Movie star Andy Garcia's controversial new movie The Lost City has been banned in parts of South America because it depicts romantic revolutionary Ernesto 'Che' Guevara in a terrible light. The Ocean's Twelve star spent years trying to get the project made, only for film festival bosses and cinema chains to shun the movie because it tells the truth about the Marxist guerilla leader and the Cubans slayed as he fought to revolutionize the country and hand Fidel Castro leadership.
Garcia, who wrote, directed and stars in the film, says, "There have been festivals that wouldn't show it. That will continue to happen from people who don't want to see the image of Che be tarnished and from people who support the Castro regime. He still has a lot of supporters out there. Some people think Castro is a savior, that he looks out for the kids and the poor. It's a bunch of hogwash.
In the 45 years since Castro came to power, Cuba has been in the top three countries for human rights abuses for 43 of those years. People turn a blind eye to his atrocities."
A Blog of Current Events and Ancient Issues.
Friday, April 28, 2006
GUTSY
Wednesday, April 26, 2006
MAYBE WE SHOULD BLAME THE LAWMAKERS
I'm no fan of the IRS, but the point of having that agency is to de-politicize the tax collecting process. If we let Senators get into the business of overseeing individual or corporate tax records then we're but a step away from politicians using the power of government and tax laws to target their political opponents.
It's laughable hearing about excess profits. Oil companies have to be successful in order to continue to provide oil, something we all need. The more money they make, the more successful they are. The idea that they only need to be successful enough to deliver the oil without offending us too much is downright nonsense. Oil price is a component of supply and demand. The U.S. government has through its policies limited the supply of gasoline through environmental legislation and we're all paying the price at the pumps for that alone.
If we must dig into the records, I'd like to see a clear breakdown of how many gallons of gasoline Exxon sold last year and how much money they made on each gallon versus how much local, state and federal governments made on each gallon. Here in Orlando the total tax bill for a gallon of gas is over 39 cents. If Senators are going to blame someone for the high price of gasoline, it would only be fair to breakdown the government's own culpability.
An economist should have no trouble figuring out the real cost of gas if the supply were unfettered by legislation, the environment were not a factor and taxes on the end result were nil. That's the number we should be looking at and then deciding whether the government intrusion is worth the final price.
A Senate committee Wednesday announced an investigation into taxes paid by major oil companies and asked the Internal Revenue Service for the companies' tax returns.
The Senate Finance Committee promised "a comprehensive review of the federal taxes paid" by the oil companies on their record profits last year.
Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, the committee's chairman, said the panel was concerned about high profits and executive compensation at oil companies.
"I want to make sure the oil companies aren't taking a speed pass by the tax man," said Grassley in a statement.
With gasoline prices soaring and oil companies announcing record profits, "it's relevant to know what the real financial picture is for this industry," Montana Sen. Max Baucus, the ranking Democrat on the committee, said.
I'm no fan of the IRS, but the point of having that agency is to de-politicize the tax collecting process. If we let Senators get into the business of overseeing individual or corporate tax records then we're but a step away from politicians using the power of government and tax laws to target their political opponents.
It's laughable hearing about excess profits. Oil companies have to be successful in order to continue to provide oil, something we all need. The more money they make, the more successful they are. The idea that they only need to be successful enough to deliver the oil without offending us too much is downright nonsense. Oil price is a component of supply and demand. The U.S. government has through its policies limited the supply of gasoline through environmental legislation and we're all paying the price at the pumps for that alone.
If we must dig into the records, I'd like to see a clear breakdown of how many gallons of gasoline Exxon sold last year and how much money they made on each gallon versus how much local, state and federal governments made on each gallon. Here in Orlando the total tax bill for a gallon of gas is over 39 cents. If Senators are going to blame someone for the high price of gasoline, it would only be fair to breakdown the government's own culpability.
An economist should have no trouble figuring out the real cost of gas if the supply were unfettered by legislation, the environment were not a factor and taxes on the end result were nil. That's the number we should be looking at and then deciding whether the government intrusion is worth the final price.
THE COST OF ENERGY
The Media looks at the price of gas, but not the overall cost of energy comparied to income.
The same media scenerio plays out with cancer. We keep hearing about rising cancer rates and theories that everything causes cancer. Meanwhile, American longevity has increased so much in the last century that Social Security is bankrupting us.
The Media looks at the price of gas, but not the overall cost of energy comparied to income.
But what's more interesting about these stories is what they don't tell you. For example, the Associated Press reports that "surveys indicate drivers won't be easing off on their mileage, using even more gas than a year ago." Now why is that? If prices are rising, one would expect consumers would use less.
The answer might be in some of the long-term trends that the short-term media lens is too cramped to see. Energy prices may be rising, but energy itself is much less important to consumers and to the overall economy than it once was.
According to the Bureau of Economic Affairs ( see chart here), American consumer spending on energy as a fraction of total personal consumption has declined considerably since 1980. Whereas 25 years ago, one in every ten consumer dollars was spent on energy, today it's one in every 16. In other words, what it takes to heat and cool our homes and drive to and from our jobs and vacation destinations is relatively less costly than it was then.
The same media scenerio plays out with cancer. We keep hearing about rising cancer rates and theories that everything causes cancer. Meanwhile, American longevity has increased so much in the last century that Social Security is bankrupting us.
Monday, April 24, 2006
GOOD NIGHT AND GOOD LUCK (2005) (A Movie Review)
Making my way through the list of 2005 award winners brought the acclaimed George Clooney offering. Clooney decided to shoot the film in that period black and white to resemble the way we may have seen clips of Edward R. Murrow on TV.
The point of the movie is to drive home for the umpteenth time that Joe McCarthy was a louse and he nearly ruined America. Thankfully, Clooney assumes we already know this about McCarthy so here we simply see Murrow take issue with wild and unsubstantiated statements made by McCarthy. It was a hell of an idea that Murrow had, really. I suppose Clooney was dismayed that John Kerry’s many misstatements about his war record weren’t fully covered during the 2004 campaign and he wanted to remind the press that they have duty to uncover the real record. When McCarthy claimed that 200 people in the state department were agents of the Soviet Union, I kept thinking about John Kerry claim that he was on an illegal mission to Cambodia sanctioned by the Nixon Administration during the Christmas of 1968. It was seered in his memory, was it not? Where was Murrow to ask Kerry why President-elect Nixon wielded such power? Good job, Clooney, you made your point well.
My favorite part of the film were the nuances that captured the flavor of 1950s culture and corporate life. That Patricia Clarkson and Robert Downey Jr. must pretend not to be married in order to retain their CBS jobs provides a few laughs. The smoking commercials add nice flavor as well.
The shame of Joe McCarthy is that he has become the goat that the Left uses to stain the entire anti-communist era in America. It’s the equivalent of summing up the whole Civil Rights struggle based on Jesse Jackson’s race-pimping and corporate shakedowns. Every big cause has its opportunists and that the Left continues to return to McCarthy would suggest that he was the last powerful man to try those tactics when they themselves have learned to use them oh so sweetly.
