Apparently, the historic, first-ever United Nations conference on anti-Semitism was not important enough to include on the UN website. If one goes to their website and clicks on recent additions, one finds that they have conveniently passed over June 21, and mention not a word of the historic conference. Perhaps it has something to do with Anne Bayefsky's speech. If I were Kofi Annan, I wouldn't want anyone seeing her surgical critique of UN involvement in anti-Semitic activities either. Contrary to the heading at the top of this page, the UN is most definitely not my world.
I have two reviews up. One discusses the new Fox show, Quintuplets, and the other discusses one of my favorite topics, Bill Murray.
Rumor: Cheney is not really running for a second term. Guiliani will. (I wish I could find a link for this rumor, which rang true when I read it.)
Speculation: The announcement will come about a month after Kerry's VP pick. If you're the sitting president, you don't want to place Kerry on even ground by looking for a VP at the same time. The harder problem is to quell any rumors about why he's leaving. So start with him losing his temper at Leahy and *gasp* swearing. Add in staffmembers shaking their heads at how unlike Cheney it was, followed by pointing out how justified it is. Let the masses natter on for a bit.
A few more incidents like this one and Cheney steps down, indicating he has become fed up with politics, and doesn't want to distract from the wonderful works of the Bush administration.
What kept me away from blogging for so long? Darned if I know. One day just slipped into the next. I have made a lot of money at online poker though.
Anyone who has a problem with this needs to spend a day at my jobsite. Ah, construction - the last bastion of rampant political UN-correctness. I hope it stays that way.
UPDATE: I have included an extra paragraph in this review regarding the "extra ending" of the movie that I initially neglected to write about. It includes a major plot "spoiler", so read at your own risk. No portions of the initial review have been substantially changed or omitted - only added to.
Long time, no blog.
It’s been frustrating having a slammed schedule during a time of historic events such as Reagan’s funeral, private space flights, Establishment Clause case madness, and developments in P2P File sharing wars.
Thought I would ease back into blogging with a movie review (will get back to legal/societal issues soon enough).
Believe it or not, in another life, your humble blogger used to be a professional film reviewer for the Beverly Hills Weekly newspaper. I would have submitted this review to the paper as a guest column, but the length restrictions would have prevented me from saying everything that really needs to be said here.
I was fortunate enough to catch an advance screening of Spider-Man 2 last night. Here are my thoughts (though I should warn you that there are some minor “spoilers” in this review that reveal some important plot points. I should also tell you that it is geared towards those familiar with the first Spider Man film as well as the comic book):
In short, Spider-Man 2 is easily the best effort by director Sam Raimi since his first two “Evil Dead” films. It is also easily one of the top 5 comic book films ever made.
This is the film that Raimi has been building up to his entire career with his “comic book” style that was hinted at but never fully realized in projects such as Darkman, Army of Darkness, and Spider-Man (1)
The acting has improved as all of the “regulars” have become more comfortable in their roles.
Kirsten Dunst remains one of the most vibrant actresses working today. And we should all be grateful to her for paving the way for all the other very attractive actresses that just happen have slightly crooked teeth.
The set design/cinematography has certainly improved over the first film. The setting now actually “feels” like New York, instead of a cheesy, overblown Lego set that first film seemed to be set in.
Alfred Molina was surprisingly good as Doc Oc. In retrospect, I guess I shouldn’t be surprised since Molina has always been talented. But I just didn’t quite picture him as Doctor Octopus when I first heard about the casting. He dispelled those feelings in short order.
A few words about Doctor Octopus here – he is clearly one of the most cinematically rich villains ever put on screen. His tentacles always provide a visual tension that you are drawn to.
The Green Goblin from the fist film didn’t allow for such interesting effects or character depth. Willem Dafoe could have done some great maniacal acting in that film, but they inexplicably chose to completely cover his face with a cheesy Transformer-like mask.
In Spider-Man 2, Doctor Octopus is completely visually realized just as his comic book origins would suggest. Many scenes of the Doctor attacking helpless people are truly tension filled (and even frightening – a rare and welcome element in such a film. It actually earns its PG-13 rating in once hospital scene.).
The fight scenes between Spidey and Doc Oc have a frenetic and savage energy to them that has never quite been captured in any other comic book film. It is an exhilarating experience. Even better is the fact that there is more than one fight scene and they go on for more than a quick minute or two as is often the case with action films that burn up their special effects budgets with one or two quick scenes (Hulk anybody?)
This film has it all – genuine humor, amazing action, and sincere emotion to boot. Spider-Man 2 manages to balance out all these forces quite well.
But now, let me address a few minor problems with the film, as well as the one big flaw that manages to prevent it from being in the realm of one of the all-time great action/adventure films of our generation.
First, the small flaws:
Just as in the first Spider-Man, there is a horrible cheesy “rock” song during the end credits that is thematically incompatible with the film’s tone. It was obviously composed as a cynical marketing ploy to help out with Sony Entertainment’s music division. The end credit song from the first film sucked. This one sucks just as bad.
One minor mistake in consistency was noticed when Doctor Octopus created a magnetic field that manages to suck all of the jewelry off the spectators standing near him, yet his wife’s earrings manage to mysteriously stay on her earlobes.
Rosemary Harris who plays Aunt Mae was either misdirected or made a poor acting choice in a crucial scene where she speaks to Peter Parker about why heroes are so important.
In the scene, she clearly plays it as though she knows that Spider-Man’s identity if really her nephew Peter Parker. Her character doesn’t know this of course, and it was important in that part of the narrative to establish the fact that she didn’t know – so it remains a flaw in an otherwise solid performance.
(Some sources spell the character as Aunt "May". I remember the character spelling as being "Mae", but I am not enough of a modern-day comic geek to be certain about this. I'm just a guy who has basic fond memories of enjoying Spider Man comics as a kid.)
Now for the very serious (though admittedly not fatal) flaw. It is actually not a flaw that is directly in this film. Rather, the flaw is found in the original Spider-Man film, but it is unfortunately carried over and magnified in Spider-Man 2. To truly understand what I am getting at here, you have to go back to the original Spider-Man comic book and one small but crucial element that was changed in the film.
