states, poverty-stricken countries, and rogue nations?

65% of our prisoners are high school dropouts. 70% are functionally illiterate.

We spend an average of $7,000 per year to educate a youth, and over $35,000 to lock up a youth.

The inmates of Alcatraz were the "worst of the worst," and considered incorrigible.  I met six of them while making my film Alcatraz Reunion: they all got married, raised families, and made significant professional or artistic contributions to society.

Alcatraz to become Peace Center?

Among the Super Tuesday results - San Francisco voters rejected Proposition C, which called for transferring Alcatraz from federal to city hands, razing most of its prison buildings and building a global peace center.

The ballot measure was initially sponsored by The Global Peace Foundation: "By Converting Alcatraz Island, a place of pain and suffering, into a "Jewel of Light".  We will activate Powerful Forces for Cooperation, Reconciliation & Healing." (sic)

With 100 percent of precincts reporting, 72 percent opposed the measure, while 28 percent supported it.  However the ballot measure did win a higher percentage of votes than Hillary Clinton did in Alaska (25%), Idaho (17%), and Kansas (26%).

According to the Global Peace Foundation's director, Da Vid (yes, first name DA, last name VID), the measure fell victim to a disinformation campaign: the Republican Party in The Voters Guide accused Da Vid of being an "AIDS Denier" whereas the truth is that he does not deny the existence of AIDS, but only has "serious questions regarding the etiology" of AIDS.

Da Vid's explains it all in his YouTube video, which actually becomes quite compelling at about the 1:20 mark. 

Mrs. Clinton obviously needs a video like this.
 

Super Tuesday Reaction

I will get to the motive later, but here are the facts behind a curious yet obvious media bias in favor of Mitt Romney:

-Going into Super Tuesday, Romney and Huckabee were nearly equal in delegate count, yet the media constantly set it up as a 2-way race between McCain and Romney, referring to Huckabee as a 'factor' or a 'spoiler'.

-Romney has spent more on TV ads than all other GOP candidates combined.  $8 million more.  Combined.  (That includes Giuliani, Thompson, Paul, McCain, Huckabee, etc.).  He's spent $87.6 million on his campaign, outspending Huckabee more than 10 to 1, yet for all of that, heading into Super Tuesday he had 77 delegates to McCain's 93 and Huckabee's 40.  That is an absolutely scandalous ROI (return on investment) - but the media never mentions the disparity.  Is the presidency for sale?

-For Romney's entire political career, including as governor of Massachusetts, he was pro-choice and pro civil unions - two positions absolutely anathema to religious right voters in the last election - yet now he is cast as the "conservative" alternative to McCain.  This is the most puzzling thing to me.  How on earth can Romney be the conservative alternative?  I guess if the media (and Romney press aides) repeat something enough, it becomes true.

-Tonight, it looks like Romney will carry Massachusetts, his home state where he governed, and Utah (thanks to the Mormon vote).  These impressive wins go alongside his narrow victory in Michigan where his father George was a beloved governor.  Congratulations.

-Huckabee, on a shoestring, is kicking Romney's goldbrickin' @$$ and racking up delegates.  Yet the media still refers to him as a 'factor' instead of a legitimate candidate.

So why?  I think the underlying bias is a class thing.  Huckabee is a populist pastor from Arkansas, a graduate of Quachita Baptist University.  Romney is a Wall Street elite educated at Stanford and Harvard, born into a wealthy family, and racking up billions more while CEO of "Bain Capital" (a firm which specialized in leveraged buyouts as opposed to actually producing something of value).

All that aside, I predicted back in May in this very blog that the nominees would be Romney and Clinton, and I might as well stick by that as long as elitist northeastern media and Rush Limbaugh (not strange bedfellows but elements of the establishment) are inexplicably carrying Romney.

(I also predicted that Rudy would be drummed out VERY early and would then mount an independent run - however, he skipped most of the early contests, thereby lasting way longer than he should have, saving his instant crash for Florida, by which time his national support had also eroded and the viability of a third-party run for him had vanished - however I still think there is potential for a strong independent candidacy - perhaps Bloomberg).

Hugo Chavez, Reagan and Ike - they all agreed

Is mainstream media really left wing?  Consider for a moment coverage of the recent vote in Venezuela.

Whether on TV or in the print headlines, the referendum in Venezuela was constantly portrayed as Chavez' bid to be 'ruler for life.'