If Clooney must make a point about the red scare, I’d like to see him tackle the Chambers/Hiss case which was actually a much bigger deal back when the intelligencia pegged Hiss as an innocent man. That outrage has quietly faded since the release of the Venona Papers. Coincidently, the release of the Venona Papers showed that McCarthy's claim of numerous communists in the state Department was just about right although he never knew it.
What a shame that Clooney is mired in bugaboos when he is such a talented and engaging screen personality with a great eye for directing. Movies last forever while fashionable causes gently fade away. I, for one, am glad that Cary Grant didn't spend his time making a film about FDR's court packing scheme or his supposed foreknowledge of Pear Harbor.
PS: Dude's comment about using the real McCarthy made me realize another point. It's to Clooney's credit that he'd let the real McCarthy speak. Clooney's issues with that aspect of the cold war are honest enough that he doesn't need the Randy Quaid to play up all the caricatured aspects that the Left would have loved. The result was that we were able to decide how much of a menace he really was and the real McCarthy hardly seemed dangerous compared to the monster we always hear about. He seems about as opportunistic as any current guy on Capitol Hill.
Making my way through the list of 2005 award winners brought the acclaimed George Clooney offering. Clooney decided to shoot the film in that period black and white to resemble the way we may have seen clips of Edward R. Murrow on TV.
The point of the movie is to drive home for the umpteenth time that Joe McCarthy was a louse and he nearly ruined America. Thankfully, Clooney assumes we already know this about McCarthy so here we simply see Murrow take issue with wild and unsubstantiated statements made by McCarthy. It was a hell of an idea that Murrow had, really. I suppose Clooney was dismayed that John Kerry’s many misstatements about his war record weren’t fully covered during the 2004 campaign and he wanted to remind the press that they have duty to uncover the real record. When McCarthy claimed that 200 people in the state department were agents of the Soviet Union, I kept thinking about John Kerry claim that he was on an illegal mission to Cambodia sanctioned by the Nixon Administration during the Christmas of 1968. It was seered in his memory, was it not? Where was Murrow to ask Kerry why President-elect Nixon wielded such power? Good job, Clooney, you made your point well.
My favorite part of the film were the nuances that captured the flavor of 1950s culture and corporate life. That Patricia Clarkson and Robert Downey Jr. must pretend not to be married in order to retain their CBS jobs provides a few laughs. The smoking commercials add nice flavor as well.
The shame of Joe McCarthy is that he has become the goat that the Left uses to stain the entire anti-communist era in America. It’s the equivalent of summing up the whole Civil Rights struggle based on Jesse Jackson’s race-pimping and corporate shakedowns. Every big cause has its opportunists and that the Left continues to return to McCarthy would suggest that he was the last powerful man to try those tactics when they themselves have learned to use them oh so sweetly.
If Clooney must make a point about the red scare, I’d like to see him tackle the Chambers/Hiss case which was actually a much bigger deal back when the intelligencia pegged Hiss as an innocent man. That outrage has quietly faded since the release of the Venona Papers. Coincidently, the release of the Venona Papers showed that McCarthy's claim of numerous communists in the state Department was just about right although he never knew it.
What a shame that Clooney is mired in bugaboos when he is such a talented and engaging screen personality with a great eye for directing. Movies last forever while fashionable causes gently fade away. I, for one, am glad that Cary Grant didn't spend his time making a film about FDR's court packing scheme or his supposed foreknowledge of Pear Harbor.
PS: Dude's comment about using the real McCarthy made me realize another point. It's to Clooney's credit that he'd let the real McCarthy speak. Clooney's issues with that aspect of the cold war are honest enough that he doesn't need the Randy Quaid to play up all the caricatured aspects that the Left would have loved. The result was that we were able to decide how much of a menace he really was and the real McCarthy hardly seemed dangerous compared to the monster we always hear about. He seems about as opportunistic as any current guy on Capitol Hill.
Sunday, April 23, 2006
STRANGE ENDING
Some of you may remember the story I told last summer about Sir Saunders testifying in the Logan Young case in Memphis. Young was the Alabama Football booster convicted of racketeering, also known as paying a poor kid to play at Bama. It looks like Young stayed out of jail and then. . .
That's the official story anyway. The article also says that people are dubious of the Memphis police's findings.
Some of you may remember the story I told last summer about Sir Saunders testifying in the Logan Young case in Memphis. Young was the Alabama Football booster convicted of racketeering, also known as paying a poor kid to play at Bama. It looks like Young stayed out of jail and then. . .
The morning of April 11, a housekeeper arrived at 226 East Goodwyn St. for her typical Tuesday shift at (Logan) Young's home. She noticed blood throughout the house, and when she peeked into Young's bedroom a bit before 9 a.m., she found him dead on the floor. In a 911 call released last week, the housekeeper, identified only as "Amy," said Young had been beaten to death.
Memphis police arrived within minutes, but they could not study the scene or handle objects in the house until receiving permission from Young's family or obtaining a warrant. Memphis Police public information officer Sgt. Vince Higgins said that process took much of Tuesday morning. In the interim, he said, officers observed the scene and began to draw conclusions.
Hearing what they were saying, and seeing TV crews and newspaper reporters gathering outside the home, Higgins decided to make a statement. He described Young's death as "brutal" and said police would need dental and fingerprint records to identify the body, which appeared to be the victim of a homicide.
"That was a mistake," Higgins said this past Thursday. "We probably gave out too much information too soon, and it was obviously inaccurate."
After a two-day investigation, police and the local medical examiner's office ruled the death accidental, saying Young died from blunt force trauma after slipping on an interior staircase and bashing his head on an iron post at the bottom.
Higgins said investigators found no forensic evidence of a homicide, no signs of forced entry, robbery or a struggle existed, and only one set of bloody shoe prints was discovered.
Police surmised that Young stumbled from his kitchen to his bathroom to his bedroom in the next few hours, employing newspapers and towels to stop the bleeding. A source with knowledge of the investigation told the Sentinel that Young was taking blood thinners and diuretics to help heal from an October kidney transplant; the medicine would have made stopping the bleeding difficult.
That's the official story anyway. The article also says that people are dubious of the Memphis police's findings.
Friday, April 21, 2006
IMMIGRATION: A contrary Libertarian opinion
There are a lot of arguments to be made that unfettered illegal immigration is a tremedous strain on our culture which could eventually lead America away from the tenants of its founding and on to the cozy and then lukewarm bath of mediocrity. America moreso than any country invented its own culture and it can re-invent the culture to the tune of how many voters want to be trendy rather than savvy.
A lot of people come to this country not to be Americans, but to make more money. And there is something about their pursuit of this money that seems to be lost in the debate. As a Follower of libertarian thought, I have been surprised that a number of libertarians are perfectly happy with no borders at all. Traditional liberals have said that illegals are thriving in this country because they will work for less and they are therefore depressing wages. Libertarians make the case that it's only happening because the government has arificially created a minimum wage that doesn't take into consideration people's actual job skills. So they both agree on the lower wages, one thinks it is peachy, while the other thinks it's trecherous.