The comic book tells the origin of how Peter Parker became Spider Man this way – Parker was doing science experiments with radiation when he is suddenly bit by a radioactive spider which gives him his powers. Parker is basically a good kid, but being just a teenager, he also has an inverted selfish side to him. He doesn’t think of being a “super-hero” or using his powers to help others. He first uses his powers to help make a few cheap bucks at wrestling tournaments, etc.
Then one day, while walking home, a random robber rushes past him while fleeing from the police. The police call out to Parker to stop the robber. Although Parker could have easily helped out by tripping up the robber as he rushed past him, he chooses to ignore the police request because he doesn’t want to be bothered. He is too caught up in his own world and his own problems to care. He even gets testy with the cops who question why he didn’t help them out, saying that it is not his problem and that they should stop bugging him. The robber escapes, and then later goes on to kill Parker’s Uncle Ben in another random crime.
The grief and guilt over his Uncle Ben’s death haunts Parker. He had the chance to stop his Uncle’s killer, but he chose not to out of pure selfishness and laziness. From then on, he makes a determination to become “Spider-Man” and help save others in order to atone for his guilt.
That is the entire raison detre for Spider-Man’s existence – to atone for the guilt over his Uncle’s murder. It is also the element that makes Spider-Man such a compelling character. It underscores a super-human hero with deep human flaws that allowed the comic to go into compelling psychological territories apart from standard pulp action faire.
It is this crucial element to the character of Spider-Man that the first Spider-Man film manages to muck up completely and with no good reason whatsoever. It is bad enough that it tarnished the first film, but unfortunately this flaw is actually carried over into the second film as well and creates magnified ramifications in the narrative.
Here is the problem – in the first Spider-Man film, Parker wins a wrestling tournament, but the tournament’s sleazeball promoter refuses to pay him the money he rightfully won. Moments later, the wrestling promoter is robbed, and Parker let’s the robber get away as a form of rough justice for the fact that the promoter had “robbed” Parker of his money. This thief goes on to later kill Parker’s Uncle Ben.
In other words, in the film, Parker doesn’t let a random thief slip by because of his own selfishness and self-absorption. Rather, he is given a legitimate moral excuse by the screen writers to let the thief go.
As a result, Uncle Ben’s death seems less a result of Parker’s choice than simply a bizarre coincidence brought about by pure dumb luck.
This was a horrendous decision on the part of the filmmakers.
It robs the character of any believability when he agonizes over the supposed guilt that he feels. It robs Spider Man of his pathos and complexity. After all, most good people would have let the thief go when presented the scenario set up in the film. Because most good people believe in some form of “street justice” when no other form of justice is available.
I have no clue as to why they made this change in the film. It certainly wasn’t necessary from a cinematic point of view. I suspect it might have been hack filmmakers or screenwriters who mistakenly felt that they couldn’t challenge an audience by showing a selfish side to a hero. In the world of corporate filmmaking, the good guys must be thoroughly good. The bad guys thoroughly bad, etc. No nuances in life.
Either way, director Raimi should have put his foot down and demanded the change since he himself is confessed Spider Man fan.
I didn’t dislike the first Spider-Man film per se, but I didn’t like it all the much either for many reasons. This flaw I just described was one of the bigger ones.
Now if this flaw had remained confined the first film, I probably would have just let it go when seeing Spider-Man 2. But unfortunately, the narrative is carried over in such a way that the flaw established in the first film is carried over into the second.
In Spider-Man 2, Parker finally confesses to his Aunt Mae that he had the chance to save Uncle Ben by stopping his killer, but didn’t. Mae is stunned by this confession and walks away from Parker in shame and despair.
Had they stuck to the comic book and let the robber be a random encounter on the street, this reaction from Mae might be understandable. But since Parker was now justified in letting the robber go in the film, Mae’s reaction seems petty and spiteful since she should have understood Parker’s predicament.
The net result is that Mae acts completely out of character from the understanding matron that she is. We as an audience feel pity for Parker and annoyance at Mae for her insensitivity, when it should have been the other way around (and would have been the other way around had they not deviated from the comic for no good reason.).
Obviously, film and comic books are two different mediums necessitating some changes. A perfect example is in the first X-Men film when the hero Cyclops refers to the ridiculousness of wearing yellow spandex as a uniform. Yellow spandex works in a comic book. It doesn’t work in a film (at least not one that wishes to take itself seriously).
But there was no reason for the Spider-Man film creators to do what they did here.
Another big flaw involves a second "extra" ending that the film features. It seems that Spider-Man 2 picked up some bad habits from Lord of the Rings: Return of the King by featuring extra "endings" when the true emotional center of the film has already really come to a conclusion.
After Spidey/Parker defeats Doc Oc (that part really isn't a surprise is it?), his love interest Mary Jane (Dunst) discovers that Parker is indeed Spider-Man and they confess their love for each other. However, Parker is forced to tell M.J. that they can never be together because the risks would to great for her. Spidey's enemies would use her and harm her in order to get to Spider-Man. A despondent Mary Jane hears what Parker is saying and reluctantly goes off to marry her fiance - a relative of Parker's boss at the paper he works for.
Meanwhile, Parker's friend Harry Osborne discovers the technological secrets of his father (the Green Goblin from the original Spider-Man); with the clear implication that he will become the new Green Goblin (and Spider-Man enemy) for Spider-Man part 3.
That is where the film should have ended.
But in another fit of stupid corporate studio hackdom, Spider-Man 2 adds an extra coda of Mary Jane leaving her fiance at the isle during the wedding ceremony and runs off to join Parker. She tells him that they need to simply take the risks inherent in a relationship with Spider-Man. In other words, the film ends with Spider Man being able to have his cake and eat it too. It is established that he can have the woman he loves while leading a life of fighting crime.
I have nothing against happy endings when they are both logical and thematically appropriate. But this scene is a complete betrayal of the thematic center of the film.
