THERE ARE NO SIMPLE QUESTIONS IN POLITICS

I was watching Hardball Sunday afternoon and Presidential Candidate, John Edwards was asked some tough questions:

Favorite Movie? Favorite Book? Favorite Philosopher?

After spending the entire episode explaining why Bush was out of touch with the American people, Edwards couldn't for the life of himself name a favorite movie. Does he not watch movies? Was he afraid that his answer would offend a constituency? He finally came up with that prison movie. Chris Mathews had to intervene and say. "Shawshank Redemption?" Edwards said Yes.

On favorite book, Edwards said he just read the DaVinci Code and that was good. Does that mean that DaVinci was immediately his favorite, or that he couldn't think of a favorite either.

On favorite philosopher he didn't have an answer, but still considered himself philosophical.

Are today's candidates so coached that they have trouble answering even simple things off script? Maybe it would have been easier if Mathews had asked Edwards to name some favorite movies and favorite books and favorite philosophers. Maybe it’s easier to name numerous things you like, but hard to single out a favorite.

Edward’s basic argument throughout the show was that if Bush were more in touch he would realize that the American people want more government services and they think that rich people should pay for them. Bush, of course, is a tool of the rich. Edwards, who is rich, has learned important lessons about the downtrodden in country clubs and courtrooms where he use to take big chunks of their tort winnings. Come to think of it, do we tax big tort settlements? Does Edwards favor taxing the people he makes rich or just the ones that get there through inheritances and work?

Edwards implied that Bush’s politics were self-serving his own wealth, while Edwards learned the right lessons about being rich. It would seem to me that we should be wary of any politician that tells you his policies are against his own best interest. The only time I know people to do something intentionally against their own best interests is when another of their interests are served in doing so. You might sacrifice for your friends or family, the people you love. You might sacrifice a small gain for a bigger gain later. But rational people never say, “I just have it too good. I need to set up some barriers to my future success.”

John Edward’s accumulation of wealth has always depended on taking advantage of defendants with deep pockets so it’s not inconsistent for him to expect those same deep pockets to fund his compassion now. I suppose this is also consistent with the semi-popular idea that rich people never gain their money through providing things other people want. Instead they greedily squeeze profit out of people. They don’t employ people who want to work for them, but enslave people by paying them less than they want. It’s no one’s responsibility to gain a skill-set and get a job that pays a desired wage, but it’s the employer’s responsibility to pay that wage at whatever job a person may choose to work.

Now Edwards has always feasted off the rich, but how do we explain guys like Kerry and Dean whose wealth was made the way Republicans make it? Unless you believe that these guys are so compassionate and love people so much they are willing to place barriers in front of their own success, you would have to think there is another reason for their “compassion.” If it were simply that they have no use for money then they would be giving it away or at least not attempting to make more. If John Kerry doesn’t win the presidency he could at least as a consolation give away the bulk of his fortune to those causes he is so ready to have you pay for. But rich Democrats never seem to be in the giveaway business when their own money is at stake.

Usually by the time they come to politics they have the money and their salaries are only a small percentage of their net worth. Their own fortunes will not be in peril with higher income taxes, because their incomes are not that high. It will be people who have to work long hours to earn that money that get to pay for these great ideas.

You ever notice how even regular guys who go to Washington and have to pay high living expenses and taxes seem to return home millionaires. Maybe when you’re in politics you get rich or stay rich regardless of how you try to social engineer productive people. Maybe that is the real trick. These guys aren’t self-hating at all, but trying to get a piece of the Washington pie. Although they might be rich, there is a whole consistency that wouldn’t be pandered to if the rich didn’t use class warfare arguments against their own. Has any rich politician ever left politics broke because his/her compassion got the better of him? How many businesses do you think have gone under when intrusive legislation mandates an entire level of new taxes and regulations?

Maybe Bush is just a tool of the rich. At worst, he is trying to defend a group of people who already pay for the bulk of government every way you cut it. But he argues that what benefits the rich also benefits all of us through job creation and growth of the economy. Do the Democrats ever argue that higher taxes benefit the rich? Do they ever stake out a position that argues that everyone benefits from their policies? They’ll claim Clinton’s tax hike on the belly of Bush 41’s tax hike created a bunch of new jobs, but they never actually explain how taking a higher percentage of money from us actually accomplishes that. Since Reagan’s tax cut also led to the creation of new jobs are we to expect that only static tax rates cause job loss?

Liberal politicians present themselves as tireless representatives of the downtrodden, but when these great men retire they leave with wealth in the 99 percentile of all Americans. They’re making no sacrifice bringing forth this socialist agenda, but they are gaining power.

I’ve been waiting for years to hear their theories on how large amounts of government spending allows businesses to create private sector jobs and provide high salaries. I’d like to know at what point do they think that more taxes and government spending will actually lead to fewer private sector jobs or if businesses will thrive at even higher rates when the government takes all the money.

This whole Democrat campaign seems to rest on the fact that Clinton showed the greedy rich who was boss by raising taxes in 1993. Wait! That actually helped the rich, because the economy improved in the 1990s, the story now goes. I remember this happening in the 1980s too, but that was the decade of greed. Why wasn’t the 1990s a decade of greed? People were abusing their credit cards in the 1990s, weren’t they? The whole point of their policies was supposed to be that poor people would gain at the expense of the rich people who really didn’t need the money. But instead, it seems that a rising tide lifted all boats. Was it trickle up economics?

World Series Game 2

NY 6 FLA 1

Andy Pettite was brilliant and the Yankee hitters were more patient. Matsui's 3-run homer in the first gave Pettite enough cushion and Florida really never had a chance. Game 3 will be key, because Mussina has been having trouble winning his postseason starts, although he gave a brilliant performance in relief in game 7 of the LCS versus Boston. By going in the third game, Mussina is in line to pitch game 7, so he is going to have to win now or win later or both. So much depends on him. Clemens could have gone on Tuesday, but I don't think Torre wants to throw him twice in the series after he looked so ineffective against Boston.

My dad and I are going down to see Game Four in Miami and will get to see Roger Clemens last career start. I couldn't decide which game we should see, but when I heard that Josh Beckett was going in game three, I thought that I should choose a game the Yankees have a better chance of winning. I didn't realize until tonight that we'd get to see Roger. Last time Dad and I saw Roger was in 2001 in his last start of the year against the Tampa Bat Devil Rays. Although, Roger won the Cy Young Award that year, beginning the season 20-1, he was totally shellacked inn his last two starts one of which we had the benefit of paying for. In fact, the Devil Rays swept the series and the Yankees headed into the playoffs looking like hell, eventually turning things around after they were down two games to zero against Oakland. They would have even won the World Series that year if God didn't insist on proving that Mariano Rivera is just a human being like everyone else. His save opportunity in Game Seven was blown and with it the 5th World Series title in 6 years.

World Series Game 1

FLA 3 NY 2

What, no Yankee comeback!?

Wells pitched a good game, but trader jack worked the bullpen just right. It broke the Yankee streak of 10 straight home wins in a World Series. The Marlins are a good team and proved it tonight. The whole game seemed anti-climactic after the Yankees beat Boston in glorious fashion on Thursday night. I wonder if the players can re-build the emotion after such a dramatic win?

I found this at the Blog Jessica's Well, a Life Magazine article shortly after World War II.

Priceless quotes. . .

Friend and foe alike, look you accusingly in the face and tell you how bitterly they are disappointed in you as an American.

Never has American prestige in Europe been lower.

When the British and American came the Viennese felt that at last they were in the hands of civilized people. But instead of coming in with a bold plan of relief and reconstruction we came in full of evasions and apologies.

The taste of victory had gone sour in the mouth of every thoughtful American I met.

We have swept away Hitlerism, but a great many Europeans feel that the cure has been worse than the disease.

Sound familiar?

War is never easy. No plan is perfect. Reconstruction and frustration go hand in hand.

Mickey Kaus is still mining raw ore from the Arnold Election

This Scruz Bustamante good! Three questions:

1. Doesn't California governor Gray Davis blame his lieutenant governor, Cruz Bustamante, for costing him the recall election by entering the "replacement" race? (The argument would be that Bustamante's Democratic fans didn't vote "No on Recall" as instructed--they voted "Yes" on the recall in the hopes of getting Bustamante, but would have voted "No" if he hadn't been on the ballot.)

2. Can't Gray Davis really screw Bustamante by resigning a few days or hours before Arnold Schwarzenegger takes office, thereby making Bustamante governor for a few days or hours, after which Bustamante would (under one statutory interpretation) not return to being lieutenant governor but instead be completely out of a job?

3. Isn't Gray Davis rumored to be a wee bit vindictive?

I also like Kaus' take on a recent statement by New York Time Columinst, Mark Barabak.

While the campaign may be over, Barabak said, the story of Schwarzenegger's past is not. He said the Times is investigating potentially more damaging charges against the governor-elect.

KAUS: Do reporters usually say they are investigating damaging charges before they are proven? It seems permissable to me--but if a Times reporter announced that the paper was investigating unspecified 'potentially damaging' but unproven charges against, say, Rep. Nancy Pelosi, I suspect the editors of the Times might come down somewhat hard on him.

Maybe Barabak and the Times lean a little leftward.

Who can really be elected President asks Jonathan Rauch.

With only one exception since the presidency of Theodore Roosevelt, no one has been elected president who took more than 14 years to climb from his first major elective office to election as either president or vice president.