Minimum wage is typical populist nonsense masquerading as compassion, no doubt, but if we let Mexicans illegally do this work on the cheap we will depress wages enough that Congress will see poverty. Citizen taxpayers will have to make up the difference in government programs, first to the old workers that lost their jobs and then to the new illegals that have trouble living on the new wage. Children of illegals that pay no taxes are are freely attending public schools all over the country, for instance.
Businesses have been inching to the Left as they realize that corporate welfare is actually a pretty good substitute for profit-earning, because it's money you can collect without having to do that rough and tumble competition fight. Letting corporations hire illegals and then putting the effects back on the tax payer is hidden corporate welfare and that might be one the reasons that this fight has been so tepid. Democrats love welfare and Republicans love corporations.
There are a lot of arguments to be made that unfettered illegal immigration is a tremedous strain on our culture which could eventually lead America away from the tenants of its founding and on to the cozy and then lukewarm bath of mediocrity. America moreso than any country invented its own culture and it can re-invent the culture to the tune of how many voters want to be trendy rather than savvy.
A lot of people come to this country not to be Americans, but to make more money. And there is something about their pursuit of this money that seems to be lost in the debate. As a Follower of libertarian thought, I have been surprised that a number of libertarians are perfectly happy with no borders at all. Traditional liberals have said that illegals are thriving in this country because they will work for less and they are therefore depressing wages. Libertarians make the case that it's only happening because the government has arificially created a minimum wage that doesn't take into consideration people's actual job skills. So they both agree on the lower wages, one thinks it is peachy, while the other thinks it's trecherous.
Minimum wage is typical populist nonsense masquerading as compassion, no doubt, but if we let Mexicans illegally do this work on the cheap we will depress wages enough that Congress will see poverty. Citizen taxpayers will have to make up the difference in government programs, first to the old workers that lost their jobs and then to the new illegals that have trouble living on the new wage. Children of illegals that pay no taxes are are freely attending public schools all over the country, for instance.
Businesses have been inching to the Left as they realize that corporate welfare is actually a pretty good substitute for profit-earning, because it's money you can collect without having to do that rough and tumble competition fight. Letting corporations hire illegals and then putting the effects back on the tax payer is hidden corporate welfare and that might be one the reasons that this fight has been so tepid. Democrats love welfare and Republicans love corporations.
Thursday, April 13, 2006
NEGATIVE BUSH NEWS page 1 -- BETTER BUSH NEWS page 17
So it goes at the NY Times:
It's that last paragraph that's hilarious. They missed the court filing and then buried on page 17 when they got around to it. Paper of record, ha.
So it goes at the NY Times:
Corrections
Published: April 13, 2006Editors' Note
A front-page article in some copies on Sunday reported that a top aide to Vice President Dick Cheney said he had been authorized to disclose to a reporter that one of the key judgments in a 2002 National Intelligence Estimate was that Iraq was "vigorously trying to procure uranium." The assertion about the aide, I. Lewis Libby Jr., was based on a court filing last Wednesday by Patrick J. Fitzgerald, the special prosecutor overseeing the indictment of Mr. Libby in the C.I.A. leak case.
Yesterday, Mr. Fitzgerald filed a letter with the court correcting his original filing to say Mr. Libby had been authorized to disclose "some of the key judgments of the N.I.E., and that the N.I.E. stated that Iraq was vigorously trying to procure uranium." This revised account of his filing undercut a basis of the Times article — that Mr. Libby testified that he had been told to overstate the significance of the intelligence about uranium.
Although Mr. Fitzgerald formally filed his corrective yesterday, accounts of it were provided to some news organizations on Tuesday night, and were the basis for news articles yesterday. The Times did not publish one, as other organizations did, because a telephone message and an e-mail message about the court filing went unnoticed at the newspaper. An article on the filing appears today, on Page A17. (Go to Article)
It's that last paragraph that's hilarious. They missed the court filing and then buried on page 17 when they got around to it. Paper of record, ha.
Wednesday, April 12, 2006
Monday, April 10, 2006
THE MEDIA
If you ever needed proof that the media pushes a position rather than seeks to learn truth go no further than Bush's speech at John Hopkins University. After his speech the floor was opened to questions by students that were more interesting and thoughtful than anything you'd see from the pros. Instead of the usual going through the motions, Bush was suprised at the thoughtfullness of the queries.
Can you imagine the media even bringing up the subject without the saying "Haliburton."
If you ever needed proof that the media pushes a position rather than seeks to learn truth go no further than Bush's speech at John Hopkins University. After his speech the floor was opened to questions by students that were more interesting and thoughtful than anything you'd see from the pros. Instead of the usual going through the motions, Bush was suprised at the thoughtfullness of the queries.
My question is in regards to private military contractors. Uniform Code of Military Justice does not apply to these contractors in Iraq. I asked your Secretary of Defense a couple months ago what law governs their actions. Mr. Rumsfeld answered that Iraq has its own domestic laws which he assumed applied to those private military contractors. However, Iraq is clearly not currently capable of enforcing its laws, much less against -- over our American military contractors. I would submit to you that in this case, this is one case that privatization is not a solution. And, Mr. President, how do you propose to bring private military contractors under a system of law?
Can you imagine the media even bringing up the subject without the saying "Haliburton."
--I also feel very strongly about freedom, although I see it in terms of human trafficking. Your administration takes a very strong stance against prostitution. Because of that you do not disperse funds to a lot of very effective NGOs around the world who pragmatically combat sex trafficking by working with existing prostitution networks. There's no evidence right now that proves either legalizing prostitution or criminalizing prostitution has any effect in the change of sex-trafficking cases. Have you considered changing your ideas about prostitution for the purposes of helping either save or keep people from being enslaved in sex prostitution?
--You haven't spoken directly about economic development this morning. And I would like to know where economic development lies on your priority list? And also, looking at countries that maybe haven't, in your words, gotten everything right in terms of political stability or democratization, is holding development funds -- keeping development funds from those countries actually counterproductive? Because if you can help the country to develop economically, maybe some of these underlying tensions might dissipate.
--I'm a first-year master's candidate. In two years, the American political system will face a unique moment in its history, for, in fact, a sitting Vice President will decline the nomination for the presidency. What are the implications for the Republican Party, your legacy, and, if you could choose, who would your successor be? Thank you
Thursday, April 06, 2006
BIG BEN
We took the kids to see Ben Franklin at the public library yesterday. He is making the rounds for his 300th birthday. We took two biographies and THE WIT AND WISDOM OF BEN FRANKLIN for him to sign and he had the signature nailed. He drew a good crowd and the kids seemed to know a lot about him. I like to do stuff like that.
We took the kids to see Ben Franklin at the public library yesterday. He is making the rounds for his 300th birthday. We took two biographies and THE WIT AND WISDOM OF BEN FRANKLIN for him to sign and he had the signature nailed. He drew a good crowd and the kids seemed to know a lot about him. I like to do stuff like that.
Monday, April 03, 2006
Thursday, March 30, 2006
AMERICA THE BEAUTIFUL, AND NOT ASHAMED OF IT
Peggy Noonan weighs in on the real problem of immigration. Unfortunately she does not offer a solution, and maybe there isn't one.
Peggy Noonan weighs in on the real problem of immigration. Unfortunately she does not offer a solution, and maybe there isn't one.