It's seems to be another case of a studio being too timid to end a popular franchise film with an ending that is emtionally complex or ambiguous. They want happy endings at all costs.
One of the reasons why Spider-Man 2 nearly achieves true brilliance is that beneath the veneer of comic action, there is a very poignant underlying theme of sometimes having to give up your life's dreams when confronted with broader responsibilities to others around you.
Both Spider Man and Doc Oc grapple with this same dilemma, though the conflict manifests itself in different ways with the two figures.
This is what elevates Spider-Man 2 beyond the realm of mere "comic book" movie puts it in a category that a broader intelligent audience can appreciate.
But by having the extra coda of Mary Jane rushing off to be with Spider Man in the final, final scene, it manages to undercut this important emotional center in one fell swoop. That is quite a pity (though it could easily be corrected with a simple edit for a "director's cut").
It's ok for Mary Jane and Spidey to eventually be together. Spider Man is able to eventually hook up with a sweetheart in the comic book (and even gets married if memory serves correct). But to have that happen within the confines of this particular film was a big mistake. It should have waited for part 3. But such is the problem of trying to squeeze many plot points laid out over years of comic book story lines into a movie with a running time of just over 2 hours.
The net result? Spider-Man 2 will likely have to settle for being a flawed classic when it could have been a flat-out classic.
It’s still the most exciting movie you are likely to see all summer. Run to see it! But then write to Sam Raimi and lobby him for a “Director’s Cut” of both films that excises these festering boils of unfortunate scenes.
Consider it a case of that flaw in a diamond standing out all the more prominently because the rest of the surface is so brilliant.
The Associated Press has the audacity to refer to the scum who beheaded Kim Sun-il as "militants", rather than by the term that is clearly more appropriate, i.e. "terrorists", as is evidenced by the following excerpt from the story in question:
"The Arabic language satellite television channel broadcast a videotape of a terrified Kim kneeling, blindfolded and wearing an orange jumpsuit similar to those issued to prisoners at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
Kim's shoulders were heaving, his mouth open and moving as if he were gulping air and sobbing. Five hooded and armed men stood behind him, one with a big knife slipped in his belt."
Is there any doubt that a "terrified" Kim Sun-il is the victim of terrorists whose actions were clearly designed to produce terror as an end result of this barbarism? And the Associated Press calls it "militancy"? If I were Robert H. Reid I would hang my head in shame for kow-towing to his higher-ups and refusing to break AP policy of referring to those who are clearly terrorists as "militants". To give these animals any degree of honor or to imply that they are somehow fighting for a just cause denigrates the memory of their victim. I, for one, am beyond appalled.
On a couple of occasions, I have taken theology courses online from Notre Dame's STEP program. I got an announcement last week that they were adding Graduate level courses for credit online. Now there's a pipe dream.
I planned it all out in my head. One course a semester to start, two if I found I could manage the time commitment. By the time the girls were out of the house, I would have enough credits to decide if I was serious and could actually go for a degree. I figured out where in the week I could schedule studying, rehearsed the speech to the husband, downloaded the application.
Then I checked the price. Over $1000 a unit. Apparently, I have to decide if I'm serious before I start.
Suppose you know a rather interesting blogger who is out about some things but not really out about his identity? Then he makes the AP wire. How do you tell everyone. Well, you just drop hints.
Heard on the street . . . S.S. will be at the convention.
In a historic move, UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan opens the first-ever UN conference on anti-Semitism. In an apparently related story, Ha'aretz reports that Annan and his entourage have arrived in Israel...
How could no one catch this in the vetting process?
Thomas B. Griffith, President Bush's nominee for the federal appeals court in Washington, has been practicing law in Utah without a state law license for the past four years... Developing...
Calblog Husband here. I have not been around much lately because there was nothing that was really pissing me off. Now the media is.
In the days of the Soviet Union, the Soviet press did not so much make things up rather than misinterpret them. For example, the Soviet media never (or rarely) reported on disasters occurring in the Soviet Union, but would often highlight disasters in the West, particularly when disasters had occurred in the Soviet Union. I also recall when the KAL ariliner was shot down over Sakhalin Island. Pravda reported that an "unidentified plane" had flown over the island, and had continued on its mysterious journey. Of course, Jeanne Kirkpatrick made sure that we really knew the truth.
In the days of Democrat hegemony in this country, the media, while biased and liberal, essentially told the truth. Now, however, with power slipping out of the grasp of their liberal allies, they are increasing adopting a reporting style reminding one of the Good 'Ol Soviet Days, in an effort to regain power for their allies reagrdless of the cost.
Let us look at the current political situation. The two central issues of the Presidential Election are (1) the economy and (2) the War on Terror, which the media has now morphed into Iraq. If both go badly for Bush, he goes down in flames. If one goes well and the other does not, it's 2000 redux. And if both go well for Bush, Kerry is the next Dukakis.
The problem for the Soviet Media and their liberal Democrat allies is that neither of these issues is going well for them right now. So they have to re-invent the facts. I once had a law professor who would tell little stories. One of those stories was that "There were two great law firms in Toledo, Ohio. While one was busy looking up the law, the other was busy changing the facts." While maybe law firms should re-invent the facts for their clients, should the media be re-inventing our news?
The Soviet Media have essentially ignored the economy over the last several months, as the economic news had increasingly become better. Now, they can't even talk about jobs. I suppose, however, that it will be Bush's fault when interest rates go up and "middle-class families" can't afford their mortgage payments.
It is on Iraq where the media has really implemented their Soviet-style tactics. These include the following recently:
1. The Soviet Media (that is, everybody but Fox News) not reporting the new Iraqi President and Prime Minister both expressly thanking the American people for liberating their country and the sacrifices made in doing so.
2. The incessant reporting of criminal activity in Iraq (such as car bombs, where, in most cases, the overwhelming number of victims are Iraqis themselves), rather than reporting the good things that are being done to rebuild the country, by both our troops and the Iraqi people. It would be one thing if the criminal activity was reported in balance with the good. But the emphasis is totally on the negative, which of course plays into what the terrorists want to acoomplish anyway.