George W. Bush took six years. Bill Clinton, 14. George H.W. Bush, 14 (to the vice presidency). Ronald Reagan, 14. Jimmy Carter, six. Richard Nixon, six (to vice president). John Kennedy, 14. Dwight Eisenhower, zero. Harry Truman, 10 (to vice president). Franklin Roosevelt, four. Herbert Hoover, zero. Calvin Coolidge, four. Warren Harding, six. Woodrow Wilson, two. William Howard Taft, zero. Theodore Roosevelt, two (to vice president). The one exception: Lyndon Johnson's 23 years from his first House victory to the vice presidency.

Once you take out the crank candidates like Sharpton and Kucinich, Rausch believes that only Edwards, Dean, Clark and Bush can win the thing.

Assuming Hillary chickens out, I think articulate Dean will eventually beat the neophyte Clark for the nomination.

I just ran across John Derbyshire's Devil's Dictionary. Here are some fun examples.

Arab street, the, n. The cab driver who took your correspondent from Amman airport to the Hilton Hotel.

controversial, adj. (Applied to a nominee for any cabinet or judicial position requiring congressional approval.) Conservative.

discrimination, n. Formerly known as “freedom of association.”

gun lobbies, n. People opposed to the idea that the only armed civilians should be bank robbers.

inappropriate, adj. True, but unmentionable for political reasons.

judiciary, n. A body of citizens charged with making those laws that Congress has omitted to make.

simplistic, adj. Predicated on the belief, or apparent belief, that good and evil differ from each other in some fashion.

social change, n. Higher taxes to sustain more government employees.

warmonger, n. A person who wishes ill to his country’s enemies.

More Thoughts on the Game. . .

It's an automatic now that Grady Little stayed with Pedro too long. But he's their best pitcher and maybe the best in the American league. Joe Torre took a gamble that a short rested Mussina, and Wells could keep the game close. He also ran Mariano Rivera out there for 3 innings, a decision that could have cost them with one swing of the bat. There is no right answer with who to pitch in what situation. The Yankees are a comeback team that plays better than the opposition when it comes to pressure situations.

The Yankees even came back in Game 7 versus the Schilling/Johnson Diamonbacks and only lost because the perfect Rivera wasn't that night. To win the big game you have to concentrate when the other guy is distracted. The Yankees have done this better than anyone in baseball since the Joe Torre era. It's always a different guy who steps up and makes the big play, but the comeback usually happens. The loss of Tino, Brosius and O'Neill make this a different team, but Bernie, Jeter and Posada are still doing it. Last night, Hideki Matsui caught the bug, doubling off Pedro and setting up the tying run.

The Yankees do the little things in the right situations. The Angels ability to do that brought them the World Series last year. Good baseball isn't about having Barry Bonds or Pedro Martinez. It's about having a .260 hitter who has the patience to wait for the right pitch. It's about believing that you can wear the other team down. Teams sink hundreds of millions into guys like Alex Rodriguez for their production numbers, but the Yankees have won these World Series without ever having the league's most valuable player.

Aaron Boone couldn’t live up to Robin Ventura’s numbers until last night. He was pressing to get a big hit and swinging at bad balls all through the playoffs. Last night, he became a Yankee.

Money can help you get into the playoffs, but you have to have heart to win the World Series.

The News that Wasn't

The New York Post accidentally ran the wrong editorial. The one they had written anticipating a Yankees Loss.

But we weren't disappointed by the expected rioting.

Yankees Sweet Yankees

All the rest of my teams in the rest of those sports can lose and lose as long as my Yankees bring home to trophy. After suffering the long draught in the 1980s and early 1990s, I'm grateful to live through this era. I don't think the Yankees will match this success again in my lifetime.

Democracy begets democracy. . .

Saudi Arabia, an absolute monarchy, has announced it will hold its first council elections, in a move seen as the kingdom's first real political reform.
The government decided to "widen the participation of citizens in running local affairs through elections", the state news agency SPA reported.

Half the members of future councils will be elected under the reform.

The desert kingdom has never had political elections at any level since its creation in 1932.

It's just a start, but would it have happened without the war in Iraq?

Thomas Sowell breaks down the recall vote. . .

In San Mateo County, where the average home costs more than half a million dollars and the environmentalists reign supreme, keeping the vast majority of the land off-limits to building, 63 percent of the voters wanted Gray Davis to remain in office. In even more upscale Marin County, 68 percent of the voters were for Gray Davis. And in San Francisco, the furthest left of them all, no less than 80 percent voted to keep Gray Davis as governor.

There is a certain irony here, since the Democrats like to portray themselves as the party of the working people, with special solicitude for "the children" and for minorities. But working people, families with children and blacks are precisely the kinds of people who have been forced out of these three affluent and politically correct counties.

All three of these ultra-liberal counties have been losing black population since the previous census. Kindergartens in San Mateo County are shutting down for lack of children. The number of children in San Francisco has also gone down since the last census, even though the population of the city as a whole has gone up.

Out in the valleys to which those who are not as affluent have been forced to flee, in order to find something resembling affordable housing, the vote was just as solidly against Davis as it was for him among those further up the income scale. Out where ordinary people live, the vote against Governor Davis was 64 percent in Merced County, 72 percent in Tulare County and 75 percent in Lassen County.

The time is long overdue to get rid of the outdated notion that liberal Democrats represent ordinary people. They represent such special interests as trial lawyers who keep our courts clogged with frivolous lawsuits, busybody environmentalists who think the government should force other people to live the way the greens want them to live, and of course the teachers' unions who think schools exist to provide their members with jobs.

It's long been said that baseball is a business and the players aren't as competitive as they use to be. Yesterday's game between the Yankees and Red Sox was an example of how both teams are doing their best to put the other away.

The Yankees were pounding Pedro Martinez on Saturday and he does not take losing lightly, and so Martinez made his stand, throwing a fastball behind the head of right fielder Karim Garcia in the fourth inning. There was little room for sanity in Fenway Park thereafter.

Ramirez led off the bottom of the fourth, and Clemens' fourth pitch was inside and high -- not close to his head, but close enough to set off Ramirez, who pointed a bat at Clemens and started screaming. The benches and bullpens emptied, and after Clemens took a couple of steps toward Ramirez, Jeter pushed him away.

Martinez was the last player to come out of the Boston dugout, and Zimmer -- a grandfather -- circled the mass of bodies in the infield and went right at Martinez, stepping forward and trying to throw a punch with his left hand. Martinez grabbed Zimmer, who was moving forward, and tossed him to the ground.

Zimmer stayed on the ground, dazed, a small cut on the bridge of his nose, others pushing and shoving on the field around him. Yankees trainer Gene Monahan tended to Zimmer, and the umpires met and talked; the incident delayed the game 15 minutes. No one was ejected.

As Rivera prepared to pitch the bottom of the ninth, a nasty altercation broke out in the Yankees' bullpen. According to Nelson, a member of the Red Sox grounds crew -- Paul Williams -- had waved a towel repeatedly and when he told Williams to stop, Williams came at him and started the fight.

A Red Sox spokesman issued a statement later saying that Williams had merely double-pumped to the crowd, and was taken down by members of the Yankees' bullpen. "It seems to be an attack and a beating unwarranted," said the spokesman.

The grounds keeper was taken away in an ambulance to be examined, and shortly thereafter, Zimmer was strapped onto a stretcher and put into a different ambulance. If the nurses manage to keep the Yankee and the member of the Red Sox nation separated, they would be the first on this day.

It wasn’t the rational voice of your typical millionaire at the office. Nobody wants to be on the losing end of this series. Boston wants to break the curse and the Yankees want to break Boston. I have a feeling that the team that can best handle their emotions will walk away the victor.

FURTHER THOUGHT: Can the Hall of Fame really insist that Roger enter Cooperstown with a Red Sox cap after incidents like this?

RUSH SPEAKS ON HIS DRUG DEPENDENCY

Rush Limbaugh today issued the following statement on his radio program:

"You know I have always tried to be honest with you and open about my life. So I need to tell you today that part of what you have heard and read is correct. I am addicted to prescription pain medication.

"I first started taking prescription painkillers some years ago when my doctor prescribed them to treat post surgical pain following spinal surgery. Unfortunately, the surgery was unsuccessful and I continued to have severe pain in my lower back and also in my neck due to herniated discs. I am still experiencing that pain. Rather than opt for additional surgery for these conditions, I chose to treat the pain with prescribed medication. This medication turned out to be highly addictive.

"Over the past several years I have tried to break my dependence on pain pills and, in fact, twice checked myself into medical facilities in an attempt to do so. I have recently agreed with my physician about the next steps.

"Immediately following this broadcast, I am checking myself into a treatment center for the next 30 days to once and for all break the hold this highly addictive medication has on me. The show will continue during this time, of course, with an array of guest hosts you have come to know and respect.

"I am not making any excuses. You know, over the years athletes and celebrities have emerged from treatment centers to great fanfare and praise for conquering great demons. They are said to be great role models and examples for others. Well, I am no role model. I refuse to let anyone think I am doing something great here, when there are people you never hear about, who face long odds and never resort to such escapes. They are the role models. I am no victim and do not portray myself as such. I take full responsibility for my problem.

"At the present time, the authorities are conducting an investigation, and I have been asked to limit my public comments until this investigation is complete. So I will only say that the stories you have read and heard contain inaccuracies and distortions, which I will clear up when I am free to speak about them.

"I deeply appreciate all your support over this last tumultuous week. It has sustained me. I ask now for your prayers. I look forward to resuming our excursion into broadcast excellence together."

Godspeed.

Do serious people engage in nonsense arguments just to win votes?

Kerry last month accused Dean, the former Vermont governor and current front-runner for the Democratic nomination, of being a Yankees fan.