It's the broad public knowledge, or intuition, in America, that we are not assimilating our immigrants patriotically. And if you don't do that, you'll lose it all.
We used to do it. We loved our country with full-throated love, we had no ambivalence. We had pride and appreciation. We were a free country. We communicated our pride and delight in this in a million ways--in our schools, our movies, our popular songs, our newspapers. It was just there, in the air. Immigrants breathed it in. That's how the last great wave of immigrants, the European wave of 1880-1920, was turned into a great wave of Americans.
We are not assimilating our immigrants patriotically now. We are assimilating them culturally. Within a generation their children speak Valley Girl on cell phones. "So I'm like 'no," and he's all 'yeah,' and I'm like, 'In your dreams.' " Whether their parents are from Trinidad, Bosnia, Lebanon or Chile, their children, once Americans, know the same music, the same references, watch the same shows. And to a degree and in a way it will hold them together. But not forever and not in a crunch.
So far we are assimilating our immigrants economically, too. They come here and work. Good. But we are not communicating love of country. We are not giving them the great legend of our country. We are losing that great legend.
What is the legend, the myth? That God made this a special place. That they're joining something special. That the streets are paved with more than gold--they're paved with the greatest thoughts man ever had, the greatest decisions he ever made, about how to live. We have free thought, free speech, freedom of worship.
Look at the literature of the Republic: the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, the Federalist papers. Look at the great rich history, the courage and sacrifice, the house-raisings, the stubbornness. The Puritans, the Indians, the City on a Hill.
The genius cluster--Jefferson, Hamilton, Adams, Madison, Franklin, all the rest--that came along at the exact same moment to lead us. And then Washington, a great man in the greatest way, not in unearned gifts well used (i.e., a high IQ followed by high attainment) but in character, in moral nature effortfully developed. How did that happen?
We fought a war to free slaves. We sent millions of white men to battle and destroyed a portion of our nation to free millions of black men. What kind of nation does this? We went to Europe, fought, died and won, and then taxed ourselves to save our enemies with the Marshall Plan. What kind of nation does this? Soviet communism stalked the world and we were the ones who steeled ourselves and taxed ourselves to stop it. Again: What kind of nation does this?
Only a very great one. Maybe the greatest of all.
Do we teach our immigrants that this is what they're joining? That this is the tradition they will now continue, and uphold? Do we, today, act as if this is such a special place? No we don't. American exceptionalism is so yesterday. We don't want to be impolite. We don't want to offend. We don't want to seem narrow. In the age of globalism, honest patriotism seems like a faux pas.
And yet what is true of people is probably true of nations: if you don't have a well-grounded respect for yourself, you won't long sustain a well-grounded respect for others.
DAY REAGAN WAS SHOT
25 years ago today. I was in the 6th grade. I don't remember if the teacher had told us or if it came over the loudspeaker. It had only been 2 months since his swearing in and I got into trouble for hanging out in the music room watching it with the 5th grade instead of returning to class after recess. It was certainly one moment of civil disobedience I don't regret. The teacher gave me a stern look when I returned, but later asked me what Reagan said in his speech.
Just a few night ago I watched THE DAY REAGAN WAS SHOT on DVD. It was produced by Oliver Stone so the basis was how Alexander Haig put us on the brink of nuclear war with his pompous attitude. Whatever. Richard Crenna plays Reagan and quite well. He doesn't give that characatured James Brolin impersonation act. Richard Dreyfuss plays Haig crazier than you've ever seen him. I remember the "I'm in charge here" commnent by Haig and even as a kid thought it anything but a power play despite the media's tizzy. Dreyfuss's Haig is like some sort of inquisition cardinal arguing with the rest of priests.
The good news is that with Haig taking all the heat, Ron, Nancy, Howard Baker, George Bush, Cap Weinberger and company all come off as decent people. It made the thing quite compelling despite the conspiracy theories.
25 years ago today. I was in the 6th grade. I don't remember if the teacher had told us or if it came over the loudspeaker. It had only been 2 months since his swearing in and I got into trouble for hanging out in the music room watching it with the 5th grade instead of returning to class after recess. It was certainly one moment of civil disobedience I don't regret. The teacher gave me a stern look when I returned, but later asked me what Reagan said in his speech.
Just a few night ago I watched THE DAY REAGAN WAS SHOT on DVD. It was produced by Oliver Stone so the basis was how Alexander Haig put us on the brink of nuclear war with his pompous attitude. Whatever. Richard Crenna plays Reagan and quite well. He doesn't give that characatured James Brolin impersonation act. Richard Dreyfuss plays Haig crazier than you've ever seen him. I remember the "I'm in charge here" commnent by Haig and even as a kid thought it anything but a power play despite the media's tizzy. Dreyfuss's Haig is like some sort of inquisition cardinal arguing with the rest of priests.
The good news is that with Haig taking all the heat, Ron, Nancy, Howard Baker, George Bush, Cap Weinberger and company all come off as decent people. It made the thing quite compelling despite the conspiracy theories.
Wednesday, March 29, 2006
REMEMBER BACK IN 1992?
I bought a stand-alone DVD burner a few weeks ago and have been in the process of turning the old VHS tapes into DVDS. I threw away about 80% of my VHS in 2001, but kept the things that I couldn't ever buy on DVD.
Tonight I'm recording the 1992 Republican Convention and it's notable for a number of things, Pat Buchanan's infamous speech, Reagan's last major address, and Dan Quayle's last major address. I didn't remember that Bob Dole gave a pretty good speech between Quayle and Bush. These days it seems that VPs and Presidents give their speeches on different nights. George W. Bush can be seen with a full head of brown hair sitting next to Barbara in the box.
Everybody is using the "I didn't inhale" line as part of their shtick, at varying degrees of effectiveness. Reagan even refers to
I noticed that Quayle's oldest son doesn't clap for anything, even his own father, despite the fact that Marylin and the other kids seem to be enthusiastic. Kay Bailey Hutchison shows up as a state office holder in Texas. Condoleza Rice shows up and speaks earlier that night listed as a former assistant NSA person under Bush 41. Even the new people are older than we think.
A bunch of speakers kept calling for term limits, the line item veto and a Republican congress. Little did they know that Bush's defeat would lead to all of this just two years later. Though, of course, Republicans forgot term limits and the court struck down the line item veto. Yeah the only thing we seemed to have gotten was guys with an (R) next to their name that spend a lot of money. I was so idealistic in 1992.
Leading into Bush 41's speech was a little documentary narrated by Robert Mitchum. Always a fan of Mitchum, I forgot this detail and confirmed it on IMDB. I also learned that Mitchum was one of the few
Speaking of
The 1992 convention became notorious in the media, especially because of Buchanan. The media spent two years talking about how it split the party and what not. But this ineffective convention that lead to defeat really set the stage for the 1994 Congressional takeover based on ideas over personalities. The 1992 loss was a blessing in disguise in that we wound up with a decent sized tax cut. But much of what could have been done hasn't been done and since this is the first year where there majority seems to be in trouble, it's criminal how they wasted such an opportunity.