3. The fixation on the prison abuse issue. This would have been like the media, right after World War II, fixated on Japanese interment, rather than what happened at Auschwitz.
One can only hope that a majority of the American people will see through this come November.
Sorry, folks. I smell a rat. From Reuters (hardly a bastion of journalistic integrity) comes the unconfirmed report that three "militants" (I love this Reuterism for "terrorists"), including the head of the group that had only just slaughtered Paul Johnson, were killed in a shootout. I'm putting my money on the Saudis shooting three nobodies in an attempt to head off what they think will be a major response from the US to this latest atrocity. But they needn't worry, as we can see from the milquetoast-y response of the US government, pledging support to help the Saudis find Johnson's killers. But wait, I thought they were shot and killed? Well, then, I guess it's business as usual tomorrow.
Update: Oh what a tangled web we weave.....
'But officials backtracked Saturday. ``We haven't found the body yet,'' said Adel al-Jubeir, foreign affairs adviser to Crown Prince Abdullah in Washington. ``We think we know the area where it is.'' '
That's odd, yesterday they shot and killed the perps in the process of dumping Johnson's body. Today, they can't find the body.
I was at a hearing today against a pro per. There was no basis for the relief they sought and the statutes they cited were inapplicable. The matter will be dismissed.
In oral argument, they came up with new statutes which I and the Court also thought were inapplicable but the Court continued it for more briefing, warning the pro per that it was just to make a complete record and that they were likely to lose. I won't discuss the details but it was the kind of law that Courts and lawyers know like the back of their hand and this person just didn't understand. It was the first time and I expect the only time that I said to a judge "I'm not sure what they're citing but I know what the law is and this Court certainly knows what the law is". The argument was slightly offensive but the judge agreed with me that it was clear but just wanted the record complete.
That's not the pet peeve. I am fine with pro pers having some trouble getting up to speed and generally fine with Courts cutting them a bit of slack even though case law says they are bound by the same standards. Courts cut lawyers slack when a lawyer is lost.
What bothered me most was the conversation outside the courtroom when the pro per, despite the judge taking at least 20 minutes to explain why the matter would be dismissed, said "I don't understand why your client is paying legal fees on this when they should just let me have what I want." I can't tell you what about this is more offensive -- the fact that the pro per not only thinks they are right but assumes I know it and am just opposing them to be difficult and unfair, or the fact that the pro per thinks that the legal fees are money that ought to go to them. Mind you, many times, my clients can't afford these matters much more than the person suing. I end up with large receivables and get paid only a portion. I'm carrying out my professional responsibility and I'm getting tired of people viewing me as a high-paid amoral person who just manipulating the system.
I received an e-mail from my father yesterday with a link to this site. We are all familiar with such compilations - similar ones were flying around the internet immediately after the terrorist attacks of 9/11. However, I took the time to watch this one yesterday for a couple of reasons, not least because it was something that my father, a very infrequent e-mailer, felt was important enough to share with me. I also felt that a refresher on the attacks in question couldn't hurt.
The line "This didn't happen to someone else...it happened to you" caused me to reflect on how, 3,000 miles away from Manhattan on that fall day in 2001, the prevailing attitude of those around me seemed to be that the heinous crime that was unfolding was indeed happening to someone else. Do not misunderstand, everyone I spoke to was shocked beyond belief, but there was still an eerie sense that it was akin to watching news footage of a natural disaster - something random, nature's uncontrollable fury. Of course, the reality is very different. This was a planned, deliberate attack on the United States, and, indeed, the civilized world. In the ensuing weeks I watched as friends talked about it, sent e-mails, made donations, all of the things we would expect if, say, an earthquake had levelled the twin towers of the World Trade Center. Here in California, support for the victims of the tragedy and their families was without question. But for many here in California, as well as other parts of the US did it really sink in that we were, as of that moment, a nation at war with terrorism? I don't think it did. And still hasn't. Our city council held their regularly scheduled meeting on the evening of September 11, 2001. I heard they made a token mention of the disaster, and then proceeded with their usual petty business. A regular attendee of city meetings at that time I refused to attend that night, disgusted by the arrogance of those who felt that discussions of small-town business couldn't be post-poned to another day, while my wife and I (and I suppose many others like us) were desperately trying to find out if all of our friends (read "family") in New York City and Connecticut were safe and accounted for. Any one of them could have been at the World Trade Center that day for any number of reasons. Fortunately, all of our friends were elsewhere.
But for many families, both here in the US as well as abroad, the same didn't hold true. The attacks on the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and the crash of Flight 11 in Pennsylvania killed people of many different nationalities, races, creeds, and religions. And terrorist attacks around the world continue to do so. So this is just a gentle reminder - It didn't happen to THEIR family - it happened, and continues to happen, to OUR family. The family of man.
Via Athena comes this story from the World Tribune. As Athena points out, "This isn't NEW news". Indeed, it is not. It has been widely reported that convoys of trucks were moving between Iraq and Syria in the days leading up to, as well as during, the Coalition Forces' invasion, and subsequent occupation, of Iraq.
My personal theory, for quite some time, has been that the Bush Administration actually had solid intelligence on the presence of WMD's in Iraq, and that the information was most likely provided by Israel's Mossad. In fact, Israel is the only trustworthy Middle Eastern ally of the US that could penetrate Saddam's government to a level necessary to harvest such information. Unfortunately for the Bush Administration, it would appear that Saddam's WMD's were, in fact, spirited out of Iraq, and, as Athena reports, that the UN is finally getting around to admitting it. This is not such a stretch of the imagination when we consider that our invasion of Iraq was hardly a surprise.
So why doesn't the US just admit that Israel provided sound intelligence that Coalition Forces were not able to act on in a timely manner? Sure, and risk exacerbating an already volatile situation? After all, it is already widely accepted by the Arab world that Israel and the Jews are responsible for the world's problems.
Add to all of this David Kay's five-day flip-flop in January of this year, and I think there exists some pretty compelling evidence of the veracity of the Bush Administration's claims that Saddam had WMD's just prior to his recent ouster.