Dean, a New York native, called the accusation insulting, and insisted he backs Boston.

"Howard Dean has a relationship with the Yankees that goes way back so we hope he is willing to put some chowder behind his childhood team," Kerry spokeswoman Kelley Benander said.

Hypersensitive Red Sox fans take New York-Boston stuff seriously. The Red Sox last won the World Series in 1918 and a year later sold Babe Ruth to the Yankees. As the Yankees have gone on to win 26 World Series titles, some Red Sox fans have come to believe their team has been undermined by the "Curse of the Bambino."

John Kerry and Howard Dean are officially the “Bread and Circuses” candidates.

Slate's Democratic Debate Drinking Game

I wish I had seen this yesterday before the debate:

Take one drink if:
A candidate mentions an ordinary American by name
A candidate mentions Bill Clinton
A candidate mentions John Ashcroft
A candidate mentions John McCain
A candidate mentions Enron
A candidate mentions Halliburton
A candidate mentions a member of his or her family
A candidate gives out his or her campaign Web site URL
A candidate flourishes a printout of a strategy paper or a bill he or she co-sponsored
A candidate looks into the wrong camera during introductions
A candidate speaks Spanish
A candidate refuses to answer a hypothetical question
A candidate evades the question of whether they'd vote for Bush's $87 billion
A candidate uses the phrase "when I'm president"
A candidate promises to "support our troops"

Take two drinks if:
A candidate says a rival is "wrong"
A candidate says he or she is "surprised" by something a rival says
The camera catches an audience member in mid-yawn

Drain your glass if:
You laugh out loud at a candidate's joke

Finish the bottle if:
The candidates get into a fistfight

There will be other debates. . .

WORD PURITANISM

One of the biggest dangers of political correctness is that many people forget the importance of context. When you ban words you also strip yourself of an effective way to object to the ideas behind those words. Here’s a great example:

Columbus East High School has canceled its student production of "To Kill a Mockingbird" because of concerns over a racially sensitive word in the play's dialogue.

The school's drama teacher asked the play's publisher to let the students take the "N-word" out of the dialogue, but the publisher refused, Principal William Jensen said.

Before the play was canceled, the drama teacher asked Gwendolyn Wiggins, president of the local chapter of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, what she thought of using the word in the play. Wiggins said she didn't want students to hear it.

"That would be giving another reason to say, 'OK, if they use it in the play, we can say it outside the play.' And that's not right," Wiggins said.

They can use the word outside play anyway. It's the context of the play that humanizes the people that are called that. The play is a lesson in why not to use the word. Gwendolyn Wiggins would rather just forbid people from using it, and we know how well that works with kids.

GUANTANAMO BLUES

A senior official of the International Committee of the Red Cross said on Thursday that the holding of more than 600 detainees here was unacceptable because they were being held for open-ended terms without proper legal process.

Christophe Girod, the senior Red Cross official in Washington, said on Thursday in an interview at the United States Naval Base here, "One cannot keep these detainees in this pattern, this situation, indefinitely."

Mr. Girod spoke as he and a team of officials from the international organization were completing their latest inspection tour of the detention camp. Although he did not criticize any physical conditions at the camp, which houses 660 detainees, most of them captured in the Afghan conflict, he said that it was intolerable that the complex was used as "an investigation center, not a detention center."

No word from the Red Cross on how long Castro can hold his millions prisoner on the rest of the island.

IMAGINE HILLARY OVERSTATING HER ROLE IN SOMETHING. . .

Harry Wu, the Chinese dissident, is disputing passages from “Living History,” including ones that were censored in China. He contends the former first lady exaggerated her role in winning his freedom.

Mr.Wu told The New York Sun he believes Mrs.Clinton overstated her influence on China’s decision to release him on August 24, 1995, creating what he calls a false impression that she was at the “center of everything.”

In his view,Mrs.Clinton saw him as an obstacle in the way of her participation at the U.N. women’s conference, which was jeopardized by his detainment.

“She never said,‘I am very concerned about Harry Wu’s fate.’ She never cared.” said Mr.Wu, who spent 19 years in a Chinese labor camp before moving to America in 1985. A naturalized citizen,he now heads the Washington,D.C.-based Laogai Research Foundation.

One of the censored passages from her book refers to an August 9 letter that Mr. Wu’s wife, Ching-Lee Wu, sent to Mrs. Clinton, urging her not to attend the U.N. conference.

Mrs. Clinton wrote that the letter “troubled” her. Mr. Wu says it was ignored.

“The letter was the kind of wife-towife, woman-to-woman, written with tears from a distraught woman begging another powerful woman for help,” Mr. Wu said. “My wife never received a word from Mrs. Clinton.”

Mr. Wu does give the Clinton Administration credit for his release, but he doesn't credit Hillary personally for it.

Mr. Wu said his freedom hinged on other factors, including statements from the Clinton administration that it would block a meeting between President Clinton and President Zemin until he was released.

The problem Hillary has writing a book like this is that she has no real personal accomplishments. Her gains have always been those attached to her husband. Her Presidential ambitions are a tightrope of being her own woman and at the same time not outwardly saying that Bill won't actually be making the decisions if you elect her.

HUMBLING THE POLITICAL CLASS

Those of us in Orange County, Florida sent some bad news to local politicians on Tuesday as well. The county was slick last year and got a half-cent sales tax hike for “the children.” They whined that without the tax they wouldn’t be able to build new schools. By planting a bunch of signs of cute children in yards all over town they pulled at enough heart strings to win.

This time they want more money for roads, but they had no cute kids to put on the signs. Instead they decided to put it up for vote on October 7th, a time when many citizens wouldn’t be expected at the polls. There was very little debate about the need the for the money or its actual use. They had just hoped that they could sneak it in.

They spent $1.2 Million of tax payer money in order to get more tax money from us. A little group called “Ax the Tax” raised $20,000 in private funds and defeated the measure.

Crotty blamed poor voter turnout, just under 23 percent, for Mobility 20/20's failure and the proposed Interstate 4 express lanes. Crotty said some media outlets reported what he called "the opposition's distortions" about toll lanes as fact. He believes that also hurt Mobility 20/20.

That’s rich. They hold the election in an off year in October and then complain that low voter turnout hurt their genius idea. I’m sure they were expecting around 12% turnout.

Crotty also blamed “Opposition’s distortion.” Nobody ever says we won the elected because of distortions. You win it was because your truth was heard loud and clear. When you lose it’s because of distortions.

Orange County Chairman Rich Crotty told reporters that voters blew an opportunity to do something about gridlock. He also called Ax the Tax representative Doug Guetzloe to wish him congratulations and tell him if he has a better idea about solving gridlock that he would like to hear from him.

I’ve got an idea. How about manage the money you already have wisely? Better roads will create a better tax base. If you spend less on your pet projects now you will have more money to spend on other things in the future. It’s always easier for politicians when you give them more money to solve the problems they create. It’s much more fun making them actually cut government waste to achieve their goals.

WHAT DID GRAY DAVIS LEARN?

The turnout last night for the California Election was 70% or more. That is amazing when you consider that Presidential elections these days get about 50-55% of the people to the polls. For years we've heard that an indifferent electorate is the ruination of democracy, usually from the people so hell bent on keeping Gray Davis in office. This election proves what so many foreign elections with unstable governments and large turnouts have proven in the past. A great many people will not bother going to the polls if they feel their lives won't change all that much either way. But in a state like California that is getting uninhabitable with taxes and welfare programs for illegal aliens, the people will stand up and be heard if you treat them poorly enough. Too many people who are tolerant of individual behavior have been afraid to vote for conservatives, because of social issues. Their vote for Gray Davis wasn’t supposed to be a wholesale giveaway mandate, but a live and let live outlook. Davis proved that you can win the people over initially with soft talk, but you cannot be all programs to all people and survive as the Governor of even the most leftwing state in this country.

SOME FINAL FUN IN CALIFORNIA

The Progressive Orange County Weekly endorsed Tom McClintock for some interesting reasons. (Coutesy of Arnold Steinberg at NRO)

You should know that McClintock is the only politician in California with enough integrity to do all of the following without reservation or fear of retribution from his own party’s less principled bosses:

1. He blasted the backroom deal that forced a multibillion-dollar ratepayer bailout of the state’s Republican-dominated private utility monopolies.

2. He publicly chastised the disgraceful ethics of Chuck Quackenbush—at a time when the Republican insurance commissioner was still backed by Republican leaders.

3. He launched the fight against the regressive car-registration tax that hits the poor and working class hardest.

4. He has displayed 15 years of almost vicious political independence in attacking massive tax hikes and corporate giveaways no matter who proposed them—whether Republican governors Wilson and George Deukemejian or Democrat Davis. Consider his showdown with Wilson just after the governor’s 1991 tax hike of $7.4 billion. McClintock objected, and the then-governor backed the defiant McClintock into a corner and angrily called him "fucking irrelevant." McClintock, however, refused to be intimidated.

"I place principle over party," McClintock recently told Orange County Register reporter Martin Wiskol. "The party is only as good as its devotion to their principles."

I'm frankly surprised that so many Democrats have come to the defense of the inept Davis. He's a liability. Soon they can blame Arnold for the shaky California economy. It's working moderately well against Bush.

And Instapundit says that the L.A. Times story is nothing but a huge campaign donation to Governor Davis, which by the way, would be exempt from campaign finance reform laws.

Mickey Kaus says it's plausible that Arnold was behind the whole recall in the first place.