Anyway, 1992 is a classic. I'm glad I didn't throw it away.
Saturday, March 25, 2006
LESSONS OF THE COLD WAR
Something John Derbyshire blogged yesterday got me to thinking.
Bush 41 took a lot of heat a few years ago for "not finishing the job in Iraq" by liberals opposed to finishing the job in 2003. I think Derb's thinking here mirrors Bush 41's thinking back then. He pretty much beat Saddam up, but rather than create a power vacuum with Iran next door, he decided that containing Hussein would result in fewer lives lost and more stability in the region. I think Bush made a reasonable decision at the time. The containment approach was also essential considering Congress had only authorized Bush to follow the charter of the United Nations and they didn't have the stomach for much more than getting Hussein out of Kuwait and away from the Saudi border.
What Bush 41 didn't anticipate was being defeated for re-election. Clinton had no desire to keep Saddam to the cease-fire agreement. Saddam was constantly pushing the limits of the no-fly zone and shooting at allied planes. He was skimming money out of the oil for food program. Clinton let his violations go on without punishment or worry. His administration was far more concerned with religious Zealots minding their own business in Waco, Texas. And, of course, if we're talking about how U.S. action creates terrorists we cannot forget that the Waco debacle resulted in Timothy McVeigh and the Oklahoma City bombing.
One essential reason for removing Saddam in 2003, and no administration official can say it out loud, is that Republicans cannot take for granted that future Democrats in the White House will focus on containment. In the post Vietnam era, Democrats no longer have the stomach to back up their threats with action, and therefore the world knows that American interests will not be fought for. Democrats will solve European problems like Serbia or Caribbean problems like Haiti, but they will not take hard stand on American interests. We may think that these tin horn dictators are ignorant of our ways, but they understand the division with American politics enough that they can just wait Republicans out for a Democrat.
By going to Iraq and letting the Iraqi people re-shape their own future, it keeps Democrats from backing down. If one is elected in 2008 it will make them take the Middle East situation more seriously. A failure in Iraq post Saddam will be the failure of whatever president is at the helm.
Had a Republican like Dewey or Taft been President at the end of World War II, the Russian/American problem may have taken a different track. The cold war may have ended before it began. But since Truman invented containment, it became the Democrat alternative to all-out war up and through 1968 and the Vietnam protests. By the time Carter came around, containment meant little more than boycotting the Olympics. Reagan ended the cold war not just by out-spending them, but spending enough money that they realized he was serious about fighting if it came to that. It was the "evil empire" attitude that made them think seriously. His idea of containment had muscle behind it.
Without Reagan, I'm sure that Russia would have had to evolve their economy to makeup for the scarcity that communism creates. I'm sure it would be more open today than it was in 1980. But I'm not sure it would have dissolved already. I tend to think modern day Russian would be more like China with more economic freedom but still little political freedom. Look at Castro and how he can survive after 45 years of American sanctions. The economic part is important, but the muscle part is what makes the change.
The Democrat party is split down the middle between moderates that will fight an enemy to America and lefties that consider America the villain in any confrontation. Since the moderates cannot win without the lefties, they end up having to back down to get elected. Liberal Blogs like Daily Kos hate Hilary Clinton for trying to take the moderate position on Iraq. Don't even mention Joe Lieberman around there. Among the grass roots, Howard Dean is considered the savior of the party.
Which brings up the question if American leftists hate war, why don’t they show the strength that prevents most wars? Because they hate American power more than they hate war. That’s why instead of honoring the troops they focus on the failures and casualty rates. They’d rather see a long war with more dying that discredits America than a quick war that emboldens America. Remember how they predicted mass casualties before we invaded Iraq and then showed not the least bit of relief when we stormed Baghdad mostly unhindered? It’s not all Democrats that feel this way, it’s probably a minority, but that minority is essential to their coalition.
Containment only works if everyone is on board. This reality means that Republicans have to fight more direct wars with unconditional surrender rather than sit back and let Democrats lose the peace.
Something John Derbyshire blogged yesterday got me to thinking.
A few inconsequential "rollback" exercises aside (Grenada, El Salvador), the Cold War was a war of containment. The object was to prevent the advance of totalitarian communism, most especially its futher advance into Europe, then seen as the heartland of Western Civ. The bet we placed was that communism was such a lousy way of organizing a society that it would eventually turn into something else, something less threatening. The bet worked with Russia.
Islamofascism is much less of a threat -- economically, militarily, and culturally -- than communism. Why would containment not work just as well, with the expectation that these societies would crumble and change even faster than the communists did? We'd need to be vigilant against fanatical terrorists of the 9/11 type, and against moves in the MME to develop nuclear weapons. The second of those must surely be easy, though -- just a matter of decent intelligence and an occasional Osirak-type military action. For the first, we need to keep out foreign Islamofascists the way we used to keep out foreign communists, and to keep a close watch on any home-grown ones we might produce, and to publicly demonize Islamofascism -- teaching our kids that it's evil, turning out movies and TV dramas that show it as an enemy, and so on. (Where is our Efrem Zimbalist, Jr. for this "new Cold War"?) Now THAT would be using the Cold War as a model! Unfortunately, it would fly in the face of all the dogmas of tolerance, diversity, and multiculturalism that our society nowadays holds to be precious and inviolable.
Bush 41 took a lot of heat a few years ago for "not finishing the job in Iraq" by liberals opposed to finishing the job in 2003. I think Derb's thinking here mirrors Bush 41's thinking back then. He pretty much beat Saddam up, but rather than create a power vacuum with Iran next door, he decided that containing Hussein would result in fewer lives lost and more stability in the region. I think Bush made a reasonable decision at the time. The containment approach was also essential considering Congress had only authorized Bush to follow the charter of the United Nations and they didn't have the stomach for much more than getting Hussein out of Kuwait and away from the Saudi border.
What Bush 41 didn't anticipate was being defeated for re-election. Clinton had no desire to keep Saddam to the cease-fire agreement. Saddam was constantly pushing the limits of the no-fly zone and shooting at allied planes. He was skimming money out of the oil for food program. Clinton let his violations go on without punishment or worry. His administration was far more concerned with religious Zealots minding their own business in Waco, Texas. And, of course, if we're talking about how U.S. action creates terrorists we cannot forget that the Waco debacle resulted in Timothy McVeigh and the Oklahoma City bombing.
One essential reason for removing Saddam in 2003, and no administration official can say it out loud, is that Republicans cannot take for granted that future Democrats in the White House will focus on containment. In the post Vietnam era, Democrats no longer have the stomach to back up their threats with action, and therefore the world knows that American interests will not be fought for. Democrats will solve European problems like Serbia or Caribbean problems like Haiti, but they will not take hard stand on American interests. We may think that these tin horn dictators are ignorant of our ways, but they understand the division with American politics enough that they can just wait Republicans out for a Democrat.
By going to Iraq and letting the Iraqi people re-shape their own future, it keeps Democrats from backing down. If one is elected in 2008 it will make them take the Middle East situation more seriously. A failure in Iraq post Saddam will be the failure of whatever president is at the helm.
