On the CBS Reagan Mini-series

Michael Ventre over at MSNBC wrote on this issue today, saying, "Forget “The Reagans” for a moment. Forget that you stand squarely on one side of the aisle or the other, and have a firm opinion on how President Reagan should be portrayed. This miniseries might have been the finest cinematic effort of our time, or a piece of trash.

What matters is that a major media company chose profits over the First Amendment and caved when a few vocal groups bent on getting their way applied pressure. "

That is the troubling bit about the Reagans. It showed that Conservative Boycotters do have teeth. They can accomplish their ends. Media corporations will cave into pressure. Which should be scary to people who like free speech.

Movies to Avoid in November

Just so you know, Patriotic Americans Boycatting Anti American Hollywood (PABAAH) has designated the following films to avoid, due to the leftist leanings of some of the actors in them.

Elf
Love Actually
21 Grams
Dr. Suess' The Cat in the Hat
The Cooler

There will probably be further updates. Interestingly the Matrix Revolutions didn't make the list despite the involvement of Laurence Fishburne, a signer of Artists for Winning Without War. I don't know whether Mr. Alvy, head of PABAAH, is interested in taking on a movie that big.

I know that if I was running this kind of Boycott, I could sure find excuses for movies I wanted to see, and no excuses for movies I don't want to see.

More on Howard Dean

As you know Dean has apologized for his remarks, and the Conservatives have made considerable hay out of this issue. Dean might be out of it at this point.

Paul Krugman has some comments today that explain what a tragedy this is for the Democratic Party. " Howard Dean's remarks about the need to appeal to white Southerners could certainly have been better phrased. But his rivals for the Democratic nomination should be ashamed of their reaction. They know what he was trying to say — and it wasn't that his party should go soft on racism. By playing gotcha, by seizing on the chance to take the front-runner down a peg, they damaged the cause they claim to serve — and missed a chance to confront the real issue he raised.

A three-sentence description of the arc of American politics over the past 70 years would run like this: First, Democrats and moderate Republicans created institutions — above all, Social Security and Medicare — that provided a measure of financial security to ordinary working Americans. The biggest beneficiaries of these institutions were African-Americans and working-class Southern whites, and both were part of the moderate-to-liberal coalition that dominated American politics until the 1960's.

But the right opened an increasingly effective counterattack, with a strategy that included using racially charged symbolism to get Southern whites to vote against their own economic interests. All Mr. Dean was saying was that Democrats need to understand and counter this strategy.

At any rate, I hadn't taken Dean too seriously before this, and he's still third or fourth on my list, but he's right on this issue. I just wish he hadn't chickened out and apologized.

Interesting story

"A decision by the House Republicans to strip the Iraq supplemental bill of an anti-profiteering provision has outraged the Democrats.

Some Democrats have accused the White House of pulling the strings on the effort to nix the language.

“The White House and House GOP leadership didn’t want [the provision] in there,” charged Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), an author of the language.

The provision — included during the Senate Appropriations Committee markup with unanimous support but removed in conference — would have subjected those who deliberately defrauded the United States or Iraq to jail terms of up to 20 years and costly fines."

Well, I await explanation as to why the White House nixed this aspect of the bill. I would think they would oppose fraud and waste. Full story here.

From the Kicking Ass

Your Weekly Rush

Well, not really. Rush is apparently coming back middle of this month, and presumably shortly after that, I'll start this up again. But in the mean time . . .

The guy doing the show on Tuesday (I think, having one of those weeks where it all blends together), commented on a story that Global Warming is causing better grapes which is causing better wine. This isn't the first time this sort of story comes forward. Everytime there is good news because of Global Warming, Rush promotes it. Global Warming makes crops grow for a longer time. Global Warming makes Snapple taste great. Global Warming makes Tarzan the tv show somewhat intersting.

Except that any time there is news that Global warming might not be an unmitigated blessing, it ceases to exist entirely. You got that? When Global Warming is good it exists, but when it is not good it does not exist. Do conservatives think the American people are that dumb? Possibly.

News

Well, the New York Times, or as some like to call it, the Treason Times, has an interesting story today. Apparently Iraq, through back channels, sent the United States a message before the war began. "As American soldiers massed on the Iraqi border in March and diplomats argued about war, an influential adviser to the Pentagon received a secret message from a Lebanese-American businessman: Saddam Hussein wanted to make a deal.

Iraqi officials, including the chief of the Iraqi Intelligence Service, had told the businessman that they wanted Washington to know that Iraq no longer had weapons of mass destruction, and they offered to allow American troops and experts to conduct a search. The businessman said in an interview that the Iraqis also offered to hand over a man accused of being involved in the World Trade Center bombing in 1993 who was being held in Baghdad. At one point, he said, the Iraqis pledged to hold elections.