Why would I think that this might not have been the biggest streak of favorable coincidence since Eddie Murphy wound up as a U.S. Senator in Distinguished Gentleman?That Schwarzenegger might from the start have been somehow behind the whole recall movement that was his only plausible route to power and might well lead to his election tomorrow? I mean, it's not as if one of the attorneys for Rescue California, Issa's group that gathered signatures to put the recall on the ballot was also Schwarzenegger' attorney in the controversy over his B-1 visa. ...Oh, wait! ...

It makes one wonder. . .

Tim Graham from NRO's The Corner wonders why Tom Brokaw suddenly thinks the mistreatment of women is newsworthy.

Tom Brokaw to Arnold Schwarzenegger, the spouse of a long-time colleague, last night on Dateline NBC (and again on Today this morning, and let's safely assume, NBC Nightly News this evening): "Part of the problem for a lot of people is that a lot of these women have made very specific accusations about grabbing them sexually and making lewd suggestions. You've described it as playful and rowdy, and the kind of mischief that you engaged in when you were a younger man. But based on their descriptions, in many states, what you did would be criminal, it would be a sexual assault of some kind."

VS.

Tom Brokaw on why the Paula Jones allegations, which became a very large legal problem for Bill Clinton: "Why didn't we put it on earlier? It didn't seem, I think to most people, entirely relevant to what was going on at the time. These are the kinds of charges raised about the President before. They had been played out in the Gennifer Flowers episode. The American public had made a kind of decision about his personal conduct and whether it had relevance in his personal life. And it seemed at that time it didn't have the news weight." That's Brokaw on the CNBC show "Tim Russert," May 9, 1994, on avoiding the Jones allegations for three months.

And Brokaw is the least leftwing of the three nightly news anchors.

ANTICIPATING RUSH AT NOON

With the ESPN turmoil and drug accusations on top of that, I don't think I'm alone anticipating Rush's comments at noon today.

I've been prescribed pain pills a couple of times and it scared me how easy the pain subsided at first, but how ineffective they were by the 4th day. It would be very easy to up the dose to relieve the pain and continue to do so until a person is addicted. Being aware of this, I didn't take any when I had my wisdom teeth pulled. Brett Favre went into rehab in the 1990s because of a pain pill addiction. Being an athlete, it must have been easy for him to get as much as he needed.

Rush is always articulate and I usually agree with him on Economics or National Security, but I have always wondered why he supports a drug war with guys like Ted Kennedy. Should society really imprison and support people whose crimes are only against their own person? The continual imprisonment of Robert Downey Junior is the essence of a puritan mindset put forth on the population.

The things about the story that seem untrue are the amount of pills Rush was asking for. The side effect of these pills is lethargy and loss of alertness, which would have ruined his effectiveness on the radio. If he were truly an addict it would have been hard for him to be sober long enough to do the show, wouldn’t it? But there must be some truth to the story or otherwise he would have denied the whole thing when confronted. Instead he said he didn’t know of an investigation and would cooperate.

When Bill Clinton said, “I did not have sex with that woman, Miss Lewinsky.” Rush immediately said Clinton was lying because Clinton only denied the charges, whereas an innocent man would have immediately characterized the actual relationship with the intern. The key to Rush maintaining his credibility is to come clean and admit the nature of what he was doing. The tough part is being honest without saying anything that would incriminate him in a court of law.

If he was illegally buying these drugs he faces a Hobson’s Choice. He either admits what he did and risk prosecution, or he doesn’t come clean and the evidence ruins his reputation for truth. I bet he will admit to having some kind of problem with drugs without admitting any illegal activity. I wish he would instead defend his right to be the master of his own body.

I’m rooting for him to survive this. Whereas the American people couldn’t impeach Clinton themselves, the American public can impeach Rush by not listening anymore. I hope he shows the integrity to be honest with the public and not make the Clinton mistake of stonewalling. I’m encouraged that he has decided to speak today instead of hiding throughout the weekend.

UPDATE: Rush makes case for his ESPN comments, but punts on the drug issue. He promises to be thorough and honest when he understands the charges. I'm glad he didn't lie, but he must have done something he shouldn't have done or else he would have spoken specifically.

ANOTHER MEDIA DOUBLE STANDARD

The media is going to have to decide whether womanizing is a disqualifier for public office by being consistent on the issue. Either Bill Clinton broke down the barriers of decent behavior and anything goes or both he and Arnold are discredited as human beings. If the former is the case why does the L.A. Times go to the trouble of listing every accusation against Arnold? If the latter is the case, why does the L.A. Times continue to treat Bill Clinton as anything better than a predator?

It seems like roguish behavior is a good knock on candidates they don't like, but off limits on their heroes.

Rush Limbaugh's ouster at ESPN is great example of the hypocrisy of the media.

“I think what we’ve had here is a little social concern in the NFL. The media has been very desirous that a black quarterback do well,” Limbaugh said on Sunday’s show. “There is a little hope invested in McNabb, and he got a lot of credit for the performance of this team that he didn’t deserve. The defense carried this team.”

This is controversial because it's territory that the media is uncomfortable to be challenged on. Their attacks were a good way to spin a criticism of them into racism. Instead of refuting his comments with arguments that support their objectivity they reject Rush's claims wholesale and then attack him personally. Rush didn't say that blacks couldn't be good quarterbacks, but that the media has given too much praise to a particular quarterback, because it fits their social concerns.

The media attack is a good demonstration that he hit a nerve. A good example of this is the Philadelphia Daily News attack of Rush done without refuting the actual charge he made.

I have to believe that to McNabb and his family, the world always has seemed pretty much the opposite of what Limbaugh outlined. When they moved to mostly white Dolton, Ill., from the South Side of Chicago, for example, and their house was vandalized while they were getting ready to move in, the McNabbs probably didn't see this as one of the benefits of being black.

If this is the best rejoinder that Donovan’s hometown newspaper can conjure? How does this disprove Rush's charges against the media? Is the Daily News equating the actions of vandals to the actions of the media? Here’s another chance.

And Donovan recalled yesterday that he didn't feel terribly privileged when he was looking for a college and kept hearing from Midwestern schools about what a fine running back or defensive back he would make - guess those coaches weren't in step with the master plan of the media and the NFL to boost black QBs.

Again, what college programs want has nothing to do with what the media wants. To refute Rush by saying that some people outside the media haven’t been nice to McNabb isn’t a counter argument to Rush’s charge. In fact, if the best defense the paper can make is that Donovan hasn’t had it easy, it sounds like an argument for treating McNabb with kid gloves. Wouldn’t that support Rush’s charge?

An Objective look at McNabb reveals that he is 1-2 this year and his 7-3 last year. 7-3 is a great record, but compare that to 3rd string quarterback A. J. Feeley who started during McNabb’s injury last year. Feeley was 4-1. 2nd string quarterback Koy Detmer was 1-0 during McNabb’s injury before he too was hurt and yielded to Feeley. McNabb 7-3 and the reserves were 5-1. There is at least circumstantial evidence that the Philadelphia system made these quarterbacks look better than their independent ability last year. At the least there is nothing that makes one think that McNabb was essential to the team. There is certainly nothing essential about losing your first two home games of the year like McNabb did this year.

Rush's comments were a repudiation of the media and not blacks, but why let the facts get in the way of a prime opportunity to discredit him. Rush represents real diversity of opinion and the media watchers have been waiting for a statement to misrepresent. They have now created something controversial to ruin him with. The media talks about diversity and respect for differences all the live long day. They go out of their way to respect free speech for pornographers and war protestors, but there is no diversity for the critics of the dominant politically correct media.

UPDATE: Slate Magazine breaks down Donovan McNabb's numbers.

McNabb has started for the Eagles since the 2000 season. In that time, the Eagles offense has never ranked higher than 10th in the league in yards gained. In fact, their 10th-place rank in 2002 was easily their best; in their two previous seasons, they were 17th in a 32-team league. They rank 31st so far in 2003.

In contrast, the Eagles defense in those four seasons has never ranked lower than 10th in yards allowed. In 2001, they were seventh; in 2002 they were fourth; this year they're fifth. It shouldn't take a football Einstein to see that the Eagles' strength over the past few seasons has been on defense, and Limbaugh is no football Einstein, which is probably why he spotted it.

The news that the Eagles defense has "carried" them over this period should be neither surprising nor controversial to anyone with access to simple NFL statistics—or for that matter, with access to a television. Yet, McNabb has received an overwhelming share of media attention and thus the credit. Now why is this?

and his conclusions . . .

Limbaugh is being excoriated for making race an issue in the NFL. This is hypocrisy. I don't know of a football writer who didn't regard the dearth of black NFL quarterbacks as one of the most important issues in the late '80s and early '90s.

So far, no black quarterback has been able to dominate a league in which the majority of the players are black. To pretend that many of us didn't want McNabb to be the best quarterback in the NFL because he's black is absurd. To say that we shouldn't root for a quarterback to win because he's black is every bit as nonsensical as to say that we shouldn't have rooted for Jackie Robinson to succeed because he was black.

Consequently, it is equally absurd to say that the sports media haven't overrated Donovan McNabb because he's black. I'm sorry to have to say it; he is the quarterback for a team I root for. Instead of calling him overrated, I wish I could be admiring his Super Bowl rings. But the truth is that I and a great many other sportswriters have chosen for the past few years to see McNabb as a better player than he has been because we want him to be.

UPDATE #2 - Wall Street Journal cites a Duke University Study that supports Rush's NFL/MEDIA claims.

I missed 60 minutes last night, but there is a good deal of chat about the Eminent Domain story they featured. In essence, localities are condemning property in order to sell it to big developers to increase their property tax revenue.