Had a Republican like Dewey or Taft been President at the end of World War II, the Russian/American problem may have taken a different track. The cold war may have ended before it began. But since Truman invented containment, it became the Democrat alternative to all-out war up and through 1968 and the Vietnam protests. By the time Carter came around, containment meant little more than boycotting the Olympics. Reagan ended the cold war not just by out-spending them, but spending enough money that they realized he was serious about fighting if it came to that. It was the "evil empire" attitude that made them think seriously. His idea of containment had muscle behind it.
Without Reagan, I'm sure that Russia would have had to evolve their economy to makeup for the scarcity that communism creates. I'm sure it would be more open today than it was in 1980. But I'm not sure it would have dissolved already. I tend to think modern day Russian would be more like China with more economic freedom but still little political freedom. Look at Castro and how he can survive after 45 years of American sanctions. The economic part is important, but the muscle part is what makes the change.
The Democrat party is split down the middle between moderates that will fight an enemy to America and lefties that consider America the villain in any confrontation. Since the moderates cannot win without the lefties, they end up having to back down to get elected. Liberal Blogs like Daily Kos hate Hilary Clinton for trying to take the moderate position on Iraq. Don't even mention Joe Lieberman around there. Among the grass roots, Howard Dean is considered the savior of the party.
Which brings up the question if American leftists hate war, why don’t they show the strength that prevents most wars? Because they hate American power more than they hate war. That’s why instead of honoring the troops they focus on the failures and casualty rates. They’d rather see a long war with more dying that discredits America than a quick war that emboldens America. Remember how they predicted mass casualties before we invaded Iraq and then showed not the least bit of relief when we stormed Baghdad mostly unhindered? It’s not all Democrats that feel this way, it’s probably a minority, but that minority is essential to their coalition.
Containment only works if everyone is on board. This reality means that Republicans have to fight more direct wars with unconditional surrender rather than sit back and let Democrats lose the peace.
Thursday, March 23, 2006
AMERICA BAD, WORLD GOOD, SAYS LUCAS
So Hollywood is exporting Americanism and doggone if it doesn't make people want to be Americans. Funny that he had to cite a 20 year old TV show to make his point about modern films.
George Lucas grew up as a middle class kid and became a billionaire by doing the things that he naturally loved doing. The world is full of artists and potential filmmakers with more talent that he, and yet they're trapped under the boot of poverty or some dictator and usually both. The export of American culture has helped end some of the repressive regimes and the job isn't over. Even Hollywood that does all it can to show capitalism as equal to corruption cannot hide the fact that people are free in so many ways.
Lucas made a daring trilogy in his youth that used classical Roman politics to create a cold war parable about good and evil. It was not only great entertainment, but it was uniquely American in its outlook. Sometime after he finished that project he turned to technology and created the best visual effects company in the world. Now you'd think that his success would tell him something about his fellow citizens and the country that made it possible. You'd think that a country that could defeat the Reds and the Nazis in one century could be elevated above "provincial."
I said last year that the problem with the prequels was that the originals were about a young man's struggle and that mirrored Lucas' own struggle as a young filmmaker. The second batch is about a spoiled whiney kid that wants to be recognized for his genius or else. And the movies empathize with the brat a little too much. This speech has helped me realize that Lucas couldn't make the old films again because he doesn't believe in good and evil anymore. It's not that Darth Vader was evil, but that he was a product of a bad environment. I think that's why he intentionally defiled his own films with those cheesy Special Edition scenes and effects. He's struggling with being famous for a mythology that he no longer believes in.
Later in the piece, Nancy Pelosi compares Lucas to Mozart and though lofty it's an interesting comparison, except Mozart died without going through a re-evaluation of his life's work. Since Mozart was more of a regional figure than a worldwide star, what if he had re-worked all his music at the end of his life and all we had to remember him by were the sad attempts at bettering that work which were already great?
Lucas was a protégé of Coppola, who was a talented Bolshevik. It's very possible that Lucas too considered himself a man of the left, but was apolitical enough in his youth that he didn't realize the implications of having good and evil characters. It's certainly not chic in a post 9-11 world. So like Spielberg his early movies were temperamentally conservative, but when he became more politically aware, he went a different direction as movie maker.
My biggest fear is that the gifted M. Night Shyamalan will someday succumb to the same peer pressure and decide to be fashionable instead of interesting. His early work reminds me so much of Lucas and Spielberg that my gut says that he will have a struggle with the same forces.
Legendary "Star Wars" film creator George Lucas told a packed house the United States is a provincial country with a culture that has invaded the world via Hollywood.
"As long as there has been a talking Hollywood, Hollywood has had a huge impact on the rest of the world," Lucas said as he discussed his films and enhancing education with computer technology.
"I hate to say it, but television is one of the most popular exports," Lucas said.
People see shows such as "Dallas," about a wealthy Texas oil family, and decide they want the grand lifestyles portrayed, according to Lucas.
"They say that is what I want to be," Lucas said. "That destabilizes a lot of the world."
"There has been a conflict going on for thousands of years between the haves and the have-nots, and now we are in a position for the first time to show the have-nots what they do not have."
So Hollywood is exporting Americanism and doggone if it doesn't make people want to be Americans. Funny that he had to cite a 20 year old TV show to make his point about modern films.
George Lucas grew up as a middle class kid and became a billionaire by doing the things that he naturally loved doing. The world is full of artists and potential filmmakers with more talent that he, and yet they're trapped under the boot of poverty or some dictator and usually both. The export of American culture has helped end some of the repressive regimes and the job isn't over. Even Hollywood that does all it can to show capitalism as equal to corruption cannot hide the fact that people are free in so many ways.
Lucas made a daring trilogy in his youth that used classical Roman politics to create a cold war parable about good and evil. It was not only great entertainment, but it was uniquely American in its outlook. Sometime after he finished that project he turned to technology and created the best visual effects company in the world. Now you'd think that his success would tell him something about his fellow citizens and the country that made it possible. You'd think that a country that could defeat the Reds and the Nazis in one century could be elevated above "provincial."
I said last year that the problem with the prequels was that the originals were about a young man's struggle and that mirrored Lucas' own struggle as a young filmmaker. The second batch is about a spoiled whiney kid that wants to be recognized for his genius or else. And the movies empathize with the brat a little too much. This speech has helped me realize that Lucas couldn't make the old films again because he doesn't believe in good and evil anymore. It's not that Darth Vader was evil, but that he was a product of a bad environment. I think that's why he intentionally defiled his own films with those cheesy Special Edition scenes and effects. He's struggling with being famous for a mythology that he no longer believes in.
Later in the piece, Nancy Pelosi compares Lucas to Mozart and though lofty it's an interesting comparison, except Mozart died without going through a re-evaluation of his life's work. Since Mozart was more of a regional figure than a worldwide star, what if he had re-worked all his music at the end of his life and all we had to remember him by were the sad attempts at bettering that work which were already great?
Lucas was a protégé of Coppola, who was a talented Bolshevik. It's very possible that Lucas too considered himself a man of the left, but was apolitical enough in his youth that he didn't realize the implications of having good and evil characters. It's certainly not chic in a post 9-11 world. So like Spielberg his early movies were temperamentally conservative, but when he became more politically aware, he went a different direction as movie maker.