But what the hell do I know? After all, unlike some people, I don't have access to the truth.
One must always be careful when one says "Hey I thought of it first." (Mainly because often time no one thinks of it first it's often just a matter of the first saying it in print and there is Always someone who thought of it before you. There are 6+ billion people on this planet.) In any event I see the dollar coin idea I threw out here first has serious compromise potentional. Heck three more liberal pundits seem to be willing to accept the idea. (Hey... maybe the great compromise of our age uh no-ed okay maybe not.) And heck I note as conservative as I am, I don't really disagree with either Matt or Kevin on the necessity of an Estate Tax (necessity?-ed Yes, Necessity and that's not just because it's the one class I got an A+ in...massive accumulation of wealth leads to excessive corruption which can lead to tremendous decay in a capitalist society not to mention class resentment. The failure to adopt realistic Estate Tax Policies could very well lead to a more radical "solution" in the future than desired.) I tend to mainly just think there should be a relatively high exemption ($5 Million indexed That high?-ed Seriously, that's not much in CA especially once its distributed among the heirs.) then increasing marginal rates probably up to about 50%, and a repeal of the GST as it applies to Direct Skips. Now how about that for increasing my "moderate" credentials? (Nice Try, but admit it you're a solid conservative even if you (to some extent) agree with some more liberal individuals on those two points-ed Okay, so you're right.)
If you don't visit Opinion Journal frequently, you should. The WSJ puts out excellent Op-Ed pieces and as is frequent have excellent contributions. Today is yet another such day. William McGurn writes an excellent article about reflections on the supposedly "clarity" of past wars. Certainly, a cursory review of the past shows that many of noblest actions were done amidst great resistance. Take for example many of the riots that rose up relating to the continuation of the civil war. And certainly, not too long before the 1864 election there were genuine questions relating to Lincoln's re-election. Note Lincoln's vice-president wasn't a Republican, but instead to appeal to other party members he chose a loyal (non-confederate) Southern Democrat. As McGurn points out in 1941 there was heavy political resistance to war with Germany. And during the Cold War, many in this country (and probably still do) believe that the Soviet Union was on the morally right side of history. 40 years after the civil war ended probably few would admit to being among those who rioted against the Federal Government. 40 years after WWII probably few admitted to opposing going to War with Germany. 40 years after the Cold War has ended (granted still about 25 years into the future, but we see that trend-line) few will admit being opposed to strengthening ourselves in the Cold War. 40 years from now, How many people will admit to opposing the war in Iraq? (Warning: Strong Language Follows)
Patton supposedly remarked that "You may be thankful 20 years from now that when you are sitting by the fireplace with your grandson on your knee and he asks what you did in the great World War II, you won't have to cough, shift him to the other knee and say, 'Well, your granddaddy shoveled shit in Louisiana.' No, sir. You can look him straight in the eye and say, 'Son, your granddaddy rode with the great Third Army and a son-of-a-goddamned bitch named Georgie Patton." At this point in history we are not being asked to volunteer (one way I know talk of the draft is for political gain...there would always be a call for volunteers before a draft), but who will want to admit that they opposed the liberation of Iraq and the freeing of a people. Sometimes, the right thing to do...is just that...The Right Thing To Do.
The General Accounting Office has issued a report detailing the appalling waste of some $100 million in unused, and often, reimbursable airline tickets. As the article points out, this egregious waste in the face of the money needed to conduct the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan is particularly galling in light of the fact that our soldiers are somewhat ill-equipped:
"'At a time when our soldiers are patrolling the streets of Iraq in unarmored Humvees, and when the Bush Administration is asking for record Defense spending, Secretary (Donald H.) Rumsfeld is letting hundreds of millions of dollars that could be used to protect our troops and our country go to waste,' said Rep. Jan Schakowsky, D-Illinois, one of three lawmakers who ordered the studies."
It seems to me that the airlines in question should be forced to do their patriotic duty and pony up the same amount, to be used towards our war efforts, especially since they received an undeserved federal bailout right after the terrorist attacks of 9/11. In addition, those employees involved, too lazy to return the unused tickets, should be docked an amount equivalent to the airfare. This money should be earmarked for defense spending as well. Last, all of those who flew first and business class, instead of coach, should be docked the difference, and the total collected could be distributed among the families who have lost sons and daughters in Iraq and Afghanistan.
As a taxpayer used to seeing such government waste on a grand scale, I am not holding my breath.
Among the Reagan bashers desperate to get attention this week, many of them cite his Latin American policy as the reason why they can't understand why he is so beloved in this country.
What the Reagan bashers have never understood is that Reagan is beloved around the world.
Wan't proof? Check out this pic of mourners lining up to pay their respects to Reagan in Nicaragua.
Yes - Nicaragua. The same country that U.S. leftists still shriek about, claiming that Reagan supported an "immoral and illegal" war there.
Is there any group that arguably loved Reagan more than
U.S. citizens with conservative tendencies? You bet there is. It's the masses of free people in Eastern Europe and Cental America who know full well who was largely responsible for their current state of freedom.
When other U.S. presidents pass away in the future, it will certainly generate a front page headline in the Central American newspapers. But do you really think that people in those countries will take the time out of their day to pay their respects to them in a ceremony? Don't count on it.
Regan was special. He was more than a President - he was one of the true giants of the last hundred years.
Regan bashers need to travel the world a bit more, talk to the people on the streets, and learn the real story.
Yes folks, it's Jews protesting Israel. Courtesy of Meryl Yourish is a link that takes us to a photo of the "Women in Black" with accompanying text, part of which reads: "Unfortunately calls for peace were drowned out by rightwing groups waving American and Israeli flags and carrying signs denigrating Palestinians, the "Left" and even the United Nations." Gasp! Even the United Nations! Whatever is this world coming to? I particularly like the woman holding up the sign that says "How many dead children?" I don't know, lady, why dont you ask Mrs. Hatuel? I'm sure she can clue you in. Oh, wait, you can't. Because she's dead. Along with all of her children, including 2-year-old Meirav, shot at point blank range by Palestinian terrorists. Oops, how callous and bigoted of me to denigrate a Palestinian. As far as the denigration of Palestinians goes, I have yet to read any comments about the ANSWER counterprotests that are derogatory of Palestinians, with the exception of Palestinian terrorists, the Palestinian Authority and those who support the former. I can't say as I am particularly concerned about whether the PA or Hamas' feelings are hurt. We do, however, have photographic evidence of the Left's desire for peace with Israel. Yes, I know, I did in fact link to this cretin's picture in my earlier post, but I am trying my best to help Mr. Happy receive the certificate being offered by Meryl, a reward he so richly deserves! You can help, or you can turn the page....