“We talked about this when we were dating. I used to point to the houses and say, 'Joanne, one of these days we're going to have one of these houses.' And I meant it. And I worked hard.”

Jim Saleet worked in the pharmaceutical industry, paid off his house and then retired. Now, he and his wife plan to spend the rest of their days there, and pass their house on to their children.

But Lakewood's mayor, Madeleine Cain, has other plans. She wants to tear down the Saleets' home, plus 55 homes around it, along with four apartment buildings and more than a dozen businesses.

Why? So that private developers can build high-priced condos, and a high-end shopping mall, and thus raise Lakewood's property tax base.

The mayor told 60 Minutes that she sought out a developer for the project because Lakewood's aging tax base has been shrinking and the city simply needs more money.

“This is about Lakewood's future. Lakewood cannot survive without a strengthened tax base. Is it right to consider this a public good? Absolutely,” says the mayor, who admits that it's difficult and unfortunate that the Saleets are being asked to give up their home.

The Saleets live in an area called Scenic Park, and because it is so scenic, it's a prime place to build upscale condominiums. With great views, over the Rocky River, those condos will be a cinch to sell.

This is really just an extension of the entire welfare state mentality that insists on taking from the haves and giving to the have-nots. The government was formed to protect property rights not run over them.

If you are interested in the California recall you might want to see this list that Daniel Weintraub puts together of California papers and their opinions on the vote. Most endorse a "no" vote on recall. Here are the positions, and the link will let you read the actual editorials.

The Bee: Vote no on recall

The LA Times: Why the Recall is Wrong

The Mercury: No…and nobody and Davis is Lucky

The Union-Tribune: Davis must go and Arnold the Outsider

Long Beach: Recall Davis, Elect Arnold

SO LONG ELIA KAZAN

Elia Kazan (1909-2003) was a great director of film and theatre, but he could never escape his involvement in the House Un-American Activities Committee.

The people who liked the HUAC said that Communism was a real threat to our country and needed to be exposed. Those who opposed HUAC said that people had the right to be communists and Russia had no influence on Hollywood or American politics.

Kazan told the HUAC that he was once a communist and then named some other people he knew to be communists. Many people during that era who had associations with Communists that didn’t come clean were blacklisted. Some in the entertainment business have never forgiven him. He was continually passed over for the American Film Institute’s Lifetime Achievement Award. The Institute saw fit to honor young Tom Hanks and Schlock movie director Roger Corman instead. He did receive the honorary Oscar in 1999, but it wasn’t without incident. While Meryl Streep and Warren Beatty applauded, Ed Harris and Nick Nolte sat on their hands.

The conventional wisdom has been that HUAC overreacted, and that Joe McCarthy was a demagogue, and that the communist influence was never a threat. McCarthy was certainly self-serving, but KGB documents have since shown that Russia had made real in-roads inside Hollywood and was influencing the content of writers and movies. But instead of blaming McCarthy for his personal indiscretions alone, Hollywood has totally ignored the evidence that shows there was real danger. They blame people like Kazan now for being right.

Regardless of the politics, Kazan was a great director. When he was directing the original Broadway production of “Cat on a Hot Tin Roof” Kazan debated Williams over the script. Williams went back wrote the entire third act of his play when Kazan told him that Big Daddy was too big of a character to not appear in the finale. The idea presented by Kazan changed the entire conclusion of the play and it’s the one we’ve seen in every production since.

As a movie director his films were heavy on message, but they were still entertaining and he got tremendous performances out of his actors. Movies like “Streetcar Named Desire,” “On the Waterfront,” and “East of Eden” are acknowledged classics, but he made a number of great lessor-known films.

A Tree Grows in Brooklyn (1946) – When I saw this film I was surprised at how real and honest it was. It’s only peer in the female (Peggy Ann Garner) coming of age department is To Kill a Mockingbird.

Boomerang (1947) - This is based on a true story and has a definite documentary feel, although it’s a total dramatization. Dana Andrews plays a prosecutor who realizes the man on trial is innocent and proves him so.

Panic in the Streets (1950) – Great thriller with Richard Widmark trying to catch a gang of thugs that are also carrying the deadly bubonic plague. A bunch of great character actors, Zero Mostel and Jack Palance play the thugs, and Paul Douglas plays a police captain.

A Face in the Crowd (1957) – His two long stints on network TV would make you think that Andy Griffith was merely a wink and nod actor, but his performance in this film should have won him the Oscar. A country boy drifter who is made famous by television, Griffith plays jovial, enthusiastic, earnest, duplicitous, treacherous, destitute and remorseful all with directness and believability.

Splendor in the Grass (1961) – Warren Beatty and Natalie Wood struggle to please their parents in the 1920s. Teenage hormones had never been given this much weight in a Hollywood film. Though treated seriously here, it was certainly a precursor to comedies like Porky’s and American Pie.” It doesn’t hurt that Beatty’s character is named “Stamper.”

AFFIRMATIVE ACTION BAKE SALE

You’ve probably heard about those rascals around the country selling cookies on college campuses according to race and gender. It’s a clever way to make a statement about how we treat some groups differently. Southern Methodist University shut down a similar bake sale yesterday, because it created a “potentially unsafe situation.” There was some shouting it says.

"This was not an issue about free speech," Tim Moore, director of the SMU student center, said in a story for today's edition of The Dallas Morning News. "It was really an issue where we had a hostile environment being created."

If speech didn’t cause a hostile environment once in a while it wouldn’t need to be protected. In fact, closing the bake sale proved the point better than the bake sale itself. Who would have had the guts to close down a “diversity” bake sale? Only diversity of opinion scares people anymore.

"My reaction was disgust because of the ignorance of some SMU students," said Houston, who is black. "They were arguing that affirmative action was solely based on race. It's not based on race. It's based on bringing a diverse community to a certain organization."

I love this current argument about “bringing a diverse community to a certain organization." That’s the best spin I have ever heard. How can the argument that diversity helps an organization be supported? Is there an aggregate measurable benefit other than fewer lawsuits? The minorities that go to these schools usually segregate themselves anyway reducing any theorized benefit. "Bringing a diverse community. . . " sounds like typical white guilt for the sins of our forefathers rinsed out in the sink and made anew with a catchy pronouncement.

Affirmative Action really stems from a lofty notion that some people are too inferior to compete without special considerations. It’s always masked in a “society is to blame” statement, but that’s so progressive racists can feel good about their racism. What happens to the minorities that earned their way into college or the workforce by merit? They’re many times suspected of the kid glove treatment and looked on with a degree of skepticism.

The people who pat themselves on the back for supporting diversity probably still wonder when they see a minority in power if they actually earned it. It's easy for do-gooders to support it in general, but how many people are happy when they come face to face with it? Losing a job, a promotion or a spot in the Michigan Law School can make anyone wonder if politics caused their misfortune. Today’s institutionalized racism can just as easily come from the policies that were supposed to eradicate racism. We're chasing our tails by creating more of what we're "trying" to eliminate.

Why have a Martin Luther King Day if we’re not going to judge people as individuals? Why hold Dr. King up as the gold standard if his words about a colorblind society are inconvenient to modern wisdom? We’d be better to honor Al Sharpton’s birthday. He's a better advocate for today's thinking anyway.

For my film fan friends, here's an early review of Kill Bill. (courtesy of Drudge)

THE IRAQIS HAVE MORE PATIENCE THAN THE MEDIA

Since all we hear in the media is how disappointed the Iraqis are with our presence, it's interesting to see the recent Gallop Poll that says 67% of Iraqis think their country will be better off in five years. NPR was hilarious this morning stating that the poll wasn't scientific since the Iraqis have no phones. NPR didn't bother to mention that their sound bytes featuring disgruntled Iraqis weren’t scientific either. In fact, it might be nice to hear NPR tell listeners that none of their man-on-the-street interviews are scientific. I would be interested in hearing how many Rah Rah Rah Iraqis NPR has to cross of the list before they find a disgruntled one. For fairness though, NPR ended their several minute Bush bash with an Iraqi woman who said that people should have patience, things will get better.

China fears people reading Hillary's uncensored book in the privacy of their homes.

Hillary's home state fears people smoking in the privacy of their own cars.

Why are people so compelled to control other people?

Some speculation that General Clark is really clearing out the field for Hillary.

Suspend disbelief for a moment and consider the scenario. For Clinton to run, she needs more time to shake her pledge to New York voters that she would not seek the presidency this soon. The massive media buzz surrounding Clark's nascent campaign buys her time by diverting attention from the only threat to a Clinton bid — former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean's dazzling rise in the nomination race.

Husband Bill publicly launched the pledge-dodge maneuver for his wife just as Clinton loyalists working for Clark leaked word to the media that the general would definitely run.

If Hillary thinks Bush is beatable, she will run. Those books sales convinced her that she has enough following to win now. It's a gamble either way. She could jump in and lose in 2004 and be done early, or she might sit out and watch someone else win the election and hold the job for 8 years. She would rather Bush win and get a crack at the open field in 2008, but is that the smartest strategy?

If I were Hillary, I would get into this. Her star power diminishes anytime other Democrats get the spotlight. Howard Dean has proven that nobodies become somebodies when their poll numbers increase. Let Dean win a couple of primaries and Hillary will slide further off the front page. Whoever heard of Bill Clinton 13 months before he became President? The Gephardts, Bidens and other prominent Democrat stars never recovered from his winning in 1992.

If you want something you cannot always wait for the perfect opportunity. You have to strive for what you can when you can.

LIBERAL BIAS?