My biggest fear is that the gifted M. Night Shyamalan will someday succumb to the same peer pressure and decide to be fashionable instead of interesting. His early work reminds me so much of Lucas and Spielberg that my gut says that he will have a struggle with the same forces.
Tuesday, March 21, 2006
I AM REALLY STARTING TO LIKE THIS SUPREME COURT
The highest court should be heavily biased in favor of letting the decisions of the lower courts stand.
The highest court should be heavily biased in favor of letting the decisions of the lower courts stand.
By The Associated PressTuesday, March 21, 2006
(AP) - Highlights of actions taken Monday by the Supreme Court. The justices:
Declined to take up an appeal from a Pittsburgh Steelers fan who claimed taxpayers in National Football League cities have been coerced into helping build costly new stadiums.
Refused to consider tossing out a $50 million damage award against Philip Morris USA to the family of a two-pack-a-day California smoker who died of cancer.
Affirmed a lower court decision against a photographer who claimed a federal decency law violated her free-speech rights to post pictures of sadomasochistic sexual behavior on the Web.
Declined to give Jonathan Pollard, now serving a life sentence for spying for Israel, access to records that could bolster his case for presidential clemency.
Said they would not consider reinstating Robert O. Marshall's death sentence in New Jersey in a case that inspired a best-selling book, "Blind Faith."
Refused to consider an appeal from former Arkansas Gov. Jim Guy Tucker, who wants to withdraw his 1998 guilty plea to tax conspiracy.
Turned down a case that sought to open U.S. presidential elections to voters in Puerto Rico.
Refused to consider an appeal from Florida death row inmate William Van Poyck over DNA testing.
THE NEW YORKER ON BILL O'REILLY
That's a great piece of writing. It captures the show pretty well. Remember how Angry O'Reilly got at that little Bunny Rabbit Phil Donahue last year. Phil was blathering on about whether Bill would send his own kids to fight in Iraq and Bill said he would fight in Iraq himself. Donahue kept on with the Left's favorite hobby horse about how we're sending mere children to Iraq to fight. It's a great liberal slight-of-hand to make the argument about sending kids, becuase the defender either has to pipe in immediately that we're not sending kids, but well-trained adults, otherwise the liberal wins everytime regardless of what's said from then on.
O'Reilly took a different track. He has a relative of some sort, a nephew I think, fighting in Iraq. He somehow took Donahue's comment as a stain upon the service of that nephew and he threatened to run Donahue off the show. The whole thing seemed bizarre to me. Why do you invite Donahue on the show only to threaten to run him off like an umpire when he's just simply being the same Donahue we all know, rich and guilty as hell about it? I can't imagine Donahue intentionally insulting anyone, but here is O'Reilly all indignant. He even ran the segment the next night like a dog prancing around the chipmunk that he killed and brought home. I'm sure he thought he was standing up for his nephew and servicemen in general, but I just couldn't make the leap with him.
To me Bill O'Reilly is the essence of the enemy of my enemy is my friend, sort of. I started watching the Factor sometime in 1999, I think. I enjoyed it most leading up to the 2000 election. I think I watched it nearly every night for a year. I even read THE NO SPIN ZONE soon after it was published. I loved the way O'Reilly stood up to nonsense.
But after that election, I realized that O'Reilly just has too many axes to grind. He constantly plays the underdog, trying to be my defender. He has a policy solution for everything if we'd only listen, and thus he's the anti-Libertarian. People can't simply live their lives without government intervention, because O'Reilly has to many injustices to right.
After I had already tired of his shtick, he published WHO'S LOOKING OUT FOR YOU?, a rhetorical question I assumed with O'Reilly as the hero. I can imagine that book is list after list of populist pining for things that the big boys are denying the poor working class slob. And I'm supposed to tune in as that working class slob so O'Reilly can explain the legislation that will cure me.
I think I would have totally forgotten about O'Reilly except that his ratings have grown and the Left totally hates him, I assume, because people watch and he's to the Right of Tom Brokaw. That alone makes me tune in from time to time, but only if I'm on the computer and I want background noise.
When Rush Limbaugh started taking the country by storm in the early 1990s, many people thought he was just a fad and his listeners and bunch of dupes. But Rush has remained interesting and unique despite the many rightwing hybrids that followed. Rush can inspire people to be proud of their freedom and their country and he can captivate an audience talking about almost anything..
When I listen to Rush, I tire of the callers that either want to kiss his ass or make personal attacks. It's much more interesting just to hear him read news stories and comment. Once in a while a caller will make good retorts to Rush and Rush can get flummoxed and it's interesting to watch the match play out. In January I was going to the bank and an articulate caller that sounded black was getting the Left's talking points out rather well. Republicans were in the bosom of corporations and the war was for oil and what not. He wasn't going to sway any conservatives with his talk, but he got it out in a way that was impressive just the same. Instead of dismissing him, Rush treated him respectfully as he will usually do with anyone that doesn't just start attacking him personally. He asked the caller questions about what else was wrong with America and then the caller stepped into a bear trap.
The caller said, "I think it's harmful when religion plays too big a place in politics."
Rush said, "See folks, this is why I'm the host. I'm sure many of you would have been done with this caller already, but I knew if we waited long enough, we'd hit the jackpot. I totally agree. I think Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton play way too significant of a role in American politics and it harms people."
At that point the smart and articulate caller was done for. He couldn't make his point about Bush, because he had to explain why Jackson and Sharpton were different. Where O'Reilly would have yelled and called him a bigot, Rush simply pointed out how Christianity is a danger and scourge of the secular mainstream unless it originates from race pimps. A total Judo move that other Right-of-Center hosts couldn't make so gracefully. I don't see O'Reilly doing pulling that off.
Long ago, Rush appeared on the CNBC show Donahue/Posner. Posner being this Russian communist "journalist" propagandist that existed simply for the state to run messages through. Donahue loved the guy and treated him as some sort of objective thinker. Rush made a flippant comment on the show about how there were more communists working in American journalism than Republicans. Posner said name one and Rush named Posner. Phil got a big kick out of it and Rush came back to the show several times. The last time Rush appeared the topic was a typical class warfare message about how the rich got richer in the 1980s. Rush reminded Phil and the audience that Phil was quite wealthy himself and much of it came in the 1980s defending the little guy. Why not give that money back to the little guy, asked Rush. Point made. Phil wasn't happy about the observation and Rush was never invited back. O'Reilly should have been watching.
It's great to see O'Reilly make the Left mad and it's not like he doesn't take on issues that are important or even noble, but he lacks the grace and humor to make his points stick. Everything is doom and gloom and I better tune in every night so he can save me by strong-arming some politician to do the right thing. We're not the Czechs in 1938 or the Polish in 1939. We don't need another Dick Morris convinced that every human foible is cured by a roll call vote. Have fun with these self-important liberals that want to save humanity from itself instead of becoming a right-0f center version of the same.
Now maybe the discord is only in my own ear as I grow more libertarian, but I find that both politicians and commentators are so convinced that we'll choke on our own spit save for them. It doesn't make good government nor good television. And yet, I'll still tune in from time to time anyway, because O'Reilly is still an American original and as an oppositional figure quite compelling at times even if not altogether satisfying.