Well this puts everything in sharp relief. The story does hinge a bit on the word of Imad Hage, a Maronite Christian from Lebanon who relayed the messages from Saddam. If he proves unreliable than the story falls apart.

Howard Dean and the Confederate Flag

Again I'm a little behind the times on this one, but apparently it's bad that Howard Dean said, "I still want to be the candidate for guys with Confederate flags in their pickup trucks." That's bad because, naturally, the Confederate flag is a symbol of pure evil and guys with it in the back of their truck don't deserve to vote.

But, it turns out, they do. And while I certainly have ambivalent feelings (at best) towards the stars and bars, I'm not sure we should write those voters off. Joan Walsh, editor of Salon News, wrote on the subject today, crystalizing some of my reactions to Deans statement. "After his remarks last week drew criticism, Dean released a statement saying: "I want people with Confederate flags on their trucks to put down those flags and vote Democratic -- because the need for quality healthcare, jobs and a good education knows no racial boundaries."

Dean put his finger on something crucial that explains the Democrats' lack of nationwide mass appeal: While they correctly addressed the problems of racism from the 1960s on, they lost sight of the issues of class, which don't always dovetail with race. Defending his remarks yesterday in Iowa, Dean explained: "What Franklin Roosevelt did was to get the Southern white working class to vote with the Southern African-American working class," said Dean, about the former Democratic president. "The only time we're ever going to make progress in this country is when black people and white people and brown people work together and put race aside." I happen to believe that, too. It's disturbing if other candidates don't."

Anyway, Dean moves a little up the list with that comment.

CBS and Reagan

You'll already have come across this story. CBS has pulled the Ronald Reagan movie. It will apparently run on Showtime where it will have less exposure. Linda Chavez is happy about it, as one would expect. "CBS executives seem to have come to their senses, and none too soon. The network's last-minute decision not to air the controversial, four-hour TV movie "The Reagans" means I won't have to join millions of other conservatives in boycotting CBS programming."

Well, hooray for the boycotters. They got their way. If they couldn't silence a viewpoint they didn't like, they at least got it moved somewhere where few people will be exposed to it. The interesting thing about a successful boycott is how little respect CBS will get. I guess for the same reason that bullys don't start respecting the little kids who give them their lunch money. The best you can say for CBS is that they were pansy enough to let conservatives push them around.

I do, however, want to make a distinction between this boycott and the others against Hollywood celebrities who criticized the Bush administration or the War in Iraq. As you know there are boycotts going on right now encouraging you to avoid movies or tv shows with, say, Johnny Depp or Martin Sheen, because they are un-American jerks. The boycotts are related to comments they made in interviews, as private citizens, not for their onscreen talents. It is penalizing someone for speaking their mind, and the hope is that liberal views will no longer be spoken.

The boycott against the Reagan film is a boycott of what is actually put on the screen, and as such it is a bit different, although still not something I'd be proud of.

Iraqification

This is the title of a new article by Fareed Zakaria over at MSNBC. In it he talks about the problems we might face if President Bush takes the hurry up approach for political reasons.

"Putting more Iraqi soldiers and policemen on the ground makes sense. By taking care of routine policing and security, they will free up the American Army to conduct raids, pursue leads and fight the guerrillas. But the desperation to move faster and faster is going to have bad results. Accelerating the training schedule (which has already been accelerated twice before) will only produce an ineffective Iraqi Army and police force. Does anyone think that such a ragtag military could beat the insurgency where American troops are failing?"

Anyway he's got some good ideas, but it should be obvious to everybody that hurrying out of Iraq won't end up to well for us or for the Iraqis.

Your Humble Narrator is a Dope

Apparently the powers that be in the Blogoverse have decided that today is not Luskin is a stalker day. So ignore the previous post. Atrios himself requested this not happen--according to Mr. Pollack. "I must also announce that tomorrow’s previously proposed protest, Donald Luskin Is A Stalker Day, has been indefinitely delayed at the request of my good friend Atrios, the Internet’s latest potential free-speech lawsuit victim. Apparently, Atrios believes that reasonable discourse will solve his problems better than wise-assed agitation. We shall see, oh great liberal blogmaster. Tomorrow won’t Donald Luskin Is A Stalker Day after all. For now, hold your fire. "

Anyway I'm not going to take down previous post, but will modify it slightly.