Rob’s Shout Out reminded me of Eric Alterman’s book, “What Liberal Media?” so I gave it a go last weekend. Alterman’s a good writer and his blog is a good bet when you want to gauge the leftwing pulse. I haven’t read Coulter’s or Goldberg’s book on the biased media, but this book doesn’t seem to be a refutation of the points I have seen them makes in interviews. Alterman's book instead seems to be a re-definition of what is liberal.

Alterman does a fine job making his own case, but he seems to approach the material from a different set of premises than those who decry the bias. Alterman lists the areas of the media like talk radio that are dominated by conservatives. He then names all the famous conservative pundits on political shows. He also examines the number of conservative think tanks like the Heritage Foundation.

What he doesn’t refute or even examine is the conservative point that talk radio thrives simply because conservative ideas weren’t getting play anywhere else. Alterman thinks that through the punditry Conservatives are getting all kinds of time on the air. I can name more conservative pundits too, but Alterman goes further. He also lists Democratic pundits like Morton Kondracke and Christopher Mathews as conservatives. Cokie Roberts, the daughter of a Democratic House member, is a conservative. He even suggests that David Broder is a conservative.

He quotes Broder quite throroughly praising Reagan’s approach while criticizing Clinton’s. What he doesn’t address is Broder’s almost religious faith in the Federal Government and politicians to solve people’s problems. I remember reading Broder’s criticism of term limits. Broder couldn’t imagine how anything would get done in Washington without a permanent political class to run things. To Alterman, all criticism of Clinton is inherently conservative. He can’t imagine that liberals are frustrated that an engaging President missed an opportunity to promote liberalism, because of his own character flaws. It’s the same reason Broder might like Reagan’s style, wishing a liberal could turn up with such good political instincts. Never once does Alterman cite a quote of Broder praising Reagan’s tax cut or military buildup. To Alterman, it is enough that that he shows Broder praising the politician.

When it comes to economics, Alterman uses NAFTA as an example of how big media is economically conservative, but to attack NAFTA would have put the media to the left of the liberal President of the United States, Bill Clinton. What Alterman doesn’t mention is that the media constantly derides supply side economics. The fact that every major news anchor and player in the media speaks of tax cuts in terms of what they cost is a great example of liberal bias. Ignoring that tax cuts spur growth and create a larger amount of revenue never gets any play either among the big fish. Not once after Reagan’s tax cut in the 1980s did the government take in less tax revenue than the year prior. How often is that reported? The idea that taxes are actually the citizen’s money is never explored is any major media outlet.

The argument that these big corporations are controlling the mouths of the media is no where demonstrated in the book. Brent Bozell’s Cyber Alert newsletter is packed everyday with 4-6 examples of Major Media hosts taking the liberal line and Alterman doesn’t once address Jennings, Rather and Brokaw, Couric, or Gumbel. To him, the media is George Will’s 15 minutes at the end of the George Stephonopolis show.

He does spend a lot of time exploring the Heritage Foundation and Talk Radio, but it would seem obvious to me that these entities exist and thrive because they are a counter to the everyday media as we know it. Would there be any reason to listen to Sean Hannity if Peter Jennings were saying the same things? Would we need a Heritage Foundation if the New York Times were espousing personal liberty over equality? Would we need George Will if George Stephanopolis hadn’t spent his career working for Democrats? Regardless of who you pin as a conservative, it must be apparent that they are labeled conservative because their presence is to counter the opinions coming from the “objective” person.

At the bottom of page 109, Alterman completely yields the entire argument that conservatives make about media being liberal, but then ignores the point and continues his argument against the fact. Alterman says that even the New York Times isn’t liberal. Who is liberal? The NATION magazine alone is liberal in America, Alterman concludes. That’s like saying only the John Birch magazine, THE NEW AMERICAN is the only conservative voice.

His justification is that the whole continent of Europe is to the left of America and plenty of liberal magazines like the NATION thrive there. I would say that neither the NATION nor most of Europe is liberal. They are socialists. Just like the NEW AMERICAN people are isolationists. Both magazines are fringe elements that are ignored and not influential among policy makers. If you spent a day reading both magazines, you wouldn’t be surprised at how much they are opposed diametrically, but it might surprise you to find them in total agreement on trade issues and the like. They complete the circle, if you will, by being on the fringe.

The Democratic party is the leftwing party in this nation as the Republican party is the rightwing party. I would ask Alterman or anybody else to make a list of Democratic Party positions that aren’t supported by the mainstream press. Alterman made a good case that the media isn’t totally socialist, but his refusal to engage the specific criticisms that come from conservatives must mean that he has yielded those points.

Has it really been Monday since I have blogged? I've been busy this week working freelance in the morning and regular job in the evening. There are some issues that have been jiggling around in my head. Expect some action on a slower Friday.

NO ELECTION IN CALIFORNIA

The circus continues until March so says the 9th Circuit Court.

The court wrote today, "The choice between holding a hurried, constitutionally infirm election and one held a short time later that assures voters that the 'rudimentary requirements of equal treatment and fundamental fairness are satisfied' is clear. . . . These issues are better resolved prophylactically than by bitter, post-election litigation over the legitimacy of the election, particularly where the margin of voting machine error may well exceed the margin of victory.

Hummm. Florida has trouble with punch card ballots in 2000. People decided that punch card ballots were bad. 2002 California Gubernatorial election occurs with same punch ballots and no one remembers how undemocratic they are. Recall election planned for 2003 and someone remembers that they disenfranchise voters. Is the Davis victory in 2002 any more legitimate than what could be expected by an October 2003 vote?

If you polled the actual people who can't figure out the punch card system what percentage do you think could name the Secretary of State, the Speaker of the House, the Chief Justice, or even their own Congressional delegation? My bet is that less than 20% could name them all and less than half even know their own Congressmen.

It’s getting to be a semi-annual event where the media talks about voter apathy and the perils it causes democracy. But has anyone considered the perils we put democracy through when a court insists that simpletons are more important than the election itself? A real danger is that America becomes so apathetic that only the simpletons bussed to the polls with fresh $20 bills in their dukes will even care to vote.

The country would probably be better served if there was no California recall and Americans could get a glimpse of what happens to a state where the politicians insist on giving away all the money they can steal and borrow. But postponing the election because some people are too dense to understand how to vote is good indicator of why federal judges have too much power over the democratic process, and how we have watered down the voting franchise to the point where citizens aren’t responsible for anything but showing up and pushing the computer read-out screen.

Are the Network anchors biased?

Remember when conservatives were trying to slow the growth of government in early '95 with the Contract With America? Dan Rather characterized that as a "legislative agenda to demolish or damage government aid programs, many of them designed to help children and the poor."

ABC used to have a regular segment called "The American Agenda," which spent a lot of time explaining how government bureaucrats could fix your life--with things like socialized medicine--if only they had the power. Introducing one such piece, Mr. Jennings said "the best child care system in the world . . is in Sweden. The Swedish system is run and paid for by the Swedish government, something many Americans would like to see the U.S. government do as well."

One reason conservatives chide the networks is because they tend to believe any government program is more effective than a free market solution. Another reason is that they purport the sovereign nation myth by comparing any government on the face of the Earth as the equal to America. They do this by going to Cuba and interviewing Castro or going to Iraq and interviewing Saddam. Would these people interview Hitler if he were alive today? Would Barbara Walter lean in and smile and say, “De Fuhrer, what is it about your regime that the allies misunderstand?” “Benito, why isn’t Italy given enough credit for the trains running on-time.” “Generalissimo Franco, you’ve nearly eradicated illiteracy, what is it the world can take away from experiences in Spain?”

And that’s the big tell that it really is a bias. The networks tend to treat any totalitarian government that isn’t fascist in nature as legitimate, even as these countries slaughter their own citizens just for trying to leave.

Now maybe it can be said on the Left that the media takes other issues and sees them through the scope of rightwing thinking. It’s true that the networks were more gung ho early in the war than I would have thought, but I tend to think that was a reaction to FoxNews beating them in the ratings. Now that the major fighting is over, we’re hearing the chorus of critics with the Vietnam analogies.

When was the last time that supply side economics was given a fair treatment in the mainstream press? You’d think it was discredited despite Milton Freidman and Friedrich Hayek winning Nobel Prizes for purporting it. When the country boomed in the 1980s, it was described as the Decade of Greed. When the same thing happened in the 1990s it was cheered as Clinton’s economic program as if Clinton’s economy could have flourished under the pre 1981 tax rates.

It just seems like the basic idea that Americans can succeed without a federal government program is lost on the mainstream media. Can anyone think of examples where the mainstream media supported the free market over government intervention other than abortion?

MORE ON NATURAL LAW

I was impressed with Rob's reply to my Natural Law arguments from a few days ago. Here’s my reply via the Plato method. The conversation concerns the validity of the Declaration of Independence as a defense for God in public life. Rob may have misunderstood my argument to be a defense of Judge Moore, and he spent a good deal of his reply on the Ten Commandments themselves and what they mean in legal terms. I agree with him that the Alabama case was certainly sensationalism to make a larger point.

The issue made me reconsider Natural Law. My larger argument was that God can and should be invoked in government locations for the sake of keeping alive in the notion that our rights do not come from our fellow men who can abuse them, but from a higher power.

Here’s the point by point:

ROB: Religious proponents have a long history of invoking the "Creator" passage in the Declaration of Independence, usually failing to acknowledge that it has no legal weight whatsoever. The Declaration of Independence is precisely what the name says: a statement by representatives of the British colonies that the colonies were no longer subject to the rule of either King or Parliament. The Declaration is the poetry and romance of the Night Before; The Constitution provides the messy, mundane practicalites of the Morning After.