I never voted for Reagan and I wasn't a big fan while he was President. I am not alone in that alone the right half of the blogosphere. I've changed that view. I don't think it is because I am older or because I hang out with different people.
History has shown that Reagan was right. I thought when he built up the defense, he would truly lead us into nuclear war. As it turns out, there was no war and the Cold War ended.
History teaches us what's important. A talking head on the television complained that we remember the "tear down the wall" speech but we do not remember Reagan's visit to a Nazi cemetary. Yet, decades later, the wall is down and the visit to the cemetary means nothing.
I've read complaints about AIDS, yet I have also read that more money then would not have solved the problem. I also recall complaints at the time that the portion of the federal budget that went to AIDS was disproportionately large for the number of people who had AIDS compared to heart disease and cancer.
I've read complaints about the deficits but we lived well in the Reagan years and the recession that followed was brief. In any event, Clinton years intervened and the economy can be changed. That wall is still down. the Soviet Union is gone. We are not as close to nuclear war as we were when Reagan took office. Those are lasting benefits.
We didn't send half the family to the Reagan library. Everyone has a head cold that is surprisingly debilitating (for example, yesterday, Amanda fell asleep on the floor while putting on her pants for school). The 3+ hour wait was daunting.
Michael Williams was planning to go and ran into similar reluctance.
This past weekend saw yet another display of anti-Semitism by the allegedly peaceful anti-war crowd. In true form, the S.F. Chronicle features an article that states in part:
"As they neared the Embarcadero, the protesters ran into about 500 pro- Israel demonstrators, waving Israeli and American flags, and protesting what they see as an anti-Israel message from the anti-war protests."
Note the phrase "protesting what they see as an anti-Israel message". This is a nice turn of phrase that suggests that somehow there is room for debating the fact that a crowd, carrying signs such as this one, is promoting anything other than an anti-Israeli message.
I have, to date, resisted the urge to travel to San Francisco and take part in any counterprotests, opting instead to use the written word as my means of communicating a pro-Israel point of view. No matter how much history, logic, common sense and facts you throw at these people, they continue to misrepresent Israel and the United States as the cause of Muslim terrorism. I thus far have failed to see how a counter-protest might do any good. Never was this point more clearly demonstrated to me than with a personal incident that occurred this weekend. I finally and emphatically severed ties with a "friend" of mine who has repeatedly shown a complete lack of respect for my pro-Israeli stance by repeatedly and virulently attacking my core belief system and, as he put it, "my consistent anti-Americanism and dual allegiance". No matter what facts I have presented to this individual over the years, his response has been to attack me as "bigoted", narrow-minded" and, incredibly, an "Israeli Jihadist". I have, however, decided that perhaps some good purpose might be served in joining pro-Israeli protesters as Israel needs all the PR she can get right now. And a little help for the United States wouldn't hurt either.
As I am not an attorney, I almost hesitate on posting about this article in today's S. F. Chronicle. However, it also seems that anyone with even slightly-above-average intelligence can follow the logic of Professor John Yoo's legal brief concerning the status of Taliban and Al-Qaeda prisoners held by the United States at Guantamo Bay:
"As a Justice Department aide, John Yoo wrote a legal brief in January 2002 arguing that fighters captured by U.S. troops in Afghanistan are not covered by the Geneva conventions -- the treaties that embody the laws of war. "
His detractors (I know that it is hard to imagine that Mr. Yoo has any at UC Berkeley, a bastion of open-mindedness and critical thinking) are now insisting that Mr. Yoo's brief led directly to the prisoner abuses at Abu Ghraib. I find it hard to believe that such a stretch of the imagination could come from college-educated persons, but these same people are calling for Yoo's resignation by circulating a petition and signing it "Osama Bin Laden" and "Saddam Hussein". I don't think Professor Yoo need worry about losing his position anytime soon.
It was inevitable as it was predictable - the liberal press using subtle backhanded compliments to eulogize Ronald Reagan. Most mainstream press watchers are predicting that they will burst after a week of having to compliment the man and then revert into full fledged hostility.
For now, the digs are quite subtle like this one from the fourth paragraph of the L.A. Times' front page story:
"...he had led America's politics rightward toward the middle. Only one Democrat has succeeded him: Bill Clinton, a 'new Democrat,' who did as much or more to achieve such conservative goals as balancing the federal budget and changing welfare than anything Reagan himself accomplished."
Got that, folks?
Of all the things that could be written about covering Reagan's entire life including stints as Governor of California and eight years of the most influential presidency of our generation, the L.A. Times saw fit to bring Bill Clinton into the picture within the first four paragraphs of the story.
Why? As a preemptive strike at Clinton legacy building, of course. The Times knows full well that Clinton's legacy doesn't amount to hill of beans compared to Reagan, so they disguise a passage on how influential Reagan was to the political landscape and turn it into a passage on how much more "successful" Clinton was than Reagan.
I only thank Almighty God that Reagan lived long enough for
an alternative media to develop such that this man can be remembered in a proper fashion. To the extent that some old school media are being respectful this week, it is only because of the influence of the new media.
I also thank God that Reagan outlived the Clinton presidency so that I wouldn't have to listen to him try and eulogize Reagan from the Oval Office. George Bush's eulogy of Reagan was short (only 186 words), poignant, and powerful. He knew that the entire point of the speech was to honor the man who had passed away - not as an opportunity to put a spotlight on the eulogizer himself.