Actually, the referendum, if it had passed, would simply revoke term limits.  It would have allowed Chavez to run for re-election in democratic presidential elections for the rest of his life, but it would not install him as permanent dictator.  Yet check the U.S. media headlines - they all distort it to imply that it would end democratic elections and install him as president or 'ruler' for life.
CBS News: Venezuela Votes No on Chavez Forever
Guardian:  Chavez loses bid to rule until 2050
Reuters: Chavez loses "president-for-life" vote
New York Daily News: Venezuelans vote down Hugo Chavez's bid to be ruler for life

("Ruler?"  Where do we come up with these words?  In the case of a nation that has democratically elected a president, it is insulting to call their president a "ruler." Then again, we have a self-proclaimed "decider.")

The actual constitutional reform as stated in the referendum (just narrowly defeated) was:

"Section V. Organization of the State: President may name secondary vice-presidents as needed, presidential term extended and limit on reelection removed, may re-organize internal politico-territorial boundaries, and promotes all military officers.

  

Art. 230 - Presidential term is extended from six to seven years. The two consecutive term limit on presidential reelection is removed."

Republican Presidents Ronald Reagan and Dwight Eisenhower both opposed a two-term limit and publicly supported repeal of the 22nd amendment to the U.S. constitution - but neither one was portrayed as a power hungry crackpot dictator, bent on being "ruler for life."

So why does our media spin it this way in the case of Chavez, and what or whose interests are served by this distortion?

2008 Predictions, Part 2

Two factors are setting the table for an historic election with a strong independent candidacy unseen since Ross Perot.

First, the states are moving up their primary dates. Historically, a party’s nominee might not be decided until late spring. This year, the whole contest might be decided by mid-January. This leaves ten months - ten months for people to get bored or experience buyer’s remorse - ten months for someone to mount an independent candidacy. Supposing Romney and Clinton are the nominees, one can certainly imagine that by March, people might want another choice.

And my prediction is that it will be Rudy Giuliani. There is huge support for Rudy right now. He’s been leading in the polls for a year. But thanks to his unapologetic pro-choice stance, he’s going to be drummed out of the Republican contest in a heartbeat. He won’t know what hit him. There will be a lot of disgruntled, disappointed Rudy supporters, and I believe they’ll draft him into an independent run unencumbered by the religious right. After being so summarily spurned by the Republican base, I think Rudy may jump in as an independent, and chart an agenda that does not split the conservative vote.

If Perot got 19% in 1992, what could a sane person do in 2008?

Sizing up 2008 Race

I predicted it the day George W. Bush was reelected in 2004: Hillary Clinton would be the next president. My basic thinking at the time was that the Iraq debacle, the environment and the economy would continue to get worse to the point of urgent crisis, and that Americans would, by 2008, be desperate and grasping at straws. Swing voters in America are essentially not forward looking but nostalgic. They remember the last good time, and vote for the candidate that reminds them of that. In this case, Clinton.

Everything has played out like I guessed. Hillary is poised to win. She's always lead in the polls, and more recently her lead is widening. Obama gave her a scare, but in the end, you've got to win this nomination state by state. It will be a battle in the trenches. Put Bill and Hillary in a knife fight with anyone in the Democratic field, and I'm putting my money on the Clintons. They are just too seasoned and too savvy. Their combined experience and political instincts are formidable.

On the Republican side, it will be Romney. Rudy is pro-choice and that simply will NEVER fly. The pro-life abortion issue is the most important issue to the base. Yes, more important than 9/11, than the economy, than anything. Half of the base doesn't even think critically about those issues. If you're right on pro-life, they trust you on everything else. It's that simple. Rudy is out. McCain is looking old and frantic, and he's essentially hitched his fate to the Iraq war, so its not looking good for him. Romney is an extremely gifted communicator, I think on par with Bill Clinton or Ronald Reagan. He's third in polls right now, but look for him to emerge as the eventual frontrunner. Romney appeals to swing voters (was elected governor in liberal Massachusetts), to big business (thanks to his background in their world), and most importantly to the religious right base. Yes, he's Mormon, but the religious right is a big tent. Evangelicals are narrow theologically, but wide politically. In recent years, their political movement has consolidated Christians with Jews, Catholics and Mormons who all find common ground in the pro-life antigay marriage agenda. So, I believe that evangelical voters feel greater connection to Romney, than with say, McCain or Rudy, who don't seem religious at all. Better some religion than none. It is a political movement not a theological movement. Romney just gave the commencement speech at Pat Robertson's Regent University. What is a Mormon doing giving the commencement speech at a Christian university? Com'on! (Read all about it)

And if you still think the Mormon issue will give Romney trouble, don't worry. He just received a vaccination on the issue thanks to
Al Sharpton.
It might have been a legitimate line of critique from someone else, but no one is going to march in that parade behind Sharpton. This is the best thing that could have happened to Romney - I think it goes a long way to neutralizing the issue.

But the general election will not be a two-way race between Romney and Hillary.

In the next post, I'll lay out what I foresee as a three-way race and pick the eventual overall winner.