TOM: The Declaration was certainly a legal document, even if it was written well. It was debated and amended and eventually signed by the Second Continental Congress. It had enough legal weight at the time to throw us full force into a war. If delegates had trouble with the creator language it would have been expunged. Instead, the creator gave justification for disobeying a king. The weight it holds today is in the eye of the beholder. There is no rulebook as to how to form a country. Legal weight or no, it has an important philosophical importance as to how the Constitution was drafted.

While the Constitution is not poetic, it doesn’t disavow the Declaration, it in fact, continues the essence of Natural Law by spelling out a Bill of Rights. The Constitution doesn’t say that government will decide your rights ad hoc according to the fads of the day. We had already disavowed a king who did that and we disavowed that king by invoking the Creator. By the time the Constitution was written it was a given that man’s rights came from God. Not even agnostics or Unitarians suggested that our rights should derive from some committee. That’s why they passed a 9th amendment to protect rights not spelled out.

ROB: Leaving that aside for a moment to address the proffered argument that the Declaration of Independence grants God a privileged place in American government, I find the position untenable. Reference is made to an unspecified "Creator" as a font of "self-evident" rights for self-realization. The point is not that the Constitutional Congress rejected a terrestrial ruler for a heavenly one; the point, rather, is that they innately possessed the right to rule themselves. This comports entirely with their prevailing Deistic viewpoint that, however we came into being, we're on our own.

TOM: We don’t need to decide as a nation that God is a Christian or Hindu, but God needs to be acknowledged to the extent that we remember that our rights do not originate from kings. It’s not important what each person visions when they hear God invoked, what is important is that everyone sees God as the idea that keeps men from tyranny. If the founders had only intended to rule themselves and the “Creator” was just poetry then they wouldn’t have needed a Bill of Rights, because they already had self-rule. The founding of America was about more than just getting the power back.

ROB: Sadly, little attention is paid to the immediately succeeding passage: "That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the Consent of the Governed, that whenever any form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its Foundation on such Principles, and organizing its Powers in such Form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

That is, the law is the law not because God says so, but because WE say so.

TOM: But by ourselves we have no weight. What keeps us from being as corrupt as the last king? Why bother fighting a revolution to be ruled by another set of despots. In most revolutions since ours, a group of revolutionaries overthrow a government only to be under them thumb of a new dictator. What made us different is the invocation of a creator and the acknowledgement of natural law, followed by a Bill of Rights that spells out the convenant between Nature and man that cannot be infringed upon. This principle has secured our freedom as other countries reel in chaos.

This is why the current Judiciary attitude is so dangerous. It is taking political questions of the day away from the legislative branches and deciding law based on their own values and whims. WE don't say so anymore through the elective branches of government. THEY say so.

ROB: It''s my observation that judicial activism is consistently the scourge of the same group: the losers. The Far Right would have had no problem with the Supreme Court upholding the Texas sodomy law in defiance of the 14th Amendment; nor did it seem to mind when the most vocal states-rights conservatives interfered in the Florida recount. My point is that judicial activism is a tool readily utilized by whichever side has the votes; the moral high ground is pretty well vacant on that one.

TOM: I definitely agree that anyone group can benefit in the very specific, but I argue that we all lose in the general. Even your example of the Supreme Court getting involed in the Florida recount wouldn’t have happened had the Florida Supreme Court correctly ruled that they didn’t have jurisdiction in the case. Since Florida law states that elections are certified by the State Legislature, the Florida Supreme Court should have remanded the decision to them. Had the Florida court followed the law, there never would have been a need for the high court.

As time has passed more judges have transgressed the line between interpretation and legislation. Judges have gone from disinterested mediators to regents. Everything we hated about King George is becoming something that we can hate about our court system. The Creator is the last authority that stands between them and total rule.

If this was just an attempt to free the state from religion then the court wouldn't have ruled unconstitutional a moment of silence in lieu of actual school prayer. That’s the giveaway that their opposition isn’t Christian in nature, but philosophical. They use the Christian argument as a sort of tyranny of the majority, but what they actually resist is acknowledgment of something that has jurisdiction over them. If the court can be successful in eliminating Natural Law from the dialogue, then the coup will be complete. The Creator is the last authority that stands between them and total rule.

SINCE 911

I think about how everyone was unified after the attacks on 911, and now we're in the midst of the most partisan shrieking I can ever remember. In some ways it is to be expected. The Republicans went after Clinton and for good reason, but like Connery says in the UNTOUHCABLES "They put one of your guys in the hospital, you put one of theirs in the morgue." Clinton changed how we view our leaders for better or for worse. Clinton supporters are trying to put some in the morgue.

Some argued Clinton was the victim of a well-funded smear campaign or a cast right-wing conspiracy. A conspiracy would imply that the campaign against Clinton was secretive. But he was a polarizing leader from the start. We'd never had a 60s generation liberal in the White House before. He loathed the military, he cheated on his wife, and to buy her off he let her try to nationalize the entire healthcare system. These were unprecedented in American politics. Conventional liberals like Bob Kerry or Paul Tsongas or Michael Dukakis wouldn't have been so polarizing.

Even as important was the fact that 1992 was supposed to be a throwaway election. The top tier candidates were sitting out waiting for 1996. The conventional Wisdom was Bush 41couldn't be beat. Mario Cuomo, Richard Gephardt, Joe Biden and Al Gore had their eye on the next election. Republicans felt that a decent field of Democrats would have weeded out a charlatan like Clinton, but now because of Perot and the surreal aspects of the 1992 election we were stuck with someone that neither Republicans nor Democrats wanted.

The Democrats I knew at the time were uncomfortable with having Clinton win the nomination. Though some eventually voted for him, many considered voting for Perot. Gore was polarizing too. My liberal college friends weren’t happy about Tipper Gore’s Music labeling crusade nor Gore’s flip-flops on abortion. The thing I remember on election night was how many people were truly surprised that Clinton got elected.

His first two years were treacherous starting with gays in the military. It seems like a small issue now, but it reminded people at the time how little regard Clinton had for the military. Hillary’s health care initiative was so misguided that it led to the Republican takeover of Congress in 1994. It was that event that galvanized Clinton as the Democratic standard bearer.

Suddenly I heard the Democrats who were embarrassed about Clinton attack Newt Gingrich in the way we had been attacking Clinton. Now, Speaker Newt was being treated like a President. I remember the day after the election Rush Limbaugh said that Clinton was irrelevant. Clinton actually answered Rush in a speech a few days later and said that he was relevant. By losing Congress in 1994, Clinton was able frame himself against the less affable Newt Gingrich. This was enough to ensure his re-election in 1996.

Even with re-election, the 1990s were a tough time for Democrats. They lost both houses of Congress and their two-term President was impeached. They wanted to think that it was nasty Republicans who were going after a good president, but if a non-controversial Democrat like Tsongas or Gephardt had been elected in 1992, I don’t think the Democrats would have lost Congress. Neither of those guys would have been impeached. Things would be much different today. The thing most certain is that Democrats wouldn’t be attacking Bush at the level they are now doing.

There is a message coming out of the media and the mouths of Democratic aspirants that Iraq was a big mistake and we’re in a quagmire. You wonder if these guys wouldn’t jump for joy at another terrorist attack on our soil. I keep hearing some vague strategy like we should be gathering up Al Qaeda instead, when everyone knows that Al Qaeda is being dismantled simultaneously. Little said is that the World Trade Center was first attacked in 1993, and it wasn’t treated as a national security risk. That was the biggest blunder of the 1990s, beating even public health care. Think about the lives that would have been saved if that first attack was treated seriously. Think about the lives that would have been saved if Clinton had made Iraq live up to the cease-fire agreement signed at the end of the Gulf War. Eight years of backsliding has led to war.

Listen to Joe Lieberman. He knows about the National Security dangers. He attacks Bush for being a cowboy, but that’s just empty rhetoric. Even liberals like John Kerry and Richard Gephardt backed the war in October of 2002 because they saw its necessity and realized its popularity. They didn’t expect Howard Dean to get all of the attention for his anti-war views.

I remember a friend who voted for Gore reacting to 911 saying that he was glad that Bush was President, because Bush would do something. Many democrats felt the same way at the time. Something has been done now. When Americans decide who is going to be the next President they need to ask if someone else would have done it better.

Anybody who has had a fair weather friend that begs and begs for help and then acts ungrateful when they get it can understand what Bush is going through now.

In the movie Room Service, the hungry Groucho Marx offers a bellboy a part in his play if he can delivery him and his friends some Room Service. Once Grouch has eaten he has changed his mind and says so. Another character asks Groucho, “You mean you promised him the role just to get the food?”

Groucho answers, “No, when I was hungry I intended on giving him the part, but now that I have eaten I see things in a different way.”

Not too unlike guys who run for President and people who vote for them.

An interesting article in Ad Age says that times are changing. . .

A huge, black man raises his arms to gloat obnoxiously over a foosball goal, and this vile underarm stench overpowers everyone in the room.

It's a Right Guard commercial, and it's wonderful.

Actually, the BBDO, New York, ad itself -- starring Tampa Bay Buccaneers star Warren Sapp -- is pretty ordinary, a sort of generic argument for deodorant with a brand name attached. What's wonderful is that the big stinker isn't white.

Try to imagine, say, 10 years ago, a commercial in which the butt of that joke would turn out to be African-American.

Robert Alt says that racism was behind the Miguel Estrada controversy.

Indeed, if Congress were an ordinary employer and a federal judgeship were treated as a job under federal antidiscrimination law, then Estrada would likely win on a claim of employment discrimination. . .