Had Clinton eulogized Reagan during his presidency, the speech would have been at least four times as long, couched in respectful language but without a memorable sentence. But most of all, it's entire purpose would have been to cast light on all the great things and initiatives that Clinton was doing to that Reagan might have approved of.
In other words - it would have struck the same tone as the L.A. Times sentence above. It's purpose would have been for Clinton to try and create a memorable speech so that people would remember the Clinton presidency - not to try and make people remember the Reagan presidency.
In Clinton's world, his own opportunity to make a memorable speech is the entire point - not the subject of the speech itself.
Clinton once said that he wanted to be president because he didn't want to be just a footnote in history. It will be history's supreme irony that he will indeed be remembered as just a footnote in history - while Ronald Wilson Reagan will have inspired one of history's largest and most profound chapters.
Drudge has the schedule for the funeral events over the next week. Unless the crowds look completely overwhelming, we expect to send Calblog husband and Maddy to pay their respects at the Reagan library tomorrow night.
As sad as death is, I find myself looking forward to a state funeral. It's not an event that happens often (thank goodness!). I suppose we tape coverage for the girls to watch since they will be in school. I wonder how many schools will watch it live.
Maybe I am too much of a traditionalist, but when I see phrases like this: "Before the afternoon of betting on horses and bidding on wine began, people grazed on gourmet foods, like chef Thomas Keller's famous salmon cornets." in an otherwise serious news story, I can't help but wonder what the reporter was thinking. Did she think that her readers would stand up and take notice of her brilliant wit, and somehow this would catapult her into journalistic stardom? This sort of writing seems to be increasingly acceptable in newspapers. Or maybe I need to lighten up a little. It is interesting to note that the news of Reagan's demise seemed to put a damper on the auction. I have no doubt that Dutch's passing will affect us in ways we have yet to see.
Reagan has passed, and time will remember his a probably the third greatest presidency, it is only a matter of time before he passes Roosevelt, if you don't believe me, go here and remember how he made you feel in 1984. President Reagan, rest in peace.
Flipping the channels, I caught part of CNN's canned video obit, editted in such a way that it was clearly prepared ahead of time with some attention. They reviewed events and then got to the hostages. The narrator said, in his well-modulated voice, he traded arms for the hostages, and then later seemed to forget he had.
Was there some news I missed? I thought that no one ever proved (or presented more than logical suspicions) that Reagan knew about arms for hostages.
Reagan will lie in repose at the Reagan library and then off to Washington to lie in state. We have been to the library quite often. His burial site is there.
I had an interesting conversation with a docent there during the last visit. Apparently no one knows for sure why he and Jane Wyman divorced. The docent noted that they lost a child in childbirth shortly before the divorce and there's a high degree of divorce after the death of a child. The image of Reagan as a father so grieved that his marriage ended has been the image I have held of him ever since.
It's not the same image that will be shared by the media this weekend.
This story about a small town business owner who gets fed up with his city and mayor has an awful lot of odd twists to it. For one, he builds an armored bulldozer goes after the city hall and ex-mayors house, and appears to have avoided injuring anyone (physically) other than himself (he committed suicide). Appartenly however, he mounted weapons on the bulldozer, but did not use them. I don't know what it is about this story that sticks out to me, except it seems like one of those only in America things, somebody gets fed up with the government and decides to go out with a bang, but without hurting anyone. Go figure.
Recall the dustup about the gay student organization at Pepperdine?
Now Catholic University is denying a student chapter of the NAACP.
The university rejected a student's attempt to start a chapter in April on the ground that the campus already had two groups that represent black students: the Black Organization of Students at Catholic University of America and Minority Voices, an umbrella group for minority organizations."He did not demonstrate in the view of university officials ... that this chapter of the NAACP would fill a need that isn't already being met by organizations in existence," said Victor Nakas, university spokesman.
William Jawando, 21, who tried to start the chapter, dismissed the school's reasoning, saying there are no civil rights groups on campus."I think they're scared of the NAACP name and protests," said Jawando, a recent undergraduate, who will attend the university's law school in the fall.
School administrators also raised concern about the group's support of the April 25 "March for Women's Lives," an abortion rights rally. Nakas said student groups are not allowed to advocate positions that are contrary to the teachings of the church, which opposes abortion. But he said that was not the main reason for rejecting the NAACP chapter.
Official NAACP policy does not take a side in the abortion debate, Mfume said.
On the eve of the 60th anniversary of the invasion of Normandy, it seems only fitting, amid all the hooplah about who did what at Normandy, that someone give some credit to the wartime accomplishments of one branch of our armed forces that often is overlooked: The United States Coast Guard. Few seem to be aware that it was, in fact, the Coast Guard that manned the ships that launched the various landing craft used during invasions, and that it was, in fact, the Coast Guard that piloted those craft to the beaches, and that it was, in fact, the Coast Guard that subsequently saved countless lives by pulling wounded soldiers from the surf.
I was prompted to write this upon seeing a letter in the S.F. Chronicle recently from a gentleman who states unequivocably that "Iwo Jima was strictly an all Marine show". Well, I have news for you, Mr. Stone: It wasn't.
It seems that in their zeal to take credit for the making of history, many members of the armed forces seem to forget that an entire network of allied forces and supportive civilians was present, if not physically, then in spirit, for the duration of the Second World War.
Last weekend, I attended a Memorial Day ceremony at the Marin Veteran's Auditorium in San Rafael, California with my father, a Coast Guard veteran who was present at Normandy. Coincidentally, the keynote address was given by USCG Rear Admiral Jody A. Breckenridge, who is the US Coast Guard's Commander of the Joint Interagency Task Force, Pacific, based at Alameda. During Admiral Breckinridge's address we learned that the Coast Guard has suffered its first wartime casualty since Vietnam: Damage Controlman Third Class Nathan B. Bruckenthal. My condolences go out to Bruckenthal's survivors, and my thanks to every veteran of our armed forces as well as those men and women on active duty. Freedom has a high price, indeed.