Luskin is a {Reference Deleted}

For those who don't know what this is in reference to, check out this former post. You might also check out Donald L. Luskin's own website, Poor and Stupid. Other than a report on a change of the New York Times editorial policy, there are some 7-8 articles in a row focused on Paul Krugman. You might also check out this particular article at National Review Online. Notice the title? "We Stalked, He Balked."

Now follow this if you can. Luskin doesn't like Krugman and seems to have made it his mission to make sure the rest of America realizes what a fraud Krugman is (I've quoted Krugman repeatedly, so I guess you know where I come down on this issue). He writes an article entitled "We Stalked, He Balked," referenced above. Krugman then, apparently, responded by calling him a stalker . . . or something. Details are sketchy. Oh, and Luskin called Krugman an anti-Semite, which charge Krugman denied.

Anyway Atrios, the unknown bloggist who's page I've linked too there at the left also called Luskin a Stalker. Luskin responded with characteristic good humor by threatening to sue Atrios (a nuisance suit with no merit) and to use the magic power of the subpoena to force Atrios to reveal his real identity. There's only one word to describe a tactic like that. Despicable. And Boneheaded. I guess that's two words.

Anyway in response, the blogging community, such as it is, has, under the leadership of Neal Pollack for some reason, declared that today we are going to call Luskin a {Reference Deleted}. Unfortunately I've revealed my identity repeatedly so I'm not in the same danger. Or am I? Could it be that while by day I'm a mild mannered bloggist, while at night I am a master of Kung Fu beating the living bejeevers out of criminal?

Nope.

But, for those interested, Luskin is a {Reference Deleted}.

edited to add, at the request of Atrios, as referenced above, this is not really Luskin is a {Reference Deleted} day. Have a nice day.

The Local Draft Board

Well, the draft machinery is getting oiled up. The Bush administration has made a push to fill all the draft boards and draft appeals boards, although they have not, as yet, decided to restart the draft machinery. Salon has the story, which like all political stories has a number of threads. Here they are in short form.

1). The Department of Homeland Security wants to fill all its Draft Board and Draft Appeals Board vacancies.

2). Some Military experts, in and out of the pentagon, believe that our current troop deployments will prove insufficient.

3). Getting a draft law through Congress, to the Presidents desk, and then implemented may take a year and half or more.

4). Restarting the draft would not be a popular move, and could cost President Bush reelection, if he does it before next year.

OK. So given 1, 2, 3, and 4, what can we assume? Also, ask yourself, if President Bush wins reelection, do you think we will invade Iran or Syria?

Anti Intellectualism

It's fun to mock college professers. We all know this. Useless do-nothings who sit around learning have always been fair game in America, and why not.

Still, there's something more in Suzanne Fields latest. Take this paragraph. "My favorite example is a freshman English course at Williams College entitled "Green World," which deals with the environment and explores "ways in which literature has constructed and interpreted the green-written word."

Environmental exploitation is illustrated with the identification of "the archetypal symbol of man's desire to transform chaos into civilization and art - to tame, order, idealize and copy nature's bounty while humanizing plundering and destroying the environment." (Italics [bold] mine.)

The young scholars will no doubt expose Wordsworth for the devastation he brought to the landscape by daring to dance with the daffodils. MacBeth might be alive today if his enemies hadn't cut down all those trees in Birnam Wood."

Notice what is there; an attitude of mocking. Notice what is missing; any explanation whatsoever of why this is a bad thing. It's clear that there have been environmental disasters in the past, and its clear that attitudes towards nature have changed since, say the 1700s. It's also true, although Ms. Fields may not be aware of it, that literature is a reflection of the world around which it is written. So using nature or the environment as a framing device to discuss literature, well I'm just not sure it's such a terrible thing.

She later on accuses Amherst college of being flawed. "Amherst's history department, for example, offers "Race and Nation in the U.S.-Mexican Borderland," an overview of pre-1600 Japan, the Middle East from 600 to 1800, and "Women's History, America: 1607-1865." But there's not a single freshman overview course to examine the fundamental events of Western civilization." Well, first of all, Ms. Fields needs to explain why it's wrong to teach women's history or Japanese history.

I guess she's mostly upset that there is no Western Civilization or World History class. Now, be aware, there are classes in American History and Europeon history galore, but not a simple dull overview of every important event since 1610 or whenever the cut off point is for modern history. I can think of a pretty good reason this might be the case--such courses are dreadfully dull and don't really teach anything. So why not focus the class a bit more, give the teachers a chance to teach what they know rather than trying to hit "the 150 most important events, people, places and ides of the last 400 years."

Something to think about, at any rate.

New Quotes

Updated the quote at the top and the quotes page.