John Roberts was asked relatively few questions during his confirmation hearing, while Estrada was pummeled with over 200. Roberts, nominated the same day as Estrada, was confirmed by the Senate on a voice vote, while Estrada was denied the opportunity to even have a vote.

Democrats will inevitably respond that they opposed Estrada because they believed that he was conservative. But they had less reason to believe he was conservative than Roberts. This demonstrates what is at the heart of the issue: They opposed him more vehemently because he was perceived to be a conservative Hispanic, and as such is thought to be a viable Supreme Court nominee.

Democrats have long used threats of prejudice and racism to gain power. That's why Trent Lott is a racist and Robert Byrd is an elder statesman. Whether denying Estrada is racist or not, I don't know, but it fits the criteria for things they consider racist. If the media were conservative or even centrist, these kinds of contradictions would be lead stories on the nightly news.

THE CORONATION OF KINGS

I have always been interested in how the Separation of Church and State seems to come up so often in a country founded by religious people. The Ten Commandments debate in Alabama made me look at the actual constitution again. Here is what the first amendment says.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

It says pretty plainly that Congress cannot establish a religion. It doesn’t say that Alabama cannot. It also says that they cannot prohibit the free exercise thereof. Does anyone think that means that the Supreme Court was designed to do whatever it wants, but Congress is limited? Nowhere in the document are the words, “separation of church and state” used. That was a 1960s idea put forward by the Supreme Court led by Earl Warren.

What did Jefferson say about God in the Declaration of Independence?

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--

Jefferson’s words "endowed by their creator" are the essence of why the United States exists. Before America, your rights were something given to you by a king or pope. The king throughout history was thought to be God’s vessel and his decisions were sanctioned by God. This is why Henry VIII broke away from the Roman Catholic Church. By being the head of his own church he could not be questioned on any matter religious or public.

During the age of enlightenment, philosophers re-examined the relationship between ruler and ruled. The idea of Natural Law came into the consciousness. Natural Law states that human beings have rights separate from the will of popes and kings. This is the foundation of how America could come into being. Once rights were understood to have come from God and not kings, then they were “unalienable” as Jefferson would say.

Our founders believed that England was infringing on the rights of free men and started the revolution. The Constitution of the United States took this idea further by spelling out a Bill of Rights that the government couldn’t infringe upon. The founders were worried that future leaders would try to become kings and rule by fiat. This couldn’t be done if the Bill of Rights protected specific rights.

Alexander Hamilton was actually against the Bill of Rights. He thought that you couldn’t list every single right in a document and that someday the government would infringe on understood rights that weren’t spelled out in the writing. Madison won out and we have a Bill of Rights, but Hamilton’s fear was incorporated into the 9th amendment. The 10th Amendment leaves everything not spelled out as a Federal issue to state governments. Between the two, the Federal Government was left powerless to decide local issues.

So enter Earl Warren and his take on the Supreme Court’s place in society. His belief that any mention of God was contrary to the Constitution was not backed up by the Bill of Rights, but invented in order to push forward other social policy. Once the Supreme Court denied the presence of God in public life, people forgot the importance of God in political life. I don’t mean in the religious sense, but the philosophical sense. These mentions of God were throughout society not only for worship, but to justify Natural Rights. So long as God is recognized the idea that our rights derive from him can live. You don’t have to be a Christian to respect the importance of that. Thomas Jefferson himself was not sure of Christ’s divinity, he thought of Christ as more of a philosopher than a God. But he invoked God into the document because it is the key component of Natural Rights.

When Natural Rights are taken out of public life, where do our rights come from? A king, of course. Who has become the king? The Supreme Court. The court has jumped and decided a number of questions that were really the province of the legislative branch. They now write laws by ruling on cases finding phantom constitutional rights in some place while denying actual constitutional rights in other places.

We can’t even put people on the federal bench, because the court has become so important that Democrats mostly, but even Republicans have won decisions there that they cannot win inside the halls of Congress. The judges have become so important that we fear the addition of a few new ones will change the whole structure of a “progressive” society.

In the past, important questions were decided by the legislative branch, because it was closest to the people. Groups may win or lose a law, but they always knew that an election could turn that law around. That is why we have elections. The people debate and vote and the law is decided. The court is there to obey the rule of law and brings justice accordingly. Instead, the court is becoming a place where politicians get what they want independently from what the people want.

Our rights are no longer protected by the Constitution when the Constitution can mean whatever the judges want it to mean. Natural Rights are not even talked about anymore. The judges are usurping the power that was hard won by a revolution and a civil war. They did it by convincing Jews, Muslims, Druids, Witches, Atheists, Agnostics and other non-Christians that the dominant religion wasn’t inclusive enough, therefore invalid. The judges divided the people by their own prejudices and then conquered the constitution that was limiting their power. They didn’t explain to non-Christians that the recognition of God was protecting their rights. They used the example of religious zealots to scare non-believers.

By eliminating God have we entered into a new age of enlightenment based on reason alone? No, now we worship religions like diversity and multi-lateralism, and other fads that depend on faith. We transfer our belief in the divine to a belief in equality. We trade the idea of heaven for the idea of heaven on Earth. Who will provide that new heaven? The King, of course. Thus, the confirmation of judges is becoming the coronation of kings.

That's the real issue in Alabama. The courts have done everything to stamp out the public acknowledgement of the one thing more powerful than they are. Aside form the speculation of whether Judge Moore is a devout Christian or a political opportunist, the debate has been a religious one. The speculation that the court might be ruling to protect its own power has not even come up. This is worrisome to anyone who loves liberty.

MAYOR BUDDY DYER IS GOING DOWN THE WRONG PATH

Orlando Mayor Buddy Dyer was on the radio this morning being interviewed by the normally conservative hosts who didn’t seem to understand the economic implications of Mayor Dyer’s new idea. Dyer wants every business downtown to pay their employees a minimum of $8.50 and hour. These kinds of local minimum wage boosts have happened in other cities and are popular among workers that make less money, but inflated wages just inflate the cost of doing business and that inflates prices.

Buddy Dyer wants people to make a living wage without acquiring the necessary skills to do so. Does he understand what the consequences on “compassion?” Is he so caught up in populism that he doesn’t understand basic economics?

One result is that entry-level workers at the NYPD Pizza joint downtown will suddenly make more than their counterparts working at the NYPD Pizza place in Metro West. Since the higher wages won’t come with higher productivity, the downtown location will either have to charge more or have fewer employees than their eatery in Metro West. The result is that patrons will either get a cheaper price or better service outside of the city limits. Restaurants like NYPD Pizza do a good business during the day with people who work downtown, so the higher volume may help them in one area, but it’s that higher volume that makes the rent more expensive downtown also. The most likely result is businesses like NYPD Pizza will start closing after banker’s hours to make up for the slower traffic.

Downtown already has parking disadvantages and lacks a movie theatre. It’s not a tremendous draw to the average family. The relatively lower prices downtown compared to Downtown Disney and Universal’s City Walk gave downtown its one advantage. But places like Winter Park Village, Waterford Lakes and Pointe Orlando to a lesser extent are still much more attractive to locals trying to enjoy a night. Why should anyone go downtown when restaurants become fewer and prices become higher?

The end result will be fewer aggregate employees working downtown. With less demand for downtown storefronts, property will decrease in value. When property value decreases so will the property tax revenue derived from such. This will cause a deficit or a greater cut in city spending and services.

There is no free money. Every action the government takes will result in some reaction. When you start messing with people’s businesses, you run the risk of putting them out of business. If Storefront rent and regulation are cheaper outside the city, why should they choose to stay?

This sort of thing has been happening in bigger cities all over the country. Politicians that want to get re-elected steal from business and property owners to pay for their re-election. What good does any campaign finance reform do when politicians can just transfer money from a group with few votes to a group with many votes?

John Lindsey nearly wrecked New York City in the 1960s trying to provide all things to all people. It took 30 years to turn the city back around. Orlando shouldn’t let Buddy Dyer make the same mistakes.

It was a shame that I was introduced to Charles Bronson (1921-2003) at a time when he made his worst movies. Luckily first impressions didn't stick. I came to find Bronson a very compelling though understated actor. A shame he wasn't given better material through his career. At least there are a few classics to consider.

Here are my favorites:

THE GREAT ESCAPE (1963) - Bronson was part of the large ensemble that featured Steve McQueen most prominently. I've seen it several times even at its nearly three-hour length. Bronson plays the tunnel digger that gets a bad case of claustrophobia.

THE DIRTY DOZEN (1967) - A great ensemble film with Bronson one of the most heroic of prison inmates that are let out of jail to kill some Nazis.

ONCE UPON A TIME IN THE WEST (1968) - Bronson plays the loner who seeks the killer of his brother. Jason Robards plays the roguishly heroic outlaw. Henry Fonda plays a believably eerie villain. Sergio Leone made too few films and this might be his all-time best.

THE MECHANIC (1972) - Not a great film, but an entertaining one with Bronson not changing oil, but killing for hire.

DEATH WISH (1974) - Not to be confused with the endless and worthless sequels. Bronson's wife is murdered and his daughter is raped. The cops are no help. They probably have speeding tickets to write. Bronson takes to the streets and starts killing bad guys, wherever he may find them. It's a great psychological study especially as Bronson starts to enjoy the job.

HARD TIMES (1975) - This movie isn't talked about nearly enough. Charles Bronson plays a depression era street fighter for money. James Colburn plays the promoter who gets the action. The men have a falling out and then are forced back together. Both actors are great. Walter Hill wrote and directed.