Last July, the twins, turning 12 and entering junior high, got cel phones so we can stay in touch. Recently, Madeleine dropped hers in the toilet. Well, at least we thought so. It turns out she dropped her sister's in the toilet. We assume it was a clean toilet based solely on the fact that Madeleine was able to fish it out and she is the most germphobic of all of us.
I took her off to the store to buy a new one. If you are not signing a new long term contract, there are no deals. Offering to extend your current contract for 20 years will not help. The cheapest phone with no web access and hardly any other features, which we had originally gotten for free, was $149. About $100 more than the overpriced amount I was expecting to pay. I couldn't bring myself to do it.
I came home, did some research and found a refurbished Handspring Treo for $149. What a coincidence. Concerned about "refurbished" and concerned about not buying through Sprint, I placed the order.
I got no box and no instruction manual but otherwise, I can't tell it's refurbished. Switching the number to the phone was easier than activating my first cel phone (mumble, mumble) years ago. Then I switched my phone to Amanda's number. Also easy. The Treo works quite well, making blog reading easier and allowing me to comment, too.
I have noticed somethnig quite interesting. Email is delivered differently depending on whether I am reading it on the desktop or on the Treo. First, I noticed that the identification of the sender sometimes differed. Today, I got an email on the desktop that read Click this link. On the Treo, it says Cut and paste this link into your browser. Nothing nefarious just an interesting technology side effect.
Heard on TV: 1000 WWII veterans die every day.
Related: As I recall, Ronald Reagan didn't qualify for combat and made Army films in CA.
Well, baseball has always been an interesting sport to me, somehow it manages to build a bunch of goodwill and then at just the right moment, there's a strike or some other silly such thing. But this year, my wife and I chose Comcast High-Speed Internet and they generously gave us a subscription to MLB All Access, I find myself watching a number of baseball games, and I love it. I find it hard to believe, but I enjoy this sport so much more than Basketball, and Football I love, but it just isn't the same.
Compare this comment:
I still think it is laughablely funny that this president is intent on FORCING freedom and democracy on a people who have never ask for it and do not want it.
with this quote from the National Geographic on Hugh Hewitt:
By mid-January of 2004, 270 mass graves had been reported. The Free Prisoners Society estimates that five to seven million people 'disappeared' in the past two decades, the majority of them Shiites.
this would be a dispatch from the porn belt. Of course, this probably would too, even though Gore's margin was far less in Sacto county (call it a hunch though that his margin was higher than the county's in the actual city of Sacto). Will Baude at Crescat and Sara Butler have been going back and forth on a Little Miss Hooters issue. The nice thing about being a conservative is, I do have that philosophical unity that Will seems to bemoan. Note However, that Will is making a value judgment that an individual can't always consent to an action even if they seem to be so consenting, ultimately it is Will's own personal belief/moral system that drives this distinction. I see where Will is coming from but unfortunately, a societal yuck factor just doesn't carry in Constitutional Law anymore. You can thank your Judicial Overlords for that. I think that is Sara's point it's nice that Will doesn't think that 5 year olds can consent, but unfortunately that's just what you think, and it can't carry legal weight anymore, well at least it probably can't 10 years from now. If you want there to be a Yuck factor test, a personal I don't feel it's right, You have to accept that the majority has a right to legislate on certain issues. Hopefully, our culture will eventually turn to slow (dare I hope it) or turn back this ever creeping decay in our moral values.
Well, my fellow conservatives are going to think I'm crazy (although I've always been generally supportive of laxer immigration policies) but this Schwarzenegger proposal is one I could agree with. (Allow Driver's Licenses for anyone, but if not a legal resident it would have an indication of that kind of like the Red Bar for anyone under 21). What I don't understand is why the Democrats are opposed. They liken it to a cruel Scarlet letter or something...uh no, it just notes to law enforcement that identity has not been conclusively verified and that the person is not a legal resident. If that's not reasonable than the Democrats are the ones with the problems. After all, I thought the whole point of driver's licenses was to make streets safer and require insurance, the Democrats would never have been trying to make an end run around the country's immigration laws Right?
He's got some excellent quotes like this one: It's that elite, arrogant, condescending, self-serving, self-righteous, biased and wrongheaded view of Americans that causes viewers and readers to distrust media people like John Carroll.
and this one: It didn’t take long for me to realize that religion was used against some applicants seeking employment
It's Wictory Wednesday. Cruise the blogs on the blogroll in the extended entry and you'll see why you should support Bush by donating or volunteering.
Every economic indicator is pointing up. Jobs are being created by the hundreds of thousands every month. GDP is growing at the fastest rate in 20 years. Inflation is at historic lows.You can thank President Bush and the GOP-controlled Congress for this. If they hadn't passed the Bush tax cuts, who knows how badly our economy would be doing?
But if Democrats have their way, most of the Bush tax cuts would be repealed or phased out. John Kerry has voted for 350 tax increases and there's no reason to think he'd change his ways if he were actually elected to the presidency. He'll raise your taxes and kill the Bush boom.
The thought of another attack similar or worse to September 11 is beyond words.If htere is truth to this "chatter," it is now safe to say that the terrorist would rather see "F-Bomb" in the White House.
This is why it is vital to make sure that George W. Bush is re-elected, ensuring that we stay the course and win this war (and it is a WAR) on terrorism.
E-week attacks blogging:
What is news is that bloggers and blogging are killing journalism as we know it. This is scary but not necessarily bad. I'll try to sort it out.
Though it's not "necessarily bad", it's hard to find good in his conclusion:
But get used to an era in which information becomes so ubiquitous it becomes almost useless.
The article quotes what I believe to be an absolutely untrue statistic.
According to blogger Darren Rowse of www.livingroom.org.au/blog: The average reader spends less than 2 minutes reading the average blog.
That seems to be the number that comes off of sitemeter. I've got my page open now. Sitemeter says my visit lasted 0:00, the time it took to d/l it, I presume. I could read that page from top to bottom and study the links and still sitemeter would think I was there 0:00. Average that out with the few places that record how long the visit is and sure it looks as if the average visit is less than two minutes. Absolutely untrue.