Maybe it's like the Yankee fans that were too tough on Mantle for not being DiMaggio. O'Reilly isn't Rush, regardless of how many long balls he hits. Rush's tongue races the field timing the fly ball just right and making it look easy, while O'Reilly can be seen having it out with the umpire at the plate, probably right, but indignant enough that you watch for the confrontation rather than to win the game.
Part of the pleasure of “The O’Reilly Factor” is knowing that O’Reilly is a guy with a temper, and he might lose it. He reddens, sits up, and presses the guest, who may begin to stammer helplessly (in which case O’Reilly usually pulls back), or to backpedal and make excuses, in the manner of Richard Rosenbaum (in which case O’Reilly keeps boring in), or to insult O’Reilly (in which case O’Reilly may begin yelling—the big payoff). He’s the beat cop for the American neighborhood, who may have been a little excessive at times, may occasionally have run afoul of Internal Affairs, but law-abiding folks trust him because they know he’s on their side. His liberal guests are like suspects he’s pulled over: in the end, he’s probably just going to frisk them and let them go with a genial warning, but if they try anything, well, he carries a nightstick for a reason.
That's a great piece of writing. It captures the show pretty well. Remember how Angry O'Reilly got at that little Bunny Rabbit Phil Donahue last year. Phil was blathering on about whether Bill would send his own kids to fight in Iraq and Bill said he would fight in Iraq himself. Donahue kept on with the Left's favorite hobby horse about how we're sending mere children to Iraq to fight. It's a great liberal slight-of-hand to make the argument about sending kids, becuase the defender either has to pipe in immediately that we're not sending kids, but well-trained adults, otherwise the liberal wins everytime regardless of what's said from then on.
O'Reilly took a different track. He has a relative of some sort, a nephew I think, fighting in Iraq. He somehow took Donahue's comment as a stain upon the service of that nephew and he threatened to run Donahue off the show. The whole thing seemed bizarre to me. Why do you invite Donahue on the show only to threaten to run him off like an umpire when he's just simply being the same Donahue we all know, rich and guilty as hell about it? I can't imagine Donahue intentionally insulting anyone, but here is O'Reilly all indignant. He even ran the segment the next night like a dog prancing around the chipmunk that he killed and brought home. I'm sure he thought he was standing up for his nephew and servicemen in general, but I just couldn't make the leap with him.
To me Bill O'Reilly is the essence of the enemy of my enemy is my friend, sort of. I started watching the Factor sometime in 1999, I think. I enjoyed it most leading up to the 2000 election. I think I watched it nearly every night for a year. I even read THE NO SPIN ZONE soon after it was published. I loved the way O'Reilly stood up to nonsense.
But after that election, I realized that O'Reilly just has too many axes to grind. He constantly plays the underdog, trying to be my defender. He has a policy solution for everything if we'd only listen, and thus he's the anti-Libertarian. People can't simply live their lives without government intervention, because O'Reilly has to many injustices to right.
After I had already tired of his shtick, he published WHO'S LOOKING OUT FOR YOU?, a rhetorical question I assumed with O'Reilly as the hero. I can imagine that book is list after list of populist pining for things that the big boys are denying the poor working class slob. And I'm supposed to tune in as that working class slob so O'Reilly can explain the legislation that will cure me.
I think I would have totally forgotten about O'Reilly except that his ratings have grown and the Left totally hates him, I assume, because people watch and he's to the Right of Tom Brokaw. That alone makes me tune in from time to time, but only if I'm on the computer and I want background noise.
When Rush Limbaugh started taking the country by storm in the early 1990s, many people thought he was just a fad and his listeners and bunch of dupes. But Rush has remained interesting and unique despite the many rightwing hybrids that followed. Rush can inspire people to be proud of their freedom and their country and he can captivate an audience talking about almost anything..
When I listen to Rush, I tire of the callers that either want to kiss his ass or make personal attacks. It's much more interesting just to hear him read news stories and comment. Once in a while a caller will make good retorts to Rush and Rush can get flummoxed and it's interesting to watch the match play out. In January I was going to the bank and an articulate caller that sounded black was getting the Left's talking points out rather well. Republicans were in the bosom of corporations and the war was for oil and what not. He wasn't going to sway any conservatives with his talk, but he got it out in a way that was impressive just the same. Instead of dismissing him, Rush treated him respectfully as he will usually do with anyone that doesn't just start attacking him personally. He asked the caller questions about what else was wrong with America and then the caller stepped into a bear trap.
The caller said, "I think it's harmful when religion plays too big a place in politics."
Rush said, "See folks, this is why I'm the host. I'm sure many of you would have been done with this caller already, but I knew if we waited long enough, we'd hit the jackpot. I totally agree. I think Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton play way too significant of a role in American politics and it harms people."
At that point the smart and articulate caller was done for. He couldn't make his point about Bush, because he had to explain why Jackson and Sharpton were different. Where O'Reilly would have yelled and called him a bigot, Rush simply pointed out how Christianity is a danger and scourge of the secular mainstream unless it originates from race pimps. A total Judo move that other Right-of-Center hosts couldn't make so gracefully. I don't see O'Reilly doing pulling that off.
Long ago, Rush appeared on the CNBC show Donahue/Posner. Posner being this Russian communist "journalist" propagandist that existed simply for the state to run messages through. Donahue loved the guy and treated him as some sort of objective thinker. Rush made a flippant comment on the show about how there were more communists working in American journalism than Republicans. Posner said name one and Rush named Posner. Phil got a big kick out of it and Rush came back to the show several times. The last time Rush appeared the topic was a typical class warfare message about how the rich got richer in the 1980s. Rush reminded Phil and the audience that Phil was quite wealthy himself and much of it came in the 1980s defending the little guy. Why not give that money back to the little guy, asked Rush. Point made. Phil wasn't happy about the observation and Rush was never invited back. O'Reilly should have been watching.
It's great to see O'Reilly make the Left mad and it's not like he doesn't take on issues that are important or even noble, but he lacks the grace and humor to make his points stick. Everything is doom and gloom and I better tune in every night so he can save me by strong-arming some politician to do the right thing. We're not the Czechs in 1938 or the Polish in 1939. We don't need another Dick Morris convinced that every human foible is cured by a roll call vote. Have fun with these self-important liberals that want to save humanity from itself instead of becoming a right-0f center version of the same.
Now maybe the discord is only in my own ear as I grow more libertarian, but I find that both politicians and commentators are so convinced that we'll choke on our own spit save for them. It doesn't make good government nor good television. And yet, I'll still tune in from time to time anyway, because O'Reilly is still an American original and as an oppositional figure quite compelling at times even if not altogether satisfying.
Maybe it's like the Yankee fans that were too tough on Mantle for not being DiMaggio. O'Reilly isn't Rush, regardless of how many long balls he hits. Rush's tongue races the field timing the fly ball just right and making it look easy, while O'Reilly can be seen having it out with the umpire at the plate, probably right, but indignant enough that you watch for the confrontation rather than to win the